Today I would like to write a friendly critique of one of my other classmate's blog posts.
In this blog post, my classmate contends that they believe the phrase "if you're not for it, you're against it" should apply to government. My classmate is essentially saying that someone should either support 100% of the governments rules and regulations, or be against 100% of them. I understand my classmate to mean that they believe any set of beliefs that does not fit either of these strict absolutes is in some way illogical.
If my understanding of my classmate's blog is correct, then I must say that I firmly disagree. After all, isn't the very structure of democracy built around the assumption that there will be disagreement on issues? A government in concordance to the ideology put forth by my classmate could only exist as an authoritarian government. Rules and regulations would be decided by the ruling class with complete obedience expected from all subordinates. The population of society without decision making power would never be allowed to have an opinion, and dissidents would be swiftly crushed.
Of course this kind of government I have described is not merely a hypothetical. Two prominent examples that come to mind are Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. Few would argue that either of these governments were just, and yet all of their actions were legal by their own standards. Of course that kind of moral putrefaction happens often in authoritarian governments, often enough to ponder if corruption of justice is simply inevitable when power is concentrated in the hands of so few.
Yet even with democracy here the United States there have been many laws that were later found to be unjust. Slavery for example was once perfectly legal, as was segregation after it. Yet under a system of absolutes, we would have to say that anyone who opposed and broke laws during this time period must fit into the "against" government category. One such individual who fits into this category is Harriet Tubman, as attempting to free slaves was once highly illegal. According to my classmate, people such as Harriet must comply with one of two options in order to be logical. They must either forfeit all government benefits--declaring themselves against government--, or support slavery/segregation, declaring themselves for government. Under the view of dividing all opinions into two absolutes, these would be the only two options. Harriet Tubman fits into nether of these categories, and she should not be expected to either.
Essentially it seems to me that my classmate's view does not account for laws that are unjust. As I believe that unjust laws will always have the potential to exist, I do not think absolute obedience to all laws should ever be seen as the only logical option for those who wish to support the government.
Vocab--
putrefaction: moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles
Concordance: agreement of opinions
Friday, December 4, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Like a blog
Todays blog will be a brief diatribe on several different subjects
The first subject I would like to discuss is anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder, but to some people it is actually a fairly appealing concept. The idea of not having a government constantly badgering you about things, or having to obey any rules at all is a desirable concept to many. Could Anarchy ever work though? I do not believe so. After all anarchy is not just some theoretical idea that has never been tested, anarchy has actually happened thousands of times throughout history. The reality is that no place where anarchy occurs ever stays anarchic. Eventually a few factions will become stronger then the others and they will fight until one of them emerges as the dominant faction. In addition, all societies have a desire to govern their members. From this desire emerges government. So it is no surprise really that in every instance where anarchy has occurred it was only a matter of time before a new government was set up. Considering all of this, I believe anarchy to be perhaps an impossible concept to really sustain. Why some people still cling to the idea of it as some salvation from the present structure of government I'm not really sure.
The second issue I'd like to blog about today is cowardice. We may like to think of our society as in general being full of very brave people who are willing to risk harm to themselves for altruistic ends-- essentially good Samaritans--but I am not so sure that is really the case. Perhaps in general the society of the USA is filled with more altruistic people then selfish ones, I can really only speculate since I have not traveled the country extensively. I do know however there are many places I have seen where the cowardly seem to out number the brave. I should take a second and explain what I mean by cowardly. A coward would be someone who while they may be capable of helping someone in need, they choose not to. I have pondered why someone would act in such a manner and I have concluded that the reason may be related to four different factors.
The first factor is confidence, an individual is capable of helping in one sense but may view themselves to be incapable. For example lets say you come upon a women being beaten. If your walking by you may notice that the attacker is no larger then you are, indeed they may even be smaller in psychical size. However let us suppose that you have never been in a fight in your entire life. Are you really going to feel very confidant stepping in to protect that individual against someone who might know a little more about conflict then you, and could easily hurt you? Some people would still try and help the lady, but others would keep on walking by, fearful of getting caught up in anything. They would rationalize the decision as being a correct one because if they were the only ones around, they could easily draw harm upon themselves. At this point in my hypothetical I should also note that while it's true you can call the police if you have a phone, that won't always solve the issue. Would you stand around and do nothing while you waited for a police car to make the five minute, ten minute, or who knows how long drive to you? Sometimes there simply isn't time to wait for someone else to drive down and solve the problem.
