Tag Archives: social justice

Excluding the white cis hetero males isn’t oppression (but it still sucks)

The #metoo movement makes me happy. Gender equity gains make me happy. Inclusion and visibility of marginalized groups makes me happy. Reducing prejudice and discrimination makes me happy. However, as with pretty much everything else in the world, these very positive developments have unintended consequences, and those make me sad.

I just saw on Twitter a conversation in which a couple of women were talking about Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing, his probable sexual assaults, etc. A man jumped in, apparently to be supportive. He said rapey bastards need to be taught a lesson or something along those lines. He was smacked down pretty firmly; the originator of the thread (a woman with many thousands of followers) replied that he should understand that the “tone” of the conversation was for “women to speak and men to listen,” and that women didn’t need men taking over their narrative. I honestly didn’t think he had done that, though he did seem a bit too cheerful about the possibility of teaching sexually aggressive men a thing or two.

I’ve seen many Twitter, Facebook, etc. posts recently in which people from marginalized groups inform people not from those groups that they need to shut up. I’m not talking about situations in which the dominant-group people (often apparently-white men or women, or hetero/cis people) were patronizing, criticizing, or spreading stereotypes; I’m talking about situations where the more-dominant-culture folks were, apparently, honestly trying to help, or at least participate alongside the people representing marginalized groups. They were told to sit down and shut up, mostly because of the social group they belonged to.

I think I get this. I think I understand why a small and/or under-heard, underrepresented group doesn’t want help (or “help”) from anyone in the majority or dominant group. It makes sense. But it’s also exclusionary (and plays really well on the FOX News Parade of Butthurt). If you’re on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram, publicly demonstrating pride in your group identity, and telling certain other people who want to join the party that they’re not invited (or only invited as second-class guests), feelings will be hurt. Because those other people are people; they’re not stereotypes of their social identities.

People want to be included in groups–groups where they can have some status. “Americans” is too big for most people to feel that. “My D&D group” satisfies part of this need; the smaller the group (maybe down to about family-size), the more a person can feel some local status, some sense that they matter to others, some intimacy with the group. Many of our most popular TV shows are fantasies about belongingness: FriendsFireflyThe Big Bang Theory, etc. are largely about imagining we are part of a group like the one we see on TV (that’s why we can watch “nothing” for hours; we’re really grooving on the idea of belonging).

The status of the group among other groups matters, too, however; “Americans” might have a lot of status, whereas “My D&D group” has very little, globally speaking. And we don’t just long to be part of a family-sized group; we long to be in a tribe, a village. So we seek out membership in a few groups that satisfy our status and belonging needs. That’s much of what I see going on with marginalized groups gaining recognition. It’s not only the politics and social justice of these issues; it’s group membership, status, validation among several people whose opinions we value, etc. When a bisexual person feels excluded from gay and lesbian groups, it’s a political/social thing, but it also really, really sucks for the bisexual person.

Life is lived (largely, at least for people from more individualistic cultures) as an individual. When you feel happiness or pain, you do so yourself. Knowing that your group is doing OK even though you have been left behind doesn’t make most people happy.

So there’s this unfortunate thing I see happening: dominant-culture people being serially excluded from the cool groups. “Cool” is partly pure cachet (in more liberal-leaning circles there definitely seem to be shifting hierarchies of “interesting” and “valid” and “important” attached to certain gender/race/ethnicity/orientation-type groups). More importantly for this piece, however, “cool” is about being a member of a group that’s the right size for individual recognition, connection, and status as a member as well as status of the group itself (especially the latter).  I have no structured data on this, so it’s possible I’m wrong about what I’m about to say next (but, by that same token, being shown I’m wrong in a convincing way would probably require structured data): I think people whose identities all (or mostly) fall in dominant social groups, with few or no generally recognized marginalized/minority/stigmatized identities, are having the experience of being excluded, repeatedly, from the groups their culture tells them are now important or interesting or “cool.” They feel they have no way in. No way to gain the status and belonging that people from marginalized groups might enjoy (might is an important word, of course).

