We've been without a TV service for over 5 years now, but obviously I continually have to tell people this, because they ask "have you seen?" or just assume you have, and the shock I get in response is really very interesting.
The idea that you could live without this mass medium just baffles people.
We have a TV, a nice flat screen, of medium size. We used to have one of the giant ones, but it took up too much space. We watch DVDs, of which we have a large collection. Movies and boxed sets of TV series. Two new series were added to the collection last week, the complete Jonathan Creek, and the complete Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, both from Britain. I also bought a movie "Persepolis", which you'll have to look up, it's not mainstream.
For what these cost, I could have paid for a month's satellite TV twice over. It's not about cost.
It is about value for money, however. Because when I had satellite TV, I was still buying endless movies, to watch INSTEAD of the crap I was paying almost $100 a month for.
I would sit there flipping through hundreds of channels to find something worth watching, and find nothing. Ridiculous.
Obviously, I am picky about what I watch.
I refuse to sit in front of a screen and watch rubbish. Life is too short. And then, I refused to pay for the pleasure of having nothing to watch. So we told them to shove their TV service where the sun doesn't shine.
First of course I did ask, can I just have the movie channels and the educational channels? No. You have to buy the networks first. Which is bollocks. So, Bell TV was "Let go".
Michael, therefore, has spent his teens without TV. His friend are just goggle-eyed at how he copes. He copes. He has never missed it, and never complains. He has a DVD player in his room, he watches movies and boxed sets if he needs to. Tom has discovered, since we had high-speed Wifi, that there are "broadcasts" on You Tube. He finds things to watch on his laptop. Michael can access it with his XBox. Tyler can access it either way. They get plenty of teen fodder that way, and are selective about it. They don't suffer.
No, it is perfectly possible to live without a TV service. It means sometimes I'm out of touch with pop culture, and that's OK. I rarely share majority tastes.
We don't buy newspapers or magazines either. For similar reasons.
"But, but but," they say, "How do you keep up on current affairs?" I have the internet. If something important happens, trust me, I hear about it. And instead of hearing bias or sensationalism thrown at me from a news desk, by a clone anchor with a bad hairstyle and boring clothes, I have an endless variety of sources to parse and make my opinions from. Far deeper, far more reliable, and far easier to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I dropped out of mainstream society a long time ago. Just a little over 51 years ago, really. I have lived my entire life asking Why?" and being extremely skeptical. I'm just not suited to broadcast TV.
Tuesday, 11 June 2013
Ha Ha Ha
I think it probably goes without saying that I love writing. I have to write. My head fills with ideas and they have to come out. It has been pointed out to me, by those who love me, bless 'em, that I tend to write down mostly the serious stuff, whereas when I'm doing an impromtu spoken presentation of my thoughts, it's the far less serious stuff, and that, therefore, I'm funnier in person than in writing.
I have been known to deliberately write humour, and I'm not bad at it, but I don't make a habit of it, because it's very random. So it comes out here and there in comments and odd places, and isn't really part of my main efforts when blogging. It comes out in stories about my everyday life, because my everyday life is funny. My family are funny. Sometimes I forget not everyone is surrounded by humour. Some people are very serious.
And, because some people are accustomed to a severe lack of humour in their lives (i.e. they may be funny themselves, but they don't hear it in people around them so much) I sometimes get taken wrongly. I get read as serious, when I'm not. As I said, this is not helped by the fact that I tend to write blogs about serious issues, so I can't really complain, but it is a bit strange sometimes.
When you think about it, using humour is a common, and very effective way to get opinions about serious issues across. Many comedians make really deep ethical statements while being funny. Their "act" is really a lecture on their observations on the ridiculousness of civilization. The humour in it is often irony.
It's not that they are making light of problems in society, far from it. Consider Eddie Izzard's thoughts on Hitler.
Some people find this sort of thing in poor taste. It's not that they disagree with it, but they want it said in a serious manner. I'm not altogether sure why. I think humour gets the points across very well - even if it's completely weird. And I think this is why surreal humour is not understood or appreciated by some people. They are expecting one liners, this is too complicated.
When it's written, it's harder to tell the funny from the serious, and if it's very subtle it can get missed or misunderstood. You almost need to offer a warning ahead of time.
Yesterday I watched a discussion go right off the rails on an internet forum because somebody was being funny (and very clever, actually) and it was taken seriously. No amount of explanation seemed to sort it out, and I watched amazed as somebody melted down in public, taking offence where it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was humour, pure humour. Two people trying to help break up the "fight" even had English as a second language, and they'd had no difficulty seeing the humour.
It would be easy to assume that the offended party just wasn't very bright, but this was on a forum associated with an online college course, for which you actually need a certain level of intellect. There's no testing, but quite simply, people of low intellect just don't attempt these things. So this is a reasonably (at least) intelligent person with poor awareness of humour.
And THAT is funny. Obviously, I know better than to wade in there and make things worse, so I stayed out of it. Sometimes these things are best as a spectator sport.
But it reminded me, because I need reminding, that there is a lack of humour out there, and I think it's a problem. When people don't automatically see the silliness in a situation, when they can't see the funny side of things, what happens? They get angry. We don't need anger, there's too much of that already.
So, there I am trying to figure this out, you know how I am. People taking themselves too seriously, people taking life too seriously, and the end result of anything that messes with their seriousness being anger...what's going on here?
I don't like the idea of telling somebody to "lighten up". That's really very dismissive of a person's feelings, because they may have a reason for being in the mood they are in. We never know what darkness lurks behind the doors of another's life. Sometimes, if you know somebody well, you can get away with it, but I don't advise it. When people tell me to lighten up and I have a good reason not to, I bite. Because not everything is funny. It's a balance. Still, I think it helps to try to see the funny side, even if the humour lies in its absurdity.
I have been known to deliberately write humour, and I'm not bad at it, but I don't make a habit of it, because it's very random. So it comes out here and there in comments and odd places, and isn't really part of my main efforts when blogging. It comes out in stories about my everyday life, because my everyday life is funny. My family are funny. Sometimes I forget not everyone is surrounded by humour. Some people are very serious.