Which leads me to the second factor. I believe that unfortunately, we as a society like to train people that taking any kind of action themselves to solve certain problems is wrong. It is preached often that "taking the law into your own hands" is something to be avoided at all costs. If you have a problem, call the police. Hide away in some corner if necessary, barricade yourself. Run, get away, or hide while you wait for someone else to show up and solve your problem. Fighting is bad, and by effect, the message implies that defending yourself is bad. Whether this is a necessary evil or not is not what I'm discussing, but rather the overall effect on society. I think that if you train people to wait for others to solve certain kinds of problems, that training is going to stick with them. Instead of helping that person who needs help, they will call someone else and be done with it. Regardless of whether there's a possibility that by the time the police show up it could be to late for the person in need of help, people will be to scared to endure harm to themselves as well as break one of societies sacred rules of letting other people solve their problems for them. After all, the law does not take kindly to anyone who disobeys this rule even accidentally.
This was not always the case with the law, 50 years ago judges were given much more leniency on how to sentence a defendant based on the individual characteristics of their case. In order to combat organized crime however, sentencing guidelines were drastically reformed with stiff minimum sentences imposed for every crime.
A third factor could be decline of social stigmatization. Social consequences are often a powerful motivator, but as the number of people who can relate to inaction in times of crisis grows, the practice of socially shaming those individuals who choose to do nothing at all weakens.
The fourth factor of course is simple indifference. Some people just don't see it as being any of their business what is happening to someone else, or they just don't care. Still other more sociopathic people even seem to think suffering of random strangers is funny.
In summary I believe that the fear of the situation as well as fear of potential legal consequences are the two main reasons why otherwise good people may choose not to help their neighbors.
Vocab-
Sociopathic : of or relating to a sociopathic personality
Salvation: a means of preserving from harm or unpleasantness
The first subject I would like to discuss is anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder, but to some people it is actually a fairly appealing concept. The idea of not having a government constantly badgering you about things, or having to obey any rules at all is a desirable concept to many. Could Anarchy ever work though? I do not believe so. After all anarchy is not just some theoretical idea that has never been tested, anarchy has actually happened thousands of times throughout history. The reality is that no place where anarchy occurs ever stays anarchic. Eventually a few factions will become stronger then the others and they will fight until one of them emerges as the dominant faction. In addition, all societies have a desire to govern their members. From this desire emerges government. So it is no surprise really that in every instance where anarchy has occurred it was only a matter of time before a new government was set up. Considering all of this, I believe anarchy to be perhaps an impossible concept to really sustain. Why some people still cling to the idea of it as some salvation from the present structure of government I'm not really sure.
The second issue I'd like to blog about today is cowardice. We may like to think of our society as in general being full of very brave people who are willing to risk harm to themselves for altruistic ends-- essentially good Samaritans--but I am not so sure that is really the case. Perhaps in general the society of the USA is filled with more altruistic people then selfish ones, I can really only speculate since I have not traveled the country extensively. I do know however there are many places I have seen where the cowardly seem to out number the brave. I should take a second and explain what I mean by cowardly. A coward would be someone who while they may be capable of helping someone in need, they choose not to. I have pondered why someone would act in such a manner and I have concluded that the reason may be related to four different factors.
The first factor is confidence, an individual is capable of helping in one sense but may view themselves to be incapable. For example lets say you come upon a women being beaten. If your walking by you may notice that the attacker is no larger then you are, indeed they may even be smaller in psychical size. However let us suppose that you have never been in a fight in your entire life. Are you really going to feel very confidant stepping in to protect that individual against someone who might know a little more about conflict then you, and could easily hurt you? Some people would still try and help the lady, but others would keep on walking by, fearful of getting caught up in anything. They would rationalize the decision as being a correct one because if they were the only ones around, they could easily draw harm upon themselves. At this point in my hypothetical I should also note that while it's true you can call the police if you have a phone, that won't always solve the issue. Would you stand around and do nothing while you waited for a police car to make the five minute, ten minute, or who knows how long drive to you? Sometimes there simply isn't time to wait for someone else to drive down and solve the problem.