I swear I’m not going alt-right/redpill here, but the most obvious such group might be American (or European or Canadian) white males. I’m not arguing that their lives are qualitatively worse than those of marginalized individuals just because they feel left out of the social justice revolution; I am, however, saying that that exclusion matters to them. To me, in fact, because I am a white, hetero, cisgender, educated American male. None of those identities is marginalized in any real way. My experience of Twitter is of being very careful what I say and who I say it to (despite not always being careful enough). I have been told to sit down and shut up many times, on social media. A prominent black fantasy author tore a strip off me because I suggested that, even though not all cops are necessarily racist, high-profile police racism situations strongly suggest that racism is embedded in police culture. Perhaps my comment didn’t include a pure enough condemnation of police racism. I’ve been criticized for what I honestly thought were attempts to show solidarity, sympathy, or allyship to women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others. Often, the message is “This is our forum/conversation/topic, not yours. If you want to participate, you are permitted to do so as long as you accept a lower status than those for whom this forum/conversation/topic is most personally relevant.”

Like I said, that message actually makes sense to me. But it also sucks to be excluded, or included only as a low-status or marginal group member. One argument against my whining would be, “You enjoy plenty of status already, as a member of dominant groups.” That is, of course, true: my opportunities for education, the various other factors that made a middle-class life possible for me, my ongoing lack of concern about being beaten down by cops at traffic stops or assaulted because of my gender identity, etc. are all directly attributable to my visible membership in dominant groups.

And exclusion still sucks. My dominant-social-group identities don’t help with that in any way I can identify. White cis/hetero men make up the majority of wealthy Americans and powerful government figures. However, I don’t know any of those people, they probably feel no kinship to me, and the vast majority of white cis/hetero men are neither wealthy nor powerful. Personally, it doesn’t really fill me with much of a warm glow to know that someone who looks kind of like me is super rich. It is a major reason for my lived privilege, of course (those white cis/hetero men are good at passing laws favoring white cis/hetero men), but comfort, safety, and freedom–though critical–are not the sum total of existence, and I’m certainly not fully comfortable, always safe, or always free (those white cis/hetero men tend to be wealthy, and to make laws and customs that screw over everyone but the wealthy). There are LGBTQ+ individuals who don’t experience as much danger or discrimination as others. There are migrants, POC, and disabled individuals who, for various reasons, enjoy most or all of the privileges of dominant social groups with few of the downsides of their marginalized identities. This is a good thing; we need to strive for a world in which everyone enjoys all freedom and safety possible, and we need to make more of it possible. And I am aware that such relatively-privileged individuals can catch a lot of shit from people with similar identities who don’t have as much privilege. That dialogue is important, too. My point is that you are not your social group (at least not mostly). Your life is your own, and may vary in important ways from the stereotypes. I am not a god just because I’m white, cis, hetero, and male. Those identities also don’t make me a Senator, CEO, or police officer.

Being a member of a social group, no matter how globally important, does not exempt a person from basic social needs, like the need to have status within one or more groups of just the right size. We want families, neighborhoods, communities, and we want to feel important and valued within those groups. We want those groups to feel important and valued among other groups. If the only groups available to a person are gigantic nation-level or culture-level identities, then that person will feel serious social/emotional pain on a regular basis. This doesn’t really compare to ongoing fear of death or not being able to get a job, but isn’t that just whataboutism? Insisting that one kind of pain doesn’t matter because somewhere there are worse kinds?

Feeling excluded still sucks. Feeling a lack of appropriately-sized groups with possibilities for in-group and between-group status really sucks, no matter the reason.

A lot of dominant-group people probably just suck it up and feel lonely a lot. We know it’s not appropriate to try to shove our way into groups made of and for minorities, marginalized individuals, etc. We also know it’s problematic (or at least very socially unpopular) to form groups based on identities parallel to those of marginalized groups. “A club for people with my EEOC-approved identities! I’ll call it the White, Cis, Straight, Middle-class Male Club!” Yeah, that’s not great. You rightly note that much of our culture is a white, cis, straight, middle-class male club. True. But being part of a club with 100 million members is not particularly satisfying. None of them know you. None of them care about you. You can’t really go to them for comfort or a loan. You can’t just move to a new city and go find the white, cis, straight dudes and assume that they will welcome you into their fold just because of your shared identities.