And, because some people are accustomed to a severe lack of humour in their lives (i.e. they may be funny themselves, but they don't hear it in people around them so much) I sometimes get taken wrongly. I get read as serious, when I'm not. As I said, this is not helped by the fact that I tend to write blogs about serious issues, so I can't really complain, but it is a bit strange sometimes.
When you think about it, using humour is a common, and very effective way to get opinions about serious issues across. Many comedians make really deep ethical statements while being funny. Their "act" is really a lecture on their observations on the ridiculousness of civilization. The humour in it is often irony.
It's not that they are making light of problems in society, far from it. Consider Eddie Izzard's thoughts on Hitler.
Some people find this sort of thing in poor taste. It's not that they disagree with it, but they want it said in a serious manner. I'm not altogether sure why. I think humour gets the points across very well - even if it's completely weird. And I think this is why surreal humour is not understood or appreciated by some people. They are expecting one liners, this is too complicated.
When it's written, it's harder to tell the funny from the serious, and if it's very subtle it can get missed or misunderstood. You almost need to offer a warning ahead of time.
Yesterday I watched a discussion go right off the rails on an internet forum because somebody was being funny (and very clever, actually) and it was taken seriously. No amount of explanation seemed to sort it out, and I watched amazed as somebody melted down in public, taking offence where it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was humour, pure humour. Two people trying to help break up the "fight" even had English as a second language, and they'd had no difficulty seeing the humour.
It would be easy to assume that the offended party just wasn't very bright, but this was on a forum associated with an online college course, for which you actually need a certain level of intellect. There's no testing, but quite simply, people of low intellect just don't attempt these things. So this is a reasonably (at least) intelligent person with poor awareness of humour.
And THAT is funny. Obviously, I know better than to wade in there and make things worse, so I stayed out of it. Sometimes these things are best as a spectator sport.
But it reminded me, because I need reminding, that there is a lack of humour out there, and I think it's a problem. When people don't automatically see the silliness in a situation, when they can't see the funny side of things, what happens? They get angry. We don't need anger, there's too much of that already.
So, there I am trying to figure this out, you know how I am. People taking themselves too seriously, people taking life too seriously, and the end result of anything that messes with their seriousness being anger...what's going on here?
I don't like the idea of telling somebody to "lighten up". That's really very dismissive of a person's feelings, because they may have a reason for being in the mood they are in. We never know what darkness lurks behind the doors of another's life. Sometimes, if you know somebody well, you can get away with it, but I don't advise it. When people tell me to lighten up and I have a good reason not to, I bite. Because not everything is funny. It's a balance. Still, I think it helps to try to see the funny side, even if the humour lies in its absurdity.
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Gourds
No, it's not a gardening blog.
Every year, for several years now, I have grown gourds.
They take up a lot of space, they are a nightmare to weed, and so far I have not actually done anything with the few, small gourds that our short summer has produced. I did intend to use them as craft items, but I haven't. I can make all sorts of excuses why not, but the fact remains, I grow gourds and do nothing useful with them.
You can't eat them. The flowers are pretty but not really exciting. I don't take gourds to shows. Why do I grow gourds?
No real reason at all. I just like growing gourds. The plants grow big and fast and I find that fascinating. So really, all I can say is that I grow gourds for fun. The growing part is the real objective, not the obtaining gourds part.
It is a luxury task. That is to say, I put time and money into it, rather than getting time or money out of it. What I get out of it not only cannot be measured, but is hard to define. And yet in August, I will spend some time every day with my gourds.
Why am I justifying this? Doesn't everyone have something like that? Some people spend far more - money and time - on things they do, with nothing to show for it.
Pretty much everyone does, yes. But it's a curiosity of human nature that while we understand it (because we all do it), we often pour scorn on what others choose to do as their own waste of time.
Well, it's a funny thing, but in our society there is a list of things that it's generally accepted OK to waste large sums of money, and large chunks of time on, and then there are those things that are not on that list. Growing gourds is not on that list. Growing flowers IS. Growing vegetables is on the useful list, so is exempt. Not a waste of time at all.
But it isn't the lack of usefulness that keeps gourds off the SAWOT (Socially Approved Waste Of Time) list. Because people whose garden have no plants at all, just a couple of really big lumps of rock, call it landscaping, and that's on the list. And rocks cost more than gourd seeds, so it's not that either. It's not to do with money.
It's not that it's such a weird thing, There are many weird things on the SAWOT list anyway. Some of them are even harmful to your health. Television being the perfect example for both of these. Watching Duck Dynasty is on the SAWOT list. If anyone can tell me how that is preferable to growing gourds, I'd love to know*.
No, I'll tell you why growing gourds is not on the SAWOT list. It's because that list is created by mob rule.
Yeah.
It's that whole "we are majority, so we say what is and what isn't socially approved". Bully tactics by dint of a twisted sort of democracy.
Gentle friends will say "Hey, you do whatever makes you happy". And they really really mean it. But if you really really interrogated them, they'd confess they don't get it. What's the point? Never mind that in their (created) spare time they collect bugs** or even if they collect bread bag tags.
So here's the definition of understanding.
It's not saying "Whatever makes you happy".
Nor is it even also enjoying a non-SAWOT task, but a different one.
You can only understand, when you share the same non-SAWOT passion.
That's how we are. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
Let's confess that we all think the hobbies of others are nuts. Let's move on past the need to be maintstream, or to care if we aren't. But let's not pretend we get it. We don't. The whole POINT of "each to his own" is that we don't get it, and that it's OK to not get it.
*I confess I haven't watched it, but the synopsis is enough.
** Entomology. Yes, I know. It was already on the geekier end of the SAWOT list anyway, but will probably become roaringly popular after this:
Every year, for several years now, I have grown gourds.
They take up a lot of space, they are a nightmare to weed, and so far I have not actually done anything with the few, small gourds that our short summer has produced. I did intend to use them as craft items, but I haven't. I can make all sorts of excuses why not, but the fact remains, I grow gourds and do nothing useful with them.
You can't eat them. The flowers are pretty but not really exciting. I don't take gourds to shows. Why do I grow gourds?