Which leads me to the second factor. I believe that unfortunately, we as a society like to train people that taking any kind of action themselves to solve certain problems is wrong. It is preached often that "taking the law into your own hands" is something to be avoided at all costs. If you have a problem, call the police. Hide away in some corner if necessary, barricade yourself. Run, get away, or hide while you wait for someone else to show up and solve your problem. Fighting is bad, and by effect, the message implies that defending yourself is bad. Whether this is a necessary evil or not is not what I'm discussing, but rather the overall effect on society. I think that if you train people to wait for others to solve certain kinds of problems, that training is going to stick with them. Instead of helping that person who needs help, they will call someone else and be done with it. Regardless of whether there's a possibility that by the time the police show up it could be to late for the person in need of help, people will be to scared to endure harm to themselves as well as break one of societies sacred rules of letting other people solve their problems for them. After all, the law does not take kindly to anyone who disobeys this rule even accidentally.
This was not always the case with the law, 50 years ago judges were given much more leniency on how to sentence a defendant based on the individual characteristics of their case. In order to combat organized crime however, sentencing guidelines were drastically reformed with stiff minimum sentences imposed for every crime.
A third factor could be decline of social stigmatization. Social consequences are often a powerful motivator, but as the number of people who can relate to inaction in times of crisis grows, the practice of socially shaming those individuals who choose to do nothing at all weakens.
The fourth factor of course is simple indifference. Some people just don't see it as being any of their business what is happening to someone else, or they just don't care. Still other more sociopathic people even seem to think suffering of random strangers is funny.
In summary I believe that the fear of the situation as well as fear of potential legal consequences are the two main reasons why otherwise good people may choose not to help their neighbors.
Vocab-
Sociopathic : of or relating to a sociopathic personality
Salvation: a means of preserving from harm or unpleasantness
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Television
It seems that I generally hate the entertainment media of today, most productions of today seem to emanate repetition and stupidity. Sure I will admit that I like a good action movie now and then, but the range of what I find "good" has drastically shrunk from when I first started watching movies. Most action movies are just tired old formula movies, it's hard not to fall asleep while watching them.
All the little cliche details of these movies bug me. Like how the hero is always lucky enough to dodge dozens, even hundreds of bullets throughout the entire movie. Regardless of if the henchmen have machine guns firing 10 rounds per second, you can count on them to miss every time. Same thing with those explosions, things are always blowing up yet the hero is lucky enough to never be near them or be hit by falling debris.
I also supremely hate the "college jackass" type movies. Not only are they unfunny, but they perpetuate stereotypes of both men and women. The "men" portrayed within these films- if you can even call them that -care little about anyone or anything besides themselves. The women are the same way except in addition to being superficial, mindless pleasure seekers, they are also sluts. Yes I know the "culture" of media is not created to be realistic, and in some way people shouldn't expect it to be. I know that the people who make these kinds of movies/shows/productions would literally produce anything if they thought it would make them a profit. Nonetheless, that fact doesn't make them any less juvenile and annoying. The stupidity, the stereotypes, the fear mongering,the low standards, the propaganda, and the blatant disregard for any kind of realism all coalesce to form one momentous conglomeration of anserine drivel. Probably why I don't watch much tv.
Vocab-
Emanate: proceed or issue forth, as from a source
Anserine: having or revealing stupidity
All the little cliche details of these movies bug me. Like how the hero is always lucky enough to dodge dozens, even hundreds of bullets throughout the entire movie. Regardless of if the henchmen have machine guns firing 10 rounds per second, you can count on them to miss every time. Same thing with those explosions, things are always blowing up yet the hero is lucky enough to never be near them or be hit by falling debris.