So I think a lot of dominant-culture people are looking for groups of the right size. D&D clubs. LARPing. Bowling leagues. Churches. Middle manager clubs or whatever (I assume these exist). Sewing circles. Outdoors clubs. Those can help a lot, I think, to satisfy those needs. Some of us have other identities with hope of helping ease the social needs: I’m a professor, and that’s a pretty cool group. I have a few interests and background factors that might potentially help me connect with other subgroups of professors at some point. You know, if I get out there and do something about it. I don’t have any identities that provide me with that heady “we’re all in this struggle together” feeling, which is a little sad but mostly OK, because that would mean I was in a struggle, which sounds unpleasant.

I think a lot of straight/cis white men are in a worse predicament than I am. Cruise Twitter or Facebook or even just the news: everywhere you look you’ll see forceful messages reminding you that your gender, your race and ethnicity, your sexual orientation, etc. are very important. You’ll see hashtags or groups or networks for women in STEM, queer scientists, black journalists, Latino students, trans servicepersons, and on and on. If you’ve been paying attention, and if you have a bit of decency, you will cheer for these groups. You will celebrate a world in which at least this visibility is finally OK. You’ll celebrate and cheer quietly and carefully, however, if you don’t want to be told to sit down and shut up from time to time.

And you’ll feel very lonely because, even if you never have the “sit down, shut up” moments, even if every group allows you to participate, you are not, and cannot be, a member of these groups. Seeing these groups is the process of seeing that gender and race and ethnicity and sexual orientation are critical parts of what makes a person human, but you will understand that you will be criticized heavily if you try to celebrate your  gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. You will understand why, too, because you know a bit about history and culture and politics, and you are a decent person; but exclusion still sucks. There’s no way it can feel anything but hurtful.

An obvious fact that I haven’t touched on, yet is that there are groups that will help you celebrate your maleness, your whiteness, your cis/straightness, or all at once. They respond to “no men allowed” or “no straight people allowed” or “POC only” with their own rules excluding POC, sexual minorities, or women, or just telling those people to sit down and shut up if they dare try to join the party. Those are horrible groups. Those are white supremacists, toxic bro-clubs, Brexiters, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Do not join those groups. They represent marginalization, denigration, or even hate of others as they celebrate themselves.

So stay out of the toxic groups celebrating your identities, don’t spend too much time trying to participate with marginalized individuals’ groups trying to carve a place for themselves (unless you have secrets to doing so without regularly feeling like a redheaded stepchild), and… what? Just feel lonely a lot. Just feel uninvolved, uninvited, unconnected. Just let that human need go unfilled. Your life is mostly OK, and most of your needs are taken care of; maybe it’s all right that this one isn’t.

Or join a club. Go to church. Canvass for a local politician. Get a job you enjoy, if you can. And spend less time on Twitter, both to avoid all the nasty white supremacist, misogynist, status quo-promoting bullshit and (importantly) to see fewer messages from people with marginalized identities building communities you can never fully participate in. Try to see fewer messages telling you that the most important human identities are your gender, your race, your ethnicity, your sexual orientation, and your disability status. For a Latina grad student, it’s probably hugely helpful to be part of a group of other people with a similar ethnic heritage. For a gay government worker it’s probably very important to be part of a group of other gay bureaucrats. For marginalized identities, the dimensions of marginalization can be crucial common elements for affiliation, for group membership, for satisfying that deep longing to be part of a family and a tribe. For dominant identities, it’s different. If you are from a dominant cultural/social group, your race, gender, orientation, etc. cannot be the factors on which you base your identity, or around which you build your group memberships. It sucks, and it feels unfair (though I don’t think it actually is, in any meaningful way), but that’s the reality. Building your identity on dominant social characteristics is a direct, no-exits highway to oppressing others. At least that’s how it seems to me, at this point in my life.

I have a tiny tribe of three people; my family. We are not universally members of dominant identities, but we mostly are. I’m a member of some larger tribes that help with the social longing. And I think I need to form a good D&D group. And I need to unfollow a lot of my current Twitter feed.


2008 Income and Taxes

So I was getting frustrated with partisan rhetoric about taxes and income. Yes, talking about percentages and rates and proportions and whatnot can often increase clarity with complex data, but sometimes these are also used to conceal or distort some aspect of the information. I decided to make my own graph of 2008 incomes by percentile of the US population, including each group’s income taxes paid. I was working with some chunky data from here, so it’s not a pretty, smooth curve. I used Excel to expand (in an ugly fashion) the groups so you get a rough (very rough) idea of the different group sizes.