No real reason at all. I just like growing gourds. The plants grow big and fast and I find that fascinating. So really, all I can say is that I grow gourds for fun. The growing part is the real objective, not the obtaining gourds part.
It is a luxury task. That is to say, I put time and money into it, rather than getting time or money out of it. What I get out of it not only cannot be measured, but is hard to define. And yet in August, I will spend some time every day with my gourds.
Why am I justifying this? Doesn't everyone have something like that? Some people spend far more - money and time - on things they do, with nothing to show for it.
Pretty much everyone does, yes. But it's a curiosity of human nature that while we understand it (because we all do it), we often pour scorn on what others choose to do as their own waste of time.
Well, it's a funny thing, but in our society there is a list of things that it's generally accepted OK to waste large sums of money, and large chunks of time on, and then there are those things that are not on that list. Growing gourds is not on that list. Growing flowers IS. Growing vegetables is on the useful list, so is exempt. Not a waste of time at all.
But it isn't the lack of usefulness that keeps gourds off the SAWOT (Socially Approved Waste Of Time) list. Because people whose garden have no plants at all, just a couple of really big lumps of rock, call it landscaping, and that's on the list. And rocks cost more than gourd seeds, so it's not that either. It's not to do with money.
It's not that it's such a weird thing, There are many weird things on the SAWOT list anyway. Some of them are even harmful to your health. Television being the perfect example for both of these. Watching Duck Dynasty is on the SAWOT list. If anyone can tell me how that is preferable to growing gourds, I'd love to know*.
No, I'll tell you why growing gourds is not on the SAWOT list. It's because that list is created by mob rule.
Yeah.
It's that whole "we are majority, so we say what is and what isn't socially approved". Bully tactics by dint of a twisted sort of democracy.
Gentle friends will say "Hey, you do whatever makes you happy". And they really really mean it. But if you really really interrogated them, they'd confess they don't get it. What's the point? Never mind that in their (created) spare time they collect bugs** or even if they collect bread bag tags.
So here's the definition of understanding.
It's not saying "Whatever makes you happy".
Nor is it even also enjoying a non-SAWOT task, but a different one.
You can only understand, when you share the same non-SAWOT passion.
That's how we are. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
Let's confess that we all think the hobbies of others are nuts. Let's move on past the need to be maintstream, or to care if we aren't. But let's not pretend we get it. We don't. The whole POINT of "each to his own" is that we don't get it, and that it's OK to not get it.
*I confess I haven't watched it, but the synopsis is enough.
** Entomology. Yes, I know. It was already on the geekier end of the SAWOT list anyway, but will probably become roaringly popular after this:
Crazy
I got into trouble the other day. Yeah ME! Of all people. I can tell you're shocked.
You see, I posted a thing on Facebook, about how people toss around terms like OCD and Bipolar as insults:
It was applauded by my friends who work in the areas of mental health care, and those who have suffered from (or know anyone who does) any of these real disorders.
People do have this way of latching onto this sort of thing, and showing no respect. It's thoughtless.
But then in a blog I referred to "Crazy People" and somebody objected. In fact they called me a hypocrite.
Since when was "crazy" a medical diagnosis? No, no, no. It may be many things, including judgemental and unfair but it is not a medical diagnosis. Indeed, I am not qualified to diagnose.
There is a line, and we each have to find our own, that we do not cross when we speak our minds. Some people would object to the objection of the graphic above, in fact. They would say it was politically correct, and a whole bunch of other reasons why they would dismiss it. They don't care if they are offensive to people in pain, and their line is in a different place to mine.
My line is probably not set as far forward as those who oppose any form of judgement on the behaviour of others. So there we have it.
I do use the term "crazy" and will continue to do so. It's a word that says so much in just 5 letters. Yes, it's an insult. I have decided that the behaviour of some people (a lot of people) is so erratic and inexplicable, that it requires a quick flippant term to express my feelings. None of these people (as far as I know) have been diagnosed with anything. In addition everyone, without exception, is sometimes crazy.
I suppose I could get away with it if I described the behaviour as crazy, and not the person. But that's just a cop out. That reminds me of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" which is bollocks. If your behaviour is crazy, then you are crazy to behave that way, otherwise, why are you doing it?
I am told that calling somebody crazy is dismissive of their emotional needs. OK, let's look at that. Let's consider what this means.
If I was to come to your house and dig up all your flowers, because I said the sight of them upset me, would you be sympathetic to my emotional needs? I don't think so.
You see, we ALL have emotional needs. We all need to be happy, to feel safe, to feel useful in some way, and ideally to feel loved. Nobody has more right to any of these than anyone else. So, you cannot justify upsetting somebody, by claiming you did it because you were upset. Maybe read that a few times.
I like peace and harmony. But I am aware that it is not possible all the time. I dislike drama. But there has to be some, occasionally, just to get things done. It's all about how much drama, and how often it occurs, that decides whether it's acceptable or not, and your definition of too much may allow for far more. As that's your life and not mine, it's none of my business.
Here's another little "meme" that does the rounds regularly:
I don't like this. I find this quite disturbing, actually. I find it particularly disturbing because some of the people I have seen post it, are crazy. The sort of mothers who harm their kids by their behaviour, actually. People who leave me speechless sometimes with how they can't seem to see the cause and effect between their crazy parenting and their kids' reactions to it. Kids who are messed up, actually. By this shit.
It's none of my business if you freak out at your kids, until it impacts me, and then, yeah, funnily enough, I will offer my opinion. I'll tell you things, for example, like how much they remind me of you. How I'm not a bit surprised they behave badly, because it's learned behaviour. And I still won't let them off the hook, anymore than I let you off the hook for telling me you can't help it because your mother was crazy too.
Somewhere along the way these cycles have to be broken. Otherwise we'll all go fucking crazy.
You see, I posted a thing on Facebook, about how people toss around terms like OCD and Bipolar as insults:
It was applauded by my friends who work in the areas of mental health care, and those who have suffered from (or know anyone who does) any of these real disorders.
People do have this way of latching onto this sort of thing, and showing no respect. It's thoughtless.
But then in a blog I referred to "Crazy People" and somebody objected. In fact they called me a hypocrite.
Since when was "crazy" a medical diagnosis? No, no, no. It may be many things, including judgemental and unfair but it is not a medical diagnosis. Indeed, I am not qualified to diagnose.
There is a line, and we each have to find our own, that we do not cross when we speak our minds. Some people would object to the objection of the graphic above, in fact. They would say it was politically correct, and a whole bunch of other reasons why they would dismiss it. They don't care if they are offensive to people in pain, and their line is in a different place to mine.
My line is probably not set as far forward as those who oppose any form of judgement on the behaviour of others. So there we have it.
I do use the term "crazy" and will continue to do so. It's a word that says so much in just 5 letters. Yes, it's an insult. I have decided that the behaviour of some people (a lot of people) is so erratic and inexplicable, that it requires a quick flippant term to express my feelings. None of these people (as far as I know) have been diagnosed with anything. In addition everyone, without exception, is sometimes crazy.
I suppose I could get away with it if I described the behaviour as crazy, and not the person. But that's just a cop out. That reminds me of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" which is bollocks. If your behaviour is crazy, then you are crazy to behave that way, otherwise, why are you doing it?
I am told that calling somebody crazy is dismissive of their emotional needs. OK, let's look at that. Let's consider what this means.
If I was to come to your house and dig up all your flowers, because I said the sight of them upset me, would you be sympathetic to my emotional needs? I don't think so.
You see, we ALL have emotional needs. We all need to be happy, to feel safe, to feel useful in some way, and ideally to feel loved. Nobody has more right to any of these than anyone else. So, you cannot justify upsetting somebody, by claiming you did it because you were upset. Maybe read that a few times.
I like peace and harmony. But I am aware that it is not possible all the time. I dislike drama. But there has to be some, occasionally, just to get things done. It's all about how much drama, and how often it occurs, that decides whether it's acceptable or not, and your definition of too much may allow for far more. As that's your life and not mine, it's none of my business.
Here's another little "meme" that does the rounds regularly:
I don't like this. I find this quite disturbing, actually. I find it particularly disturbing because some of the people I have seen post it, are crazy. The sort of mothers who harm their kids by their behaviour, actually. People who leave me speechless sometimes with how they can't seem to see the cause and effect between their crazy parenting and their kids' reactions to it. Kids who are messed up, actually. By this shit.
It's none of my business if you freak out at your kids, until it impacts me, and then, yeah, funnily enough, I will offer my opinion. I'll tell you things, for example, like how much they remind me of you. How I'm not a bit surprised they behave badly, because it's learned behaviour. And I still won't let them off the hook, anymore than I let you off the hook for telling me you can't help it because your mother was crazy too.
Somewhere along the way these cycles have to be broken. Otherwise we'll all go fucking crazy.
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
Religious Extremism
If there's one thing I view as a major problem in our world, right up there in the top ten of the most dangerous things we have to face, it's religious extremism.
Any form of extremism is dangerous. When thinking gets "locked" with no wiggle room, no exceptions, no tolerance, and above all no compassion, it never goes well. Never.
When it's based in religion, i.e. justified by having a big scary God as its authority and cheerleader, it's at its most dangerous, because of the fear factor. If the authority is a human, no matter how much of a tyrant he is, there is always a chance of escape, of him being overthrown, of him simply not noticing dissidence. But a God? Not only does he know all, see all, but his punishments aren't restricted to torturing you to death. Oh no. He can even punish you you after you're dead. And keep going!
So, his thugs, aka "True Believers" often get themselves into positions of power.
Although....I'm never really sure, to be perfectly honest, whether these tyrants are ultra religious, or just using the faith of others to get to the top. It's impossible to tell. But it doesn't really make any difference to those suffering under their command.
What is clear is that regular people, who commit atrocities when they catch the extremist bug, have been influenced by something. One assumes it's belief, because it defies explanation otherwise. A suicide bomber has to be sincere, he just has to be.
If we are going to talk about religious extremism it's important to know what it is we're talking about. It's very important, right at the start to specify that it makes absolutely no difference which religion we are referring to. All religions have laws about basic ethics such as not killing one another. And any one of them seems to find a loophole in that when it suits them. There are no exceptions here. Great harm done to its own believers (randomly, or because they break rules), or non-believers (followers of other beliefs, or none at all) has been done by every religion, at some point.
This has led, quite understandably, to a complete rejection of religion by many. Others choose to simply convince themselves that their own is not guilty, or at least less guilty. While others acknowledge harm in the past, or "only by extremists", and concentrate on not being that way themselves.
Some are so disgusted by the oppression of religion, that they seek a new oppression, one that prevents religion, thereby denying believers the opportunity to practice their religion the way they want to. While I confess to not having a quick solution to it all myself, I fail to see how competing oppressions solve anything, and if you were to successfully do away with religion, other tyrannies would rise.
No, what we must do, as a species, is learn tolerance, somehow. We have to just keep chipping away at that. It isn't going to happen overnight.
So, what is religious extremism?
It is a madness. It begins with the belief that your chosen religion is the right one, and that the others are wrong, false, heresy, or whatever. It then requires that something is done about non-believers. They cannot be ignored. What is to be done with them? Well, there's a sort of sliding scale there.
Consider the different levels of religious attutude:
1. Believes all religions serve the same purpose, can't therefore choose one, follows none, and has simply a spiritual sensibility.
2. Believes all religions serve the same purpose, chooses one for himself, but dabbles in others.
3. Believes all religions serve the same purpose, chooses one for himself, and enjoys interfaith dialogue.
4. Believes his religion is the right one for him, is interested in others, and enjoys interfaith dialogue.
5. Believes his religion is the right one for him, and is respectful of other beliefs, but avoids them.
6. Believes his religion is The Right One, but keeps his opinions to himself.
7. Believes his religion is The Right One, and never shuts up about it.
8. Believes his religion is The Right One, and tries to convince everyone to join it.
9. Believes his religion is The Right One, and pushes hard to convert others, using any non-violent means possible.
10. Believes his religion is The Right One, and is willing to kill others to convert them.
Where is the danger line?
#5.
As soon as people stop talking to one another, the problems begin. Lack of communication causes two things, ignorance and distance. And by distance I don't mean miles. It could be somebody who lives next-door to you. If you don't get to know them - talk to the kids, invite them to your barbecue, compare petunias - regular neighbour stuff, then that distance can allow you to see them as different, as "not like me". You can read all the books you like and think you've covered the ignorance, but unless you recognize them as fellow travellers, it becomes easy not to care, not to see harm done to them, not to want to stand up to injustices against them. It makes them invisible.
And if you squirm at the idea of being neighbourly towards those who are different to you, I think you need to ask yourself why. Take a good hard look at your rationalizations here.
Because religious extremism at level #10 doesn't just arise suddenly. It is either sometimes you are taught from birth, or something that you lower yourself into, gradually. And it is optional.
We are always taught that the slippery slope is a fallacy, and it often is, but in this instance it can often be very real indeed. It is very, very easy to slip down this list, and the way to stop it is open communication. You don't have to agree. Sometimes you just can't. That's just how it is.
But you can always find commonalities. Basic human values. Concentrate on those.
Then of course, there's this:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Religious-Fundamentalism-A-Mental-Illness-That-Might-Be-Curable
Any form of extremism is dangerous. When thinking gets "locked" with no wiggle room, no exceptions, no tolerance, and above all no compassion, it never goes well. Never.
When it's based in religion, i.e. justified by having a big scary God as its authority and cheerleader, it's at its most dangerous, because of the fear factor. If the authority is a human, no matter how much of a tyrant he is, there is always a chance of escape, of him being overthrown, of him simply not noticing dissidence. But a God? Not only does he know all, see all, but his punishments aren't restricted to torturing you to death. Oh no. He can even punish you you after you're dead. And keep going!
So, his thugs, aka "True Believers" often get themselves into positions of power.
Although....I'm never really sure, to be perfectly honest, whether these tyrants are ultra religious, or just using the faith of others to get to the top. It's impossible to tell. But it doesn't really make any difference to those suffering under their command.
What is clear is that regular people, who commit atrocities when they catch the extremist bug, have been influenced by something. One assumes it's belief, because it defies explanation otherwise. A suicide bomber has to be sincere, he just has to be.
If we are going to talk about religious extremism it's important to know what it is we're talking about. It's very important, right at the start to specify that it makes absolutely no difference which religion we are referring to. All religions have laws about basic ethics such as not killing one another. And any one of them seems to find a loophole in that when it suits them. There are no exceptions here. Great harm done to its own believers (randomly, or because they break rules), or non-believers (followers of other beliefs, or none at all) has been done by every religion, at some point.
This has led, quite understandably, to a complete rejection of religion by many. Others choose to simply convince themselves that their own is not guilty, or at least less guilty. While others acknowledge harm in the past, or "only by extremists", and concentrate on not being that way themselves.
Some are so disgusted by the oppression of religion, that they seek a new oppression, one that prevents religion, thereby denying believers the opportunity to practice their religion the way they want to. While I confess to not having a quick solution to it all myself, I fail to see how competing oppressions solve anything, and if you were to successfully do away with religion, other tyrannies would rise.
No, what we must do, as a species, is learn tolerance, somehow. We have to just keep chipping away at that. It isn't going to happen overnight.
So, what is religious extremism?
It is a madness. It begins with the belief that your chosen religion is the right one, and that the others are wrong, false, heresy, or whatever. It then requires that something is done about non-believers. They cannot be ignored. What is to be done with them? Well, there's a sort of sliding scale there.
Consider the different levels of religious attutude:
1. Believes all religions serve the same purpose, can't therefore choose one, follows none, and has simply a spiritual sensibility.
2. Believes all religions serve the same purpose, chooses one for himself, but dabbles in others.
3. Believes all religions serve the same purpose, chooses one for himself, and enjoys interfaith dialogue.
4. Believes his religion is the right one for him, is interested in others, and enjoys interfaith dialogue.
5. Believes his religion is the right one for him, and is respectful of other beliefs, but avoids them.
6. Believes his religion is The Right One, but keeps his opinions to himself.
7. Believes his religion is The Right One, and never shuts up about it.
8. Believes his religion is The Right One, and tries to convince everyone to join it.
9. Believes his religion is The Right One, and pushes hard to convert others, using any non-violent means possible.
10. Believes his religion is The Right One, and is willing to kill others to convert them.
Where is the danger line?
#5.
As soon as people stop talking to one another, the problems begin. Lack of communication causes two things, ignorance and distance. And by distance I don't mean miles. It could be somebody who lives next-door to you. If you don't get to know them - talk to the kids, invite them to your barbecue, compare petunias - regular neighbour stuff, then that distance can allow you to see them as different, as "not like me". You can read all the books you like and think you've covered the ignorance, but unless you recognize them as fellow travellers, it becomes easy not to care, not to see harm done to them, not to want to stand up to injustices against them. It makes them invisible.
And if you squirm at the idea of being neighbourly towards those who are different to you, I think you need to ask yourself why. Take a good hard look at your rationalizations here.
Because religious extremism at level #10 doesn't just arise suddenly. It is either sometimes you are taught from birth, or something that you lower yourself into, gradually. And it is optional.
We are always taught that the slippery slope is a fallacy, and it often is, but in this instance it can often be very real indeed. It is very, very easy to slip down this list, and the way to stop it is open communication. You don't have to agree. Sometimes you just can't. That's just how it is.
But you can always find commonalities. Basic human values. Concentrate on those.
Then of course, there's this:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Religious-Fundamentalism-A-Mental-Illness-That-Might-Be-Curable
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
"Debating" Online
Why the quotation marks round the word debate? Simply because so few people who enter into them online follow rules of debate, assuming they even know what they are. A debate without rules is an argument.
It's going to happen, especially in certain areas, politics and religion especially. There are people who get all bent out of shape if somebody "starts being political". I've seen some very good comebacks to that, but the thing is, if you have a place online that is yours, be it a blog or a Facebook page, or whatever, you have the right to put whatever you like on it. Even if it is deliberately offensive. That's your place.
On the other hand, if you publish (because that's what it is) something provocative, then you are essentially inviting comment. If you don't want comments on what you publish, don't publish.
If you desire a respectful audience, then select who sees it. Choose your "friends" wisely.
So, having published to whomever, be it a tight little group, or whatever random people Google search engines bring to you, what can you expect?
The truth is: anything. Not only will your readers have a wide variety of opinions, they will have a wide variety of attitudes too, which is a different thing altogether. What we often forget, among those who read your thoughts will be:
1. Stupid people. It is possible to be able to read and write, even write correctly, and still be stupid. Stupid is not a simple lack of intellect or academic skills. No, no, no. There are stupid people out there with PhDs. Stupid is a deliberate attitude, it involves a closed mind. This unwillingness to learn often leads not only to them saying things that display their lack of knowledge, but to them not caring that they are talking out of their bottoms. Stupidity is a cycle, downwards.When stupid people respond, not only do they get facts wrong, they generally have a bad attitude too.
2. Crazy people. Not everyone who is crazy is diagnosed. Some forms of crazy are such that the person is able to lead a life within the broad range we call normal, get an education, hold down a job, have a bank account, pay bills, etc, which allows them to have internet access. But the crazy comes out very quickly in this perfect arrangement of anonymity online. It gives them an opportunity to share their delusions. Conspiracy theories are just the start of it.
3. Liars. I forget this one all too often. If you are an honest person it's very easy to overlook the fact that some people simply make stuff up. If I tell a lie there's a good reason for it ("No officer, I wasn't there....."). These folk tell lies just for something to do, I think. I'm not really sure. Anyway, whatever their motivation is, they spew complete rubbish all over the internet, on purpose.
4. Trolls. Sometimes known as "devil's advocates", in specific circumstances, but more broadly just as "shit-stirrers" these folk are not sharing their own opinions, they simply offer the most controversial comments they can think of, so they can watch the fight that follows. Like liars, they are presumably bored, and this is a form of entertainment for them.
5. Bigots. While these can also fit into any of the categories above, specifically these folk have an unmovable attitude that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. They, of course, are NEVER wrong. What is more, most bigots take this to the next step of spewing hate all over anyone who behaves or thinks differently to themselves. All racists, by definition, are bigots. Most religious extremists are bigots. The stubbornness of the bigoted mind is very powerful.
6. The Grossly Misinformed. These people can be forgiven if you wish, as they just don't know any better. They may be young. They may have lived inside a closed society, be very insular out of fear, or simply haven't had a good education. Generally these people are polite but can repeat themselves, believing they are right. As humans have feelings, despite everything, they can get very upset when told they are wrong. On the bright side, however, they can learn. This is often your best audience, if you are patient.
7. Ditherers. Really don't have a solid opinion, and will sometimes take sides in a debate, depending on who is winning. As their inconsistency becomes obvious, they tend to get ignored by everyone, but they can still be a nuisance by echoing comments they read elsewhere, and not knowing when to shut up. Most importantly, when corrected, they don't know how to back down and can become extremely difficult, especially if they feel "ganged up on".
8. Bullies. Completely lacking the ability to take part in a reasonable debate, instead they hurl ad hominems at those they disagree with. They may start an argument, but soon realize they are out of their depth, and so go completely off-topic, to detract from their nescience. Using attack as a form of defence, they insult people, accuse them (wrongly) of the crimes listed above, and will use brute force to end a discussion. They never actually win anything.
9. Cry babies. Self-proclaimed victims and emotional vampires. As soon as they start to lose an argument, these will whine about being treated unfairly, and often utter those most pathetic of words "You don't know me!" Frequently these people start arguments, but can't keep up, and rather than back out discreetly, seek to change the focus by getting all the attention.
10. Believers. Found mostly in religious arguments, but oddly enough, not exclusively. Can be very loud in their opinions, but have nothing to back them up with. If asked for citations they often use biased or very unreliable sources, and are easily taken in by #3, as they are so credulous. When their back is up against the wall they will use "Well, that's what I believe" as their get-out clause, which others must accept, or they turn into #9.
Any, or all of these people will comment on your deepest held opinions. They won't show you any respect, nor will they ever understand what they are doing wrong. For this reason, never take any of it personally, because it's not about you, or even about what you are saying, it's all about their egos, their twisted personalities, and their ignorance.
It's going to happen, especially in certain areas, politics and religion especially. There are people who get all bent out of shape if somebody "starts being political". I've seen some very good comebacks to that, but the thing is, if you have a place online that is yours, be it a blog or a Facebook page, or whatever, you have the right to put whatever you like on it. Even if it is deliberately offensive. That's your place.
On the other hand, if you publish (because that's what it is) something provocative, then you are essentially inviting comment. If you don't want comments on what you publish, don't publish.
If you desire a respectful audience, then select who sees it. Choose your "friends" wisely.
So, having published to whomever, be it a tight little group, or whatever random people Google search engines bring to you, what can you expect?
The truth is: anything. Not only will your readers have a wide variety of opinions, they will have a wide variety of attitudes too, which is a different thing altogether. What we often forget, among those who read your thoughts will be:
1. Stupid people. It is possible to be able to read and write, even write correctly, and still be stupid. Stupid is not a simple lack of intellect or academic skills. No, no, no. There are stupid people out there with PhDs. Stupid is a deliberate attitude, it involves a closed mind. This unwillingness to learn often leads not only to them saying things that display their lack of knowledge, but to them not caring that they are talking out of their bottoms. Stupidity is a cycle, downwards.When stupid people respond, not only do they get facts wrong, they generally have a bad attitude too.
2. Crazy people. Not everyone who is crazy is diagnosed. Some forms of crazy are such that the person is able to lead a life within the broad range we call normal, get an education, hold down a job, have a bank account, pay bills, etc, which allows them to have internet access. But the crazy comes out very quickly in this perfect arrangement of anonymity online. It gives them an opportunity to share their delusions. Conspiracy theories are just the start of it.
3. Liars. I forget this one all too often. If you are an honest person it's very easy to overlook the fact that some people simply make stuff up. If I tell a lie there's a good reason for it ("No officer, I wasn't there....."). These folk tell lies just for something to do, I think. I'm not really sure. Anyway, whatever their motivation is, they spew complete rubbish all over the internet, on purpose.
4. Trolls. Sometimes known as "devil's advocates", in specific circumstances, but more broadly just as "shit-stirrers" these folk are not sharing their own opinions, they simply offer the most controversial comments they can think of, so they can watch the fight that follows. Like liars, they are presumably bored, and this is a form of entertainment for them.
5. Bigots. While these can also fit into any of the categories above, specifically these folk have an unmovable attitude that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. They, of course, are NEVER wrong. What is more, most bigots take this to the next step of spewing hate all over anyone who behaves or thinks differently to themselves. All racists, by definition, are bigots. Most religious extremists are bigots. The stubbornness of the bigoted mind is very powerful.
6. The Grossly Misinformed. These people can be forgiven if you wish, as they just don't know any better. They may be young. They may have lived inside a closed society, be very insular out of fear, or simply haven't had a good education. Generally these people are polite but can repeat themselves, believing they are right. As humans have feelings, despite everything, they can get very upset when told they are wrong. On the bright side, however, they can learn. This is often your best audience, if you are patient.
7. Ditherers. Really don't have a solid opinion, and will sometimes take sides in a debate, depending on who is winning. As their inconsistency becomes obvious, they tend to get ignored by everyone, but they can still be a nuisance by echoing comments they read elsewhere, and not knowing when to shut up. Most importantly, when corrected, they don't know how to back down and can become extremely difficult, especially if they feel "ganged up on".
8. Bullies. Completely lacking the ability to take part in a reasonable debate, instead they hurl ad hominems at those they disagree with. They may start an argument, but soon realize they are out of their depth, and so go completely off-topic, to detract from their nescience. Using attack as a form of defence, they insult people, accuse them (wrongly) of the crimes listed above, and will use brute force to end a discussion. They never actually win anything.
9. Cry babies. Self-proclaimed victims and emotional vampires. As soon as they start to lose an argument, these will whine about being treated unfairly, and often utter those most pathetic of words "You don't know me!" Frequently these people start arguments, but can't keep up, and rather than back out discreetly, seek to change the focus by getting all the attention.
10. Believers. Found mostly in religious arguments, but oddly enough, not exclusively. Can be very loud in their opinions, but have nothing to back them up with. If asked for citations they often use biased or very unreliable sources, and are easily taken in by #3, as they are so credulous. When their back is up against the wall they will use "Well, that's what I believe" as their get-out clause, which others must accept, or they turn into #9.
Any, or all of these people will comment on your deepest held opinions. They won't show you any respect, nor will they ever understand what they are doing wrong. For this reason, never take any of it personally, because it's not about you, or even about what you are saying, it's all about their egos, their twisted personalities, and their ignorance.
Monday, 3 June 2013
You've Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two, Boys - Part 5 - The Desire To Acquire
Last week I spoke out against poverty, and the idea (among the rich) that it's the fault of the poor that they are poor. I wanted to get that point across first, because it's not true.
Usually.
However, you know, and I know, that sometimes it is true. There are people who couldn't manage their money no matter how much they had coming in. They'd still be broke, because they would spend it all. Most importantly, they'd spend it on things they really don't need, and not even want particularly badly. Things they lose interest in quickly. A sort of hoarding.
Experts noticed long ago that people spend money to make themselves feel better. You even hear people openly admit they do this, they talk about "retail therapy". They are spending because they are bored, or miserable. There's no real harm in it if it's an occasional thing, obviously, but if it bankrupts a family, then it's no different to a gambling addiction.
I have had times in my life where things were a bit easier, and I was able to spend money more freely, and it is certainly far more enjoyable than being restricted. Having more money than you need is FUN, and you are a liar if you say otherwise. Even if you spend it on other people, or give it away to charity, there is pleasure in that.
There is no pleasure in being short of money. Of having insufficient income to cover your needs. That is why we rail against poverty, so why do it to yourself? Makes no sense. Clearly some sort of short-term pleasure clogs the thinking processes, so that an otherwise intelligent person suddenly forgets there are bills to pay later in the month.
We're not talking about sudden unexpected expenses here. We're talking about people who know full well that their disposable income is actually $20, but spend $200. They spend it on luxury items, not basic necessities, and then, when the rent is due, they go EEK!
So, the question is why?
Well, apart from the psychological aspect described above, some think it's a twisted natural instinct. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. Somewhere deep in our DNA, from the habit of millennia, there is a desire to gather. Shopping is the modern version of it. This theory makes quite a bit of sense.
Then there's the idea of keeping up with others. Everyone around you has certain things, and you feel left out by not having them. There is pressure to be seen as "normal", and "normal" people have these things. That is a pretty strong motivation. It even causes people to get into debt, or to steal, so as to have what others have. Regardless of how necessary it is. In some cultures there are rules of hospitality that are expected, and to break those rules is a big deal, but hospitality can be expensive. Gifts can be "expected". So some of this overspending is caused by outside demands.
I also see something I call the "Magpie Eye". It could be any corvid. These birds (crows, ravens, rooks, jackdaws, magpies, jays, and more) are known to find pretty things appealing, and to want to take them home. So there are stories of them picking up jewellery and it being found in their nests. They have no use for it, they are not mistaking it for food, it is simply that they are attracted to colourful, shiny things, and the desire to keep it causes them to become "robber" birds. Humans, of all species, have this trait, and believe me, as person who sells jewellery for a living, I'm glad of it.
I've had a few customers over the years that I know were buying far too much, it was for their own collection too. As a seller it's not for me to say anything, and I'd be a damn fool to turn away business, but I direct my love of colourful, shiny things INTO my business. I don't need a huge collection myself, working with it satisfies all my needs there.
Then there's simple wastefulness, buying things for quickness, or out of laziness, or bad planning.
So there are many aspects to this, and we've all done it from time to time. That doesn't make it right. There are no excuses here. Still, it's the overspender who suffers, not the rest of us (unless we're called upon to bail them out).
Should the rest of us even care? It all helps the economy after all. These are the consumers that advertisers want. People who can be manipulated into buying stuff they don't need. Easy targets. Bleed 'em dry.
And those of us who are bit more careful, are we just being judgemental about how others run their lives? None of our business really. Not our money, not our problem.
It becomes our problem when we have to listen to it. How many times have you had to bite your tongue, when somebody pours out their heart about their financial woes, when you know they've been spending money on things they don't need? If you do say anything, they twist it to make you the bad person, so it's not even worth bothering. They will be quick to call you judgemental if you list the purchases you know about. In fact social etiquette requires that we keep our thoughts to ourselves and show sympathy. It's all back to front, but that's how it is.
So why does it bother me so much? Is it because there is REAL need out there, real hardship, that wasn't caused by foolishness, but by bad luck, by the acts of others, by genuine lack, by injustice, by cruelty, and by the rich and powerful. Money gets wasted while people go hungry. Society as a whole ends up being "short" due to the actions of some.
It makes no difference, in fact, whether you can afford it or not, if you waste resources. It doesn't matter that it's your money. It doesn't matter if you are apparently the only one who suffers, it's still waste. I hate waste. If you do away with waste, you do away with poverty. There IS enough to go around. Is that why I get so frustrated by what I see as wasteful spending?
Or am I just frustated that I can't speak my mind? That we have created a society where wastefulness is applauded. Where nobody thinks anymore. Where justification for one's actions has become more important than admitting one's faults. Possibly all of this.
Maybe I just don't understand it.
Usually.
However, you know, and I know, that sometimes it is true. There are people who couldn't manage their money no matter how much they had coming in. They'd still be broke, because they would spend it all. Most importantly, they'd spend it on things they really don't need, and not even want particularly badly. Things they lose interest in quickly. A sort of hoarding.
Experts noticed long ago that people spend money to make themselves feel better. You even hear people openly admit they do this, they talk about "retail therapy". They are spending because they are bored, or miserable. There's no real harm in it if it's an occasional thing, obviously, but if it bankrupts a family, then it's no different to a gambling addiction.
I have had times in my life where things were a bit easier, and I was able to spend money more freely, and it is certainly far more enjoyable than being restricted. Having more money than you need is FUN, and you are a liar if you say otherwise. Even if you spend it on other people, or give it away to charity, there is pleasure in that.
There is no pleasure in being short of money. Of having insufficient income to cover your needs. That is why we rail against poverty, so why do it to yourself? Makes no sense. Clearly some sort of short-term pleasure clogs the thinking processes, so that an otherwise intelligent person suddenly forgets there are bills to pay later in the month.
We're not talking about sudden unexpected expenses here. We're talking about people who know full well that their disposable income is actually $20, but spend $200. They spend it on luxury items, not basic necessities, and then, when the rent is due, they go EEK!
So, the question is why?
Well, apart from the psychological aspect described above, some think it's a twisted natural instinct. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. Somewhere deep in our DNA, from the habit of millennia, there is a desire to gather. Shopping is the modern version of it. This theory makes quite a bit of sense.
Then there's the idea of keeping up with others. Everyone around you has certain things, and you feel left out by not having them. There is pressure to be seen as "normal", and "normal" people have these things. That is a pretty strong motivation. It even causes people to get into debt, or to steal, so as to have what others have. Regardless of how necessary it is. In some cultures there are rules of hospitality that are expected, and to break those rules is a big deal, but hospitality can be expensive. Gifts can be "expected". So some of this overspending is caused by outside demands.
I also see something I call the "Magpie Eye". It could be any corvid. These birds (crows, ravens, rooks, jackdaws, magpies, jays, and more) are known to find pretty things appealing, and to want to take them home. So there are stories of them picking up jewellery and it being found in their nests. They have no use for it, they are not mistaking it for food, it is simply that they are attracted to colourful, shiny things, and the desire to keep it causes them to become "robber" birds. Humans, of all species, have this trait, and believe me, as person who sells jewellery for a living, I'm glad of it.
I've had a few customers over the years that I know were buying far too much, it was for their own collection too. As a seller it's not for me to say anything, and I'd be a damn fool to turn away business, but I direct my love of colourful, shiny things INTO my business. I don't need a huge collection myself, working with it satisfies all my needs there.
Then there's simple wastefulness, buying things for quickness, or out of laziness, or bad planning.
So there are many aspects to this, and we've all done it from time to time. That doesn't make it right. There are no excuses here. Still, it's the overspender who suffers, not the rest of us (unless we're called upon to bail them out).
Should the rest of us even care? It all helps the economy after all. These are the consumers that advertisers want. People who can be manipulated into buying stuff they don't need. Easy targets. Bleed 'em dry.
And those of us who are bit more careful, are we just being judgemental about how others run their lives? None of our business really. Not our money, not our problem.
It becomes our problem when we have to listen to it. How many times have you had to bite your tongue, when somebody pours out their heart about their financial woes, when you know they've been spending money on things they don't need? If you do say anything, they twist it to make you the bad person, so it's not even worth bothering. They will be quick to call you judgemental if you list the purchases you know about. In fact social etiquette requires that we keep our thoughts to ourselves and show sympathy. It's all back to front, but that's how it is.
So why does it bother me so much? Is it because there is REAL need out there, real hardship, that wasn't caused by foolishness, but by bad luck, by the acts of others, by genuine lack, by injustice, by cruelty, and by the rich and powerful. Money gets wasted while people go hungry. Society as a whole ends up being "short" due to the actions of some.
It makes no difference, in fact, whether you can afford it or not, if you waste resources. It doesn't matter that it's your money. It doesn't matter if you are apparently the only one who suffers, it's still waste. I hate waste. If you do away with waste, you do away with poverty. There IS enough to go around. Is that why I get so frustrated by what I see as wasteful spending?
Or am I just frustated that I can't speak my mind? That we have created a society where wastefulness is applauded. Where nobody thinks anymore. Where justification for one's actions has become more important than admitting one's faults. Possibly all of this.
Maybe I just don't understand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)