I also supremely hate the "college jackass" type movies. Not only are they unfunny, but they perpetuate stereotypes of both men and women. The "men" portrayed within these films- if you can even call them that -care little about anyone or anything besides themselves. The women are the same way except in addition to being superficial, mindless pleasure seekers, they are also sluts. Yes I know the "culture" of media is not created to be realistic, and in some way people shouldn't expect it to be. I know that the people who make these kinds of movies/shows/productions would literally produce anything if they thought it would make them a profit. Nonetheless, that fact doesn't make them any less juvenile and annoying. The stupidity, the stereotypes, the fear mongering,the low standards, the propaganda, and the blatant disregard for any kind of realism all coalesce to form one momentous conglomeration of anserine drivel. Probably why I don't watch much tv.
Vocab-
Emanate: proceed or issue forth, as from a source
Anserine: having or revealing stupidity
Friday, November 20, 2009
Followers and Leaders
A few years ago I was having a conversation with a friend about people. I was ruminating on the subject of why nobody ever seemed to take the initiative to change things, I suppose people seemed almost apathetic to me at the time. My friend had a simple response to me, and said something to the effect of: “well, we can’t all be leaders.” The concept behind this struck me as obvious and profound at the same time. I understood what my friend had said as meaning that a society where everyone was a leader would never function, every society needs followers.
Thinking on this subject further I have to say this mentality makes a lot of sense to me. After all, with a Darwinian perspective in mind, wouldn’t a society with many followers fare better then one with few? Having a small number of minds in charge of the decision making process instead of many allows for swift decisions. In the ancient world, I’m sure this was a considerable boon. Societies that were quick to collectively act would be more likely to out-compete ones who took long amounts of time for their decisions.
In this way perhaps people have become accustomed to following the will of their superiors for the collective good, and thus the state of democracy today is explained. After all if you’re a soldier and someone gives you an order then for the army to be efficient you had best follow that order instead of sitting around arguing about it. Since if every soldier questioned and argued about orders constantly, ones army would surely be destroyed by a more efficient army. So perhaps it could be said that group think is a kind of defense mechanism, just based on the natural way in which most of our societies function and have functioned. Leaders and followers, we need both to be successful.
Of course I won’t postulate that people can not switch between being a leader and being a follower. In fact I think that most all of us are leaders sometimes and followers other times. It is just the idea that some people tend to desire to be followers exclusively, with no will to lead anything whatsoever, which interests me.
Vocab:
Boon:Something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
Postulate: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
Thinking on this subject further I have to say this mentality makes a lot of sense to me. After all, with a Darwinian perspective in mind, wouldn’t a society with many followers fare better then one with few? Having a small number of minds in charge of the decision making process instead of many allows for swift decisions. In the ancient world, I’m sure this was a considerable boon. Societies that were quick to collectively act would be more likely to out-compete ones who took long amounts of time for their decisions.
In this way perhaps people have become accustomed to following the will of their superiors for the collective good, and thus the state of democracy today is explained. After all if you’re a soldier and someone gives you an order then for the army to be efficient you had best follow that order instead of sitting around arguing about it. Since if every soldier questioned and argued about orders constantly, ones army would surely be destroyed by a more efficient army. So perhaps it could be said that group think is a kind of defense mechanism, just based on the natural way in which most of our societies function and have functioned. Leaders and followers, we need both to be successful.
Of course I won’t postulate that people can not switch between being a leader and being a follower. In fact I think that most all of us are leaders sometimes and followers other times. It is just the idea that some people tend to desire to be followers exclusively, with no will to lead anything whatsoever, which interests me.
Vocab:
Boon:Something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
Postulate: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Blog 10
Democrat or republican. Is it just me, or does the country seem polarized right now? Too many people seem to have slipped into some kind of "us and them" mentality, it's kind of annoying. Personally I identify a little bit with democrats and a little bit with republicans. I was raised a democrat and both my parents are democrats, but I'm happy to say I've matured past the "us and them" mentality that still plagues many others in our society. I've learned to empathize with the other side. After all, republicans are not evil people. Some of the people who run that party may seem a little bit shifty, but most of the votes in republican party actually come from the "average" working class person. These kinds of people vote for the republican party because of they believe in things like family values and national security. Republican leaders promise these individuals that their issues will be taken care of, which is why those same leaders get their votes. I suppose the point I'm trying to make here is that most republican voters are just normal people trying to do what they believe is right. They don't deserve to be laughed at or dehumanized.