The groups are by percentile of income in the US: the lowest-earning 50% up through the highest-earning 0.1% of the population. The height of each bar represents average annual income, and the height of the blue portion within the bar represents the amount of taxes paid.

You’ll notice I had to make the graph extremely big so that the lowest income group’s income even showed up enough to give a hint of a line for the tax they paid.

And 2008 was considered to be a bad year for the super-wealthy.

(click to see the full image with enough detail to be even slightly useful)

Austin, Texas – March 7, 2009

This is what you see if you stand in the middle of south congress ave for a while. If you stand for longer, you'll see something a little different ;)I’ll get to the cool pictures of night life on South Congress Avenue in Austin down at the end of this post. But first, as is my wont, I shall set the stage. I’m a member of the local union (Pan American United Faculty, currently a subsidiary of Texas Faculty Association, which is in some way a child organization of the NEA). Me. In a union. My right-wing upbringing instilled in me a loathing for unions (for reasons I’m still not completely clear on); but now I consider my $40 per month a good investment, because I keep learning freaky insane things about faculty being harassed or fired for bizarre or nonexistent reasons.

Odd that the public seems to think tenure is such a sweet deal, like it guarantees us profs a job for life. Certainly not in Texas. It just guarantees that there has to be “due process” before they summarily fire your sorry butt. In other words, it gives you a level of job security (at most American institutions) similar to (or less than) contracted workers in the private sector. You still get reviewed regularly, and if your performance is too low, you’re out. And for those of us who are not tenured, well, my job terms (I don’t have an actual contract) say I can be fired at any time, for any reason (or no reason), and I have no legal recourse. Continue reading

Gay Marriage Issues: Response to Laine

This post is a response to Laine’s thoughtful post/essay on some of the issues involved in the “gay marriage” debate(s). She was interested in a religious person’s POV, and I figured I fit the bill. It’s a monstrous response, and didn’t fit in LiveJournal’s character limit. So, after the cut, the whole way-large response.
Continue reading

Funny Stuff from my Web Laziness


Do you know this bug?

Funny Things:

  1. Craigslist – To the Drunk Hottie who Fell off my Motorcycle
  2. Very brief story of a girlfriend who is a little… well, just read it. (warning: there’s a swear)

 

Not Funny Things:

  1. Armed Forces Journal (a fairly conservative venue): “…waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition…”
  2. Former Chief Prosecutor (for Guantnamo and similar trials) explains his resignation “it’s time to take the politics out of military commissions… and make the proceedings open and transparent.”
  3. Interesting Newsweek article about how being poor and living far from grocery stores is really bad for your health (something I saw quite a lot of in rural Indiana).

 

Keep on rockin’ in the freee worrrrrrrld

That’s right, baby. Mikhail Freakin’ Gorbachev
here at UTPA last night. In the ridiculously long line to get in, two sort of ditzy students (well, they were) were behind us, and I ascertained that they were only there because their prof had required it. I asked if they even knew who Gorbachev was, and they both said no. I then explained (a bit hyperkinetically, to two students who really weren’t interested) why Gorbachev is one of the most important figures in the world. One of the girls then replied, “Then why is he here?”

Good question. But whatever the answer, he spoke for over an hour to a packed, standing-room-only audience in our largest auditorium. He recalled his agrarian and political beginnings, his rise to power within the CCCP, his brief tenure as president, and his activities since. He (indirectly) criticized Mr. Bush, applauded George W’s dad and Ronald Reagan, quoted JFK, and generally polarized the audience. Most of us were just a bit enthralled. Some got up and left early.

Interesting points: he suggested that it’s futile to fight globalization, so we need to make it work for the underprivileged nations. He said the U.S. has to stop trying to be a cold-war-style superpower in a post-cold-war era. He said the sometime perception that the U.S. has a divine mandate to establish a military/economic empire is misguided and must change. He said India, China, and the EU are the big gorillas to watch for a while. He also volleyed questions from the audience in an extremely smooth manner.

I didn’t agree with everything he said, but I did–surprisingly–with most of it.  Gee whiz; how often does one get to see Gorbachev in person?

