The year 2000, as envisioned in 1900. Chocolate manufacturer predicts weather control machines, personal airships, houses moved by train. Sounds about right. // How snakes eat larger snakes, step by step. With clips. (H/T, Maggie’s Farm) // Car wash offers extras, apparently. // Your tax dollars at work. Click to enlarge. // Via 1+1=3, Kamiya Satoshi’s hardcore origami. // Slightly less ambitious: Make your own Optimus Prime. // Cassetteboy. On room service and getting a good straight seam. Sketchy details here and here. “Retro salad, yeah?” // Self-flagellation not a good idea shock. // Iranian women dress ‘immodestly’; mass arrests ensue. More here. “Women who appear in public like decadent models endanger the security and dignity of young men.” Photos of dangerous and immodest women here, here and here. // In unrelated news… The Iranian brain drain continues. // Israel’s ‘modesty buses’. Piety and indignation in abundance. Intelligence, not so much. // Orangutans play video games, matching sounds with animals using lips and feet. Yet to master Tetris, but gaining on us slowly. // First 3D images of the Sun. 3D glasses sold separately. // Kryptonite discovered in Serbia. White and powdery, not green and radioactive. Criminal fraternity livid. // Spider-Man 3 budget redefines phrase “shitload of money.” // Christopher Butcher ponders superhero genitalia, or the lack thereof. More mulling here. // Captain America arrested with joint and burrito stuffed in tights. //

I recently pointed out how the Guardian’s deputy comment editor, Joseph Harker, has realised that if the meaning of certain words doesn’t support his argument or broad political stance then he can simply change what those words mean until they do support that argument, at least in dim light. Thus, Mr Harker can argue that “all white people are racist” while claiming that he can’t be a racist for saying so, on the basis that racism is, apparently, an exclusively Caucasian vice. Clearly, if one can redefine words to suit an existing argument, rather than rethink one’s argument to fit the meaning of words – or indeed reality – then this affords enormous opportunity, at least rhetorically.

It’s pretty clear from this unilateral definition that Harker isn’t against racism per se. Attentive readers will notice he’s not arguing for a reciprocal moral principle – i.e. that people shouldn’t be prejudged on the basis of their colour or country of origin. Instead, what we see is an expression of PC bigotry and contorted righteousness. It’s not too difficult to see how this linguistic contortion fits with certain kinds of role-play – pretentious victimhood on the one hand and narcissistic guilt fantasies on the other. Perpetuating this outlook might be politically useful to some leftist ideologues and opportunist pressure groups, but it isn’t clear how believing “all white people are racist” helps anyone see further than the colour of a person’s skin.

Via 1+1=3, I stumbled across Mac Kane’s portfolio of Beijing tricycles, many of which have been modified to serve as mobile businesses, as well as for hauling people and an improbable range of objects.

Polar Inertia also has portfolios of Tai O stilt houses and Hong Kong noodle shops.

In response to this article, one of our regulars, Clazy, highlighted the words of Lee Jasper, the “Director for Equalities” for London’s Islamist-hugging mayor, Ken Livingstone. Jasper has argued that “you have to treat people differently to treat them equally.” Clazy regards this as “pure Orwell.” Rightly so, I think.

It doesn’t seem to occur to Jasper or Livingstone that the multicultural ‘identity politics’ of which they’re such enthusiasts can actually exacerbate suspicion and resentment. If some notional “communities” are being treated differently and being encouraged to cultivate difference for social or political leverage, then getting past a person’s skin colour or place or origin seems more difficult, not less. One is continually being reminded of how different a person is, or thinks he ought to be. A cynic might point out that the racial grievance industry – and the various commentators and lobbyists who benefit from it – depends on people being preoccupied by the colour of a person’s skin. And therefore, one might suppose, there’s an incentive to make sure lots of people are.

Scott Burgess has pointed out that some commentators can apparently detect racism in “homeopathic concentrations.” This paranormal sensitivity is, I think, pretty much inevitable among some race industry professionals. The threshold of grievance has to be lowered continually in order to justify further crusading – and, of course, to justify status, funding, media attention, etc. Eventually, left unchecked, this hypersensitivity can reach the level of paranoia, perpetuating the attitudes it claims to oppose.

Carnal Reason points out some neglected merits of courtesy. 

“My nine year old daughter asked why she should be polite to someone who has been rude to her. Courtesy is not a tip handed out to people who deserve it. Courtesy is not about being nice; it is not even about other people. Courtesy is a discipline with the goal of mental clarity under emotional stress. As long as anger is not allowed to displace manners, the mind remains in control. The polite man remains rational. The man who rages becomes unthinking, and thereby stupid.”

Yes, I rather like that.