Unfortunately I suppose the lack of empathy for the other side is somewhat predictable. Just like ants, some people seem to slip into a kind of "follower mode" when dealing with anything they regard as "enemies". Their brains shut off, and they blindly follow whoever they have chosen as their leader. They don't see their job as thinking, their job is to attack the other sides position and tear it down.
Now I should stop right here and say that I consider myself more of a democrat than a republican. In fact I believe that many republican policies are essentially nonsense designed to help big corporations, but not the average person. Under George W Bush there even seemed to be corruption within the white house itself. Former lobbyists being appointed to key positions within organizations they used to fight again? Didn't seem right to me.
Just because I dislike this kind of thing however it isn't going to cause me to slip into group-think mode, but I can't say the same for all democrats. I think some democrats have become so hateful of the opposition that there's essentially no point in even trying to talk to them about considering opposing points of view. For example if I tried to explain to one of these people that I was a social democrat but that I believed in family values, I'd automatically get lumped into the "enemy" category and they would stop listening to what I had to say.
Of course I like to think that most of us democrats are not like that at all. But whenever I encounter such intolerant people I find them very exacerbating to be around. I suppose it doesn't help that categorizing and labeling are rampantly perpetuated by both liberals and conservatives alike, and when it's all said and done everyone has developed a set of stereotypes to go along with the words used by the opposition. Which is of course why we have to keep renaming things, so from now on I declare family values to be known as "personal-group liberties". Yes I support personal-group liberties, and I hope everyone else does too.
Vocab:
Perpetuated: Cause to continue or prevail; "perpetuate a myth"
Exacerbating: Exasperate or irritate
Unfortunately I suppose the lack of empathy for the other side is somewhat predictable. Just like ants, some people seem to slip into a kind of "follower mode" when dealing with anything they regard as "enemies". Their brains shut off, and they blindly follow whoever they have chosen as their leader. They don't see their job as thinking, their job is to attack the other sides position and tear it down.
Now I should stop right here and say that I consider myself more of a democrat than a republican. In fact I believe that many republican policies are essentially nonsense designed to help big corporations, but not the average person. Under George W Bush there even seemed to be corruption within the white house itself. Former lobbyists being appointed to key positions within organizations they used to fight again? Didn't seem right to me.
Just because I dislike this kind of thing however it isn't going to cause me to slip into group-think mode, but I can't say the same for all democrats. I think some democrats have become so hateful of the opposition that there's essentially no point in even trying to talk to them about considering opposing points of view. For example if I tried to explain to one of these people that I was a social democrat but that I believed in family values, I'd automatically get lumped into the "enemy" category and they would stop listening to what I had to say.
Of course I like to think that most of us democrats are not like that at all. But whenever I encounter such intolerant people I find them very exacerbating to be around. I suppose it doesn't help that categorizing and labeling are rampantly perpetuated by both liberals and conservatives alike, and when it's all said and done everyone has developed a set of stereotypes to go along with the words used by the opposition. Which is of course why we have to keep renaming things, so from now on I declare family values to be known as "personal-group liberties". Yes I support personal-group liberties, and I hope everyone else does too.
Vocab:
Perpetuated: Cause to continue or prevail; "perpetuate a myth"
Exacerbating: Exasperate or irritate
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Blog 9
The world is facing many problems today. Overpopulation, food shortages, species extinction, deforestation, etc. The list goes on. Makes me wonder about the future of our planet, as well as ourselves. As sadly, there is no real solution for many of these problems as of today. The world population is at 7 billion people, with nearly one billion classified as living in "chronic starvation". In the future things are simply predicted to get worse. As the global population increases, our food supplies dwindle. Food scarcity is already causing global prices of food to rise, the supply just cannot meet the demand anymore. We bought ourselves some time with the green revolution of the 1950s, but now it seems that that time is running out.