In other news, Alex is now gone. This is extremely sad. Very very sad. I am not a happy camper. My teeny apartment, sometimes a bit cramped when she’s there among all my junk, is a depressingly empty place, right now. It was a good week.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Devils in the details

What have I been doing instead of working? The list is long, ending with reading the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was signed by 144 nations and pointedly NOT signed by 4. The U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What? We didn’t sign something that says “rights of indigenous peoples?!?”
Continue reading

Talkin’ About Y Generation… (that’ *can’t* be original, can it?)

I watched one of those “create an argument” shows this afternoon. Two hosts. One guest was a business school prof. The other was a guy about 25 years old. The topic was “Generation Y.”

Within about 3 minutes, the “discussion” turned into a complete attack on young people. All 3 of the… um… less young people just jumped down Generation Y’s throat. Gen Y is a bunch of unintelligent, illiterate, entitled, lazy, shiftless… yeah, those words were used. Many times. The 20something responded that today’s youth have different career plans than their parents did, they carry record amounts of student debt, and they learn during college that their degrees are unlikely to help them achieve the jobs they want. In addition, their communication habits, formed in a different education system and shaped by the online environment, can’t be expected to look like their parents’, and they are ambivalent about working for corporations that arguably have damaged the planet, destroyed the social contract, and proven themselves disloyal to their employees.

This, of course, had no effect on the old people, who seemed to become more and more angry that the young guy wasn’t agreeing with their criticisms. I was surprised by a a couple of things:

1 – The sheer vehemence of the old people’s condemnation. There seemed to be no recognition that not all young people are exactly the same, that some of these characteristics might have positive aspects, or that they might be reactions to the current environment. It seemed like an ambush.

2 – The young guy was much more evenhanded and (it seemed to me) rational than the others. He made some excellent points (which I’ve already mentioned), and (as far as I watched) kept his cool under attack.

This kind of all-out generation war is new to me. These shows are notorious for trying to squeeze maximum conflict out of minimal issues, but it was still interesting. It made me think of how I see my students (sometimes I agree with the old people), and it seemed that the old folks were overlooking some facts:

These spoiled, illiterate, ungrateful brats will be busy running the world when we’re busy running out of Depends (TM). Also, recent attempts by the older generation to browbeat or guilt-trip the younger generation into doing things the Fogey Way have been somewhat unsuccessful. So, we can’t stop them from taking over, and we almost certainly can’t turn them into copies of ourselves, now that they’re 23, so…

Maybe instead of increasing their alienation with a generation they are probably seeking the approval of (despite what they say), we should look at who they actually are, and a) take advantage of whatever they bring to the table, b) tailor any last-ditch persuasion efforts (they’re in their 20s…) to who they really are, rather than who we wish they were, and c) try to guess what they will turn the world into, so we can find a way to live in it without going crazy.

(final note: On MST3K right this minute, Crow is saying, “Well, honey, it looks like we spawned a demon seed.” Heh heh).

After being narrowly defeated (5-0) by the Flyers in St. Catharines tonight (but I don’t care; I got some good passes, and fell on my butt significantly less than a few weeks ago), I listened to the CBC’s Ideas. It was about Rene Girard’s “mimetic theory.” Religion on the CBC (and not of marginalized peoples)? I prepared myself for the pooh-poohing, the retreat to relativism, the self-congratulatory debunking, and the tangible avoidance of relevance. Instead, I heard a very engaging Girard expounding his very interesting theory. I will relate some of the nicer points, with apologies to Mr. Girard and anyone else whose views I mangle.

Girard asserted that Christianity was revolutionary among ideologies. Other systems of belief, he said–focusing heavily on the mythology and religions of ancient civilizations–tell stories of communities ganging up on a victim in order to preserve communal peace (e.g., Oedipus Rex). These stories are all from the point of view of the persecutors, the accusers. They emphasize the rightness of punishing of the victim, who totally has it coming.

Christianity and Judaism tell the story from the point of view of the victim, acknowledging the innocence of the scapegoat, or sacrifice, and the unjust brutality of the mob. Christianity was also revolutionary as a story about a god being persecuted but returning to his persecutors with something for them other than vengeance.

Girard added that many people think of Christianity as a popular, or even populist, religion. In fact, he sees it as totally antipopular. It points out what we all know but have “hidden since the foundation of the world”: we are violent and immoral, but we punish others for our misdeeds and call that justice.

The radicalism of an intellectual taking Christianity seriously–in public–is enormously refreshing.

I also heard comments from fanboys and -girls, who seemed to alternate worshipfully intoning Girard’s name with offering to fix the glaring flaws in his theories. Mostly the worshipful intoning, though. One of them said, “People think the opposite of violence is peace, but it’s not. The opposite of violence is order. Order can come from two sources: from coercion, whether legal or physical; or from holiness.” The guy immediately went on to spoil this insight, but I won’t subject you to that.

Another of Girard’s cheerleaders suggested that the crucifixion, widely understood by Christians to be a payment of debt by proxy, is actually something else: Jesus demonstrating that the violence attributed to His father was actually done by us. When the mob killed Jesus, they acted out what we all want to do every time we hurt another human being: hurt God. We make God the scapegoat for all the evils that we ourselves commit. Nevertheless, Jesus came back after being killed and offered us forgiveness instead of vengeance.

Nice messages. Nice thoughts. Nearly suffocated at times (especially by the narrator) under the embroidered throw pillows of intellectualism (lest anyone be accused of actually taking any of this seriously, or having a personal belief in anything; how gauche), but good thinking, nonetheless.

I didn’t agree with everything they said or the way they said it, but it made me happy to hear people debating the re-radicalized notion that Jesus had something important to say and do, and that those who actually read the texts will begin to understand that. Christianity can only be written off or casually dismissed by individuals who are willing to ignore an awful lot of salient and important information.

Lou Dobbs is an A&&.

So there I was, sitting in my hotel room, feeling sick as a dog in Quebec City, last week, channel surfing and trying to get some work done. And I see Lou Dobbs. He’s “interviewing” a leader of one of the Hispanic immigrant movements who are going to protest in a couple of days. He’s really just haranguing the man. Okay, that’s what Lou Dobbs does. Fine. But he shamelessly took advantage of the guy’s language issues. The guy was obviously bilingual, and had to think for a second before framing his answers (actually, if Lou Dobbs had me in his sights, I’d think carefully before speaking, too–second language or not). That’s just rude.

But even more stupid: the guest answers a question with something about the support that undocumented immigrants give to the economy. Lou interrupts him, starts nearly yelling, and insisting that it’s a known fact that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the economy of the U.S., what with all the social services they use up.

A year ago, I would have wondered. Now, however, I’ve been studying what we know and don’t know about illegal immigrants. The latter category far outweighs the former, not surprisingly. But what little there is out there suggests (pretty strongly) that undocumented immigrants in the U.S. contribute more to the economy than they take from it. Yes, that’s what I said. Few people know that this research is being done, and maybe we’ll find later that it’s different; but that’s the state of the science right now. I don’t think anyone has any evidence to the contrary.

Lou spoke as if he had some kind of special knowledge. Right Wing America probably bought it. He’s full of crap on this particular point, however; and it disturbs me to see someone pretending to be a journalist, while spouting untrue information in the service of making a few preach-to-the-choir boo-ya points with his predictable demographic.

Ass.

And that’s how I end up yelling at televisions in hotels in foreign countries.

Immigration: Misconceptions and Lies (not that it’s so easy to find out the truth)

Rio Bravo (Rio Grande): US-Mexico Border
I’ve been reading this book by some researchers I work with (sort of). It’s Chad Richardson & Rosalva Resendiz. The book is “On the Edge of the Law.” It’s a sociological look at life in the Rio Grande Valley, with lots of interesting information about immigration (legal and illegal), etc.
This whole area of inquiry is teaching me things I did not know before. For that matter, I did not know they were known by anyone. But they’re things I’ve wondered about, and things that get tossed around in rhetoric during political campaigns. Perhaps a sampling of some of this information….

I’m angry and sad and indignant and annoyed and angry some more…


This article describes the case of Yu Ling, a Chinese woman whose husband was arrested 5 years ago in Beijing, for “inciting subversion” by writing a pro-democracy newsletter. He did this anonymously, to avoid going to jail. Yu is suing Yahoo, because Yahoo apparently handed over his email information to the Chinese government, leading to his arrest. I know China doesn’t have the greatest human rights record. That’s not my point. My point is illustrated by the following quotations, taken from the Wired article:

Continue reading