An S.J.W. Listens to P.Y.T.

This week I decided to give myself a creative writing exercise: release your inner Social Justice Warrior! Become horribly offended by something that you used to enjoy when you were younger. In this exercise, I decided to pick a random song, and that song has to fit the following criteria:

• It must be at least one generation (20-25 years) old.
• It must have been fairly popular in its day, and not something obscure.
• It must be fairly innocuous, and not contain any scandalous lyrics (for its time).

I set my MP3 player on Shuffle Play, and as luck would have it, a promising candidate popped up within 4-5 songs: P.Y.T. by Michael Jackson, from his 1982 album, Thriller. This is going to be a challenge, because I bought the Thriller CD back in the 1980s, and I’m quite fond of this song.

Nevertheless, here goes… [adjusting SJW hat]

Some songs just don’t age well, and Michael Jackson’s P.Y.T. is one of them. I listened to it recently, and I am outraged! Aghast! I am so deeply, deeply offended, and if you are as sophisticated, sensitive and enlightened as I, then you should be as well.

First, let’s examine the title: P.Y.T (Pretty Young Thing). Every word in this song’s title is hurtful!

Pretty: This word sums up the typically shallow way that men evaluate women: by physical attractiveness. The lure of the fairer sex is only skin deep, and they don’t bother examining any further.

Young: I realize that society in general seems to idolize youth, but this word implies that only young women are valued by men, disregarding all older women. Men today should read Benjamin Franklin’s Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress, in which he explains why older women make more suitable extramarital companions.

Thing: This is a heinous literal objectification – it’s just outrageous! A woman isn’t even thought of as a person, but merely a thing. This is taking the hackneyed concept of “women as sex objects”, and elevating it to a vile, unpalatable new plateau.

Finally, this song is known by its initials – a clever and insidious way to cloak all of its unpleasantness, as 1980s disc jockeys foist its misogynistic messages on an innocent and unsuspecting public.

Lyric snippet #1: “I Want To Love You (P.Y.T.), Pretty Young Thing“. Jackson gets right to the point: he wants to get physical, and not in the Olivia Newton-John way, where she first takes you to an intimate restaurant, and then to a suggestive movie. No, he’s not wasting any time – as soon as he lays eyes on her, he just wants to go for it. Now, you could argue that this was a popular sentiment among young men during the 1980s. In order to test this hypothesis, let’s look at another popular song from that time: Howard Jones – Like to Get to Know You Well. Howard Jones wanted to get to know a woman first, on a personal level, before doing anything physical.

Lyrics snippet #2: “Let me take you there“. Where exactly do you want to take her, Michael? Like a good Social Justice Warrior, I’m going to speculate wildly, but my guess would be “the promised land” – the ultimate fantasy destination of horny teenagers and lustful young men since the dawn of time.

Lyric snippet #3: “Let me take you to the max“. What could he mean by this? Let me be charitable and suggest that he wants to take you to Mac’s Milk, to buy you a milkshake, a bag of candy, or some other treat. Traditionally, men will spend money (and usually quite a bit) on their romantic interests during courtship. This is expected. But not in this song… there’s no mention of spending any money or any references to a courtship – it sounds to me like he simply wants you know what…

Lyrics snippet #4: “Pretty young things, repeat after me, I said ‘Na na na, na na na…'”. Notice the plural: things. He is no longer limiting himself to a single woman. Could he be hinting at a ménage-à-trois? No, I think it’s far more insidious than that. This is clearly cult-like behaviour, and Jackson is playing the part of a modern-day Svengali who is amassing a legion of followers. Consider this: adherents of the Hare Krishna religious movement are known for their repetitive mantra “Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare…“. Commanding women to repeat this nonsensical monosyllabic “Na na na” chant over and over is obviously (to me, the sensitive SJW) an attempt to brainwash them, so that they can do his bidding. By listening to this song, and by singing along to the lyrics, you are inviting yourself to fall under this cult-like spell. Take my advice – Don’t do it. If you start chanting “Na na na..“, even absentmindedly, you may find eventually yourself at the airport, with a shaved head, wearing an orange robe, shaking a tambourine and handing out pamphlets.

Finally, P.Y.T. just happens to be the first three letters in “python”, which seems rather fitting. Any man who views women merely as pretty young things is obviously a lecherous, licentious, slimy snake, who, just like his constricting serpentine namesake, will probably squeeze all of the happiness out of every woman unlucky enough to encounter him. There can be no other interpretation.

In conclusion, I’m sure that all sensitive and enlightened people will agree with me that P.Y.T. must be banned from the airwaves, and deleted from your playlists immediately. There are just too many dangerous and misogynistic messages contained within it. We, as a community, should all be ashamed of ourselves for listening to it (and enjoying it) back in the 1980s. As a Social Justice Warrior, it’s my full-time job to tell everyone else in society how much they suck, so let me say this: if you listened to P.Y.T. even once, since 1982, then you are a bad person. If you actually enjoyed the song or if you bought a copy of Thriller, then you are particularly egregious.

Yes, I realize that I bought (and still own, and still listen to) a copy of Thriller. I would go to confession myself, and beg the priest for forgiveness… if only the churches weren’t all closed due to the pandemic.

Note: This was a creative writing exercise, written solely for your amusement. I’m not, even for a second, suggesting that anything written here represents Michael Jackson’s actual views toward women.

The Swastika Building – My Reconnaissance Mission

Back in 2012, I wrote a blog post about people’s reaction to swastikas. In one section, I wrote about the barracks building at the Coronado Naval Base, which is shaped like a swastika.

An interesting story has emerged regarding these barracks. The building was constructed during the 1960s, but its shape was never an issue. That’s because the shape can’t be discerned from ground level – only from an overhead view. Since this building is on a naval base, it’s in restricted air space and not underneath any commercial flight paths, so no one (that is, no civilians) will get a direct overhead view of it. The office towers in downtown San Diego are too far away to afford anyone a decent view. The outrage began only after Google Earth became popular, and allowed the general public to get a bird’s eye view of the naval base. Therefore, I suspected that all of the online outrage was simply the histrionics of a bunch of social justice warriors.

Soon after I published the blog post, I began to channel Carrie Bradshaw, as she sat hunched over her MacBook “I couldn’t help but wonder…” Was there a vantage point that would make it possible to determine the building’s shape, or was it discernible only on Google Earth? If so, then (in all fairness) I would have to update my blog post. Recently, an opportunity arose that allowed me to do a little reconnaissance work…

I was scheduled to fly to San Diego to attend a conference, and the plane’s flight path would give me the best view by far of the surrounding area. Since I had already been to San Diego, I knew that the flight path would place me between the downtown office buildings and the Coronado peninsula, so I selected my window seat in advance (on the left side of the plane) so that I would get a good view of the naval base as we approached the airport. I also studied the topography of the San Diego area so I knew exactly where to look as the plane was preparing to land.

Here is another Google Satellite view, angled to simulate what I thought I would see from the plane

At approximately 2,000 feet, this vantage point was not only considerably higher than any building in San Diego, it was also closer, so it offered the best view (with the least amount of parallax) of the naval barracks. As we approached the airport, I started snapping photos. Here is what I saw out the window (with added sharpening and contrast enhancement). As you can see, the shape is difficult to make out, even when you know where it is and what to look for.

Here is a zoomed-in version. This is the best view that anyone (well, any civilian) is going to get of this building, and is far more detailed than anything you could see with your naked eye.

So there you have it – the result of my reconnaissance mission. I went that extra mile to get the best view that anyone could possibly get. I knew where it was and what to look for, yet even with the zoom and the image enhancements, I still can’t make out its shape. I can now say with confidence that the origin of the controversy was the availability of Google Earth and not the building itself.

.

.

A Swastika? OMG, I’m So Offended!

There was a story in the newspaper recently about a clothing store in India called Hitler. The name was displayed in large capital letters, and a small swastika dotted the letter “I”. The photo of the store was also posted on Facebook, and the comments ranged from dismissive to vitriolic. According to the newspaper article, the owner pleaded ignorance, and said that he wasn’t aware of the stigma surrounding Hitler’s name. However, as many commenters correctly pointed out, using the swastika to dot the “I” is evidence that he knew darn well what he was doing.

I think the store’s owner is being disingenuous, and I suspect that he did it deliberately to evoke an emotional response from passersby. As some readers noted, he really knows how to work the media, and he may also subscribe to the philosophy that “no publicity is bad publicity”. In response to the protests, he is planning to rename his store, but in the meantime, he was able to gain free publicity that spanned the globe – more than he could ever afford to purchase. I don’t buy his ignorance defense either – he knew exactly which of our buttons to press in order to best serve his own commercial interests. Personally, I’m not particularly offended by this sign, because I don’t detect any hatred or malice. I see it merely as little more than a sophomoric stunt designed to get attention, and to raise the ire of those who react rather than think.

After witnessing the strong emotions evoked by this symbol, I can understand that some people may be affected by stimulus generalization, and feel offended at the mere sight of a swastika, in any context. Here are two examples:

Example #1: Back in 2008, I read a bizarre letter to the editor in my local newspaper. A week earlier, the newspaper mentioned that the small, northern Ontario town of Swastika would be celebrating its centennial that year. This gentleman was horrified that any town would have this name, so he wrote to the editor to promulgate his utter disgust. News of his letter made its way to the town of Swastika, and two weeks later, the newspaper printed some letters from the town’s residents. They chastised the writer for being not only reactionary, but decidedly ill-informed. The town was actually named after the Swastika gold mine in 1907, and was incorporated in 1908. The name had been established well before Adolph Hitler bastardized it and associated it with Nazism. The residents knew their history, and had no objection to their town’s name.

While I’m sure the letter writer thought he was being politically-correct, I thought that he sounded like a sanctimonious twit. He wasn’t genuinely offended by the name; he was merely using the newspaper as a platform to tell the world how morally superior he was. He was saying (in so many words) “You, the unwashed masses of small-town Ontario, are a bunch of buffoons who need to be educated. You are clearly not sensitive or informed enough to be offended by this word. I am obviously more enlightened and refined than you troglodytes, and that is why such things offend me – and merely pass right over your collective proletarian heads”. He didn’t use those words, but I felt that this was his holier-than-thou sentiment.

Example #2: A few years ago, while looking for interesting locations in Google Maps, I stumbled across the now-infamous “swastika building” in San Diego. It’s a barracks building on the Coronado Naval Amphibious Base, and was constructed in 1967. Here it is, in Google Maps.

According to a Search Engine Land article, the swastika shape was noticed after the groundbreaking ceremony in 1967, but no changes were made to the building’s design since the shape would not be noticeable at ground level. Since then, Google Maps offers aerial views of the entire country, and its distinctive shape can be seen by anyone.

Now, the Navy is going to spend $600,000 to modify the design and camouflage the building’s shape. The shape can’t be seen from ground level, and the building is not underneath any commercial flight paths. Why is this building suddenly so offensive? I’m not playing dumb – just bear with me…

The short answer is: because people started behaving much like the letter writer in the first example. They thought “Hey – I see a swastika! This is bad! I’m so offended!”.

Analysis

As George Carlin said in his 1970s comedy album The Seven Words You Can’t Say On Television “There are no bad words – bad thoughts. Bad intentions”. In our inherently symbolic society, it is important to make a distinction between the symbol itself, and what that symbol represents.

In the first example, the Hitler clothing store, the owner was being boorish, and doing something deliberately inflammatory – all in the name of commerce. While there is no evidence that he shares any of Hitler’s values, there was a clear association between the swastika symbol on his storefront, and Nazism – something that’s universally reviled.

In the second example, the town of Swastika, Ontario, the letter-writer was uninformed and jumped to a conclusion. The town was named after the Swastika gold mine, in 1907, and had nothing to do with antisemitism. He didn’t think – he merely reacted.

In the third example, the Coronado Naval Base barracks, I have to speculate, since I obviously wasn’t there when the architects were designing the building, back in the mid-to-late 1960s. During that decade, with World War II a mere 20 years in the past, I imagine that the memories of the atrocities perpetrated by the Third Reich were still quite fresh in the American consciousness. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would deliberately design any building – especially a military building – as any sort of tribute to Hitler.

Take a look at this aerial photo of the building. Personally, I think that it was designed merely a symmetrical radial design that offered most of its occupants windows that looked out onto green space. A perimeter design would have an enclosed courtyard, but more windows would be facing out into the street. In this radial design, only four building walls face the street, and the remaining twelve walls overlook green space. Secondly, this design is also more open and appears inviting from the street. A perimeter design makes the building function like a shield, or a barrier between the building’s occupants and the rest of society. This open, radial design looks more like a college campus dormitory. Finally, since the building’s shape is not discernible at street level, and was constructed at a time when the general public did not have access to satellite imagery, I doubt that it was designed to shock anyone.

In my opinion, there was no malice in the design of this building, and in the same way that George Carlin examines words, I evaluate shapes. In this particular example, there are no bad thoughts or bad intentions. Therefore, just like the town of Swastika, Ontario, there shouldn’t be any knee-jerk reactions.

Conclusion

In these three examples, only one was deserving of criticism. In the other two, people were simply reacting to a stimulus – like Pavlov’s dogs, who salivate whenever they hear a bell – and eliminating the all-important cognitive link in their decision making.

The next time you see something provocative, I’d like to urge you not to react. Animals react to stimuli. We humans – from our illustrious and coveted perch at the top of the evolutionary ladder – think, consider, evaluate and analyze. Then, when all of the data has been processed, we can either formulate a well-reasoned response or decide to simply ignore it.

The swastika is merely a single example that I used for this article. You will encounter, with some regularity, many other words, symbols, statements and images that others may consider provocative, inflammatory or even offensive. Analyze everything as George Carlin would: don’t react to the words (or symbols), but instead consider the thoughts and intentions behind them. If there was malice or hatred behind them, then you are justified in feeling offended. If not, then please don’t take offense where none was intended.

And finally, to those people who simply react to a shape, symbol, word (or any other stimuli) without thinking, and then complain to everyone that your sensibilities have been offended, I’d like you to consider a line from Macbeth, which I believe is an apt summary of your histrionics “It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.