We have over-fished the oceans causing 90% of all large fish to be gone from them. We have polluted both the air and water, and it is estimated that due to the ensuing ocean acidification the ocean may eventually be uninhabitable by anything but microbes. So we can either use our sophisticated technology to rapidly exterminate all fish from the earth-- thus compounding our food shortage-- or we can poison them by turning their water into acid. At the same time as this can be happening, we can be confidant that the starving people across Asia and Africa will become ever more desperate as rainfall patterns change and dry areas become even more desiccated then they were before. To compound all of this, we are facing a massive die off of species.
According to Jean-Christophe Vié, Deputy Head of IUCN’s Species Programme this is a serious problem as well. “Think of fisheries without fishes, logging without trees, tourism without coral reefs or other wildlife, crops without pollinators,” says Vié. “Imagine the damage to our economies and societies if they were lost. All the plants and animals that make up Earth’s amazing wildlife have a specific role and contribute to essentials like food, medicine, oxygen, pure water, crop pollination, carbon storage and soil fertilization. Economies are utterly dependent on species diversity. We need them all, in large numbers. We quite literally cannot afford to lose them.
Well I guess all of this means that the world is going to need to make some changes in the following years, as we can't afford to think of this task as a simple doddle.
Vocab:
Desiccated: Dehydrated
Doddle: An easy task
We have over-fished the oceans causing 90% of all large fish to be gone from them. We have polluted both the air and water, and it is estimated that due to the ensuing ocean acidification the ocean may eventually be uninhabitable by anything but microbes. So we can either use our sophisticated technology to rapidly exterminate all fish from the earth-- thus compounding our food shortage-- or we can poison them by turning their water into acid. At the same time as this can be happening, we can be confidant that the starving people across Asia and Africa will become ever more desperate as rainfall patterns change and dry areas become even more desiccated then they were before. To compound all of this, we are facing a massive die off of species.
According to Jean-Christophe Vié, Deputy Head of IUCN’s Species Programme this is a serious problem as well. “Think of fisheries without fishes, logging without trees, tourism without coral reefs or other wildlife, crops without pollinators,” says Vié. “Imagine the damage to our economies and societies if they were lost. All the plants and animals that make up Earth’s amazing wildlife have a specific role and contribute to essentials like food, medicine, oxygen, pure water, crop pollination, carbon storage and soil fertilization. Economies are utterly dependent on species diversity. We need them all, in large numbers. We quite literally cannot afford to lose them.
Well I guess all of this means that the world is going to need to make some changes in the following years, as we can't afford to think of this task as a simple doddle.
Vocab:
Desiccated: Dehydrated
Doddle: An easy task
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Differences
Sometimes I wonder about the world today. I wonder how so many of our problems seems to come from our stereotyping of other peoples differences. Whether it's race, religion, wealth, culture, or simple ideology everywhere I look there seems to be judging and stereotyping going on. I'd say this kind of pigeonholing was the silent elephant in the room, but it actually seems more like a tyrannosaurus. Whether or not people openly shout slurs on the street doesn't really reflect how judgmental or bias a given place is. It simply reflects that most of them want to avoid the "bigot" or "jerk" label which might be put upon them by those outside their own group if their prejudices were out in the open.
And is it better this way, that everyone should simply shut up and pretend there is no issue? Some people seem to believe so. Instead of confronting the various stereotypes with facts and smashing them down, many in our society employ a "shutup everything is fine" kind of approach. The main idea seems to be that if we don't acknowledge stereotypes, then they magically disappear. Then we wonder why despite how "progressed" we become there is still fragmenting and infighting going on in our society. Or maybe I should not say "we", maybe I should just say "I". Since while most people seem to think of "progression" when it comes to stereotyping as being a racial thing, I am looking at the big picture. Racism is not the root of this way of thinking, it is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
The problem is that some people just seem to have a natural tendency to form themselves into some kind of caste system. They group up with others who they perceive as being "worthy" of hanging around them, then lump anyone who does not fit into that category of people as being inferior and having no value. Often this category of "worthy" people is defined in a way that based on purely superficial traