Recognition of "shit-filled" people as characteristic of a "shithole" planet


Earth as a Shithole Planet -- from a Universal Perspective? (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

There is widespread informal characterization of any who disagree, or who articulate their opposition, as being "full of shit". This appreciation tends to be mutual, as between those in opposing political parties. This offers the extraordinary sense in which the majority of those in any parliamentary or academic debate can be deemed to be effectively "full of shit":

Remarkably this appreciation applies to those who seek leadership roles in society, whether or not they are aware of that perception::

Extraordinarily, the 2016 presidential election in the USA could then be explored as a choice between two people variously recognized as being "full of shit". This raises the question whether all elections to leadership of democratic countries should be understood in that light. Is it rare that those competing for such positions should not be characterized by some group as "full of shit"? Curiously, where "strong leadership" is sought -- as in profit-making corporations or the military -- this may amount to appointment of the biggest "shit", deliberately.

Such recognition has been presented as a question, inviting comments, by Matt Gaiser (Do politicians know that they are full of shit? Quora, 17 January 2017). Framed otherwise, is the person who is held to be "full of shit" aware of that condition? The question is clearly pertinent to any capacity of a planet, or its leadership, to recognize that it is in fact a "shithole planet". There is the further extraordinary possibility that any houses of parliament could then be understood otherwise -- given current debate as to whether Trump's alleged qualifier was "shithouse" or "shithole".

The recognition has been extended to professional expertise: The 6 Most Statistically Full of Shit Professions (Cracked, 27 January 2010). It has also been framed more generally by Peter Shankman (Why Most People Are Full of Shit, and How to Not Be One of Them, 11 September 2011). The recognition necessarily extends beyond individual disciplines and political parties to ideologies: Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Environmentalism, and the like. All have been variously characterized as "full of shit".

Of potential relevance to considering reactions to Trump's use of "tough language" -- perhaps especially by the United Nations -- is the argument of André Spicer (Business Bullshit, 2017):

Our organizations are flooded with empty talk. We are constantly "going forward" to lands of "deliverables", stopping off on the "journey" to "drill down" into "best practice". Being an expert at using management speak has become more important in corporate life than delivering long lasting results. The upshot is that meaningless corporate jargon is killing our organizations.... we need to call this empty talk what it is: bullshit.... organizations have become vast machines for manufacturing, distributing and consuming bullshit.... the meaningless language of management has spread through schools, NGOs, politics and the media.

Especially problematic is the extent to which various religions may be framed in such terms, with those doing so potentially framed dangerously as blasphemers (Leila B. Salaverria: Duterte: Catholic Church 'full of shit', Inquirer, 24 January 2017; Dauson Lovi: Holy Shit: a brief look at Christianity's problem, 2009). Religion in general may be so framed, as has been humorously indicated (Brad Berson, World Religions, Philosophy and Other Things: the complete and uncensored shit list, 12 February 2009). The only religion to have consciously identified with this condition in any way is Buddhism, with its classic Zen recognition that: Buddha is a shit stick.

Recognition of any such failing is particularly relevant to any effort to address or remedy a problematic condition. A striking example is provided by the appreciation of the extensive US Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture (2012) in which Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of that time, is variously cited. He is widely noted as describing elements of the report as "crap" (Eric Bradner, Cheney: 'The report's full of crap', CNN, 11 December 2014; Kendall Breitman, Cheney on torture report: 'Full of crap', Politico, 10 December 2014; Maya Rhodan, Dick Cheney Says Senate Torture Report Is 'Full of Crap', Time, 11 December 2014).

Equivalent assessments could be found for many global preoccupations and strategies. For example, Tony Abbott, a former Prime Minister of Australia, is quoted as declaring: Climate change is crap (variously nuanced in subsequent assertions).

With respect to insight into Earth being a "shithole" planet, another Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, famously referred to his country as the "arse end of the world" (Keating's rear view of the lucky country causes storm, The Independent, 26 June 1994) -- a perspective subsequently celebrated in an Australian musical. The perspective has been echoed by another former prime minister, Kevin Rudd (Rudd sees nation at bottom end, too, The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 April 2002). Such repeated use by the highest authority of the nation suggests that colloquial use there of "down under" should be understood as having other implications.

Whilst the insights of such authorities are exceptional, far more common is the use of "shit" in popular discourse. Especially intriguing are the anatomical implications of "are you shitting me" and its French variant "vous m'emmerder". Arguably it is only hippos in their mud pools of choice that engage in that process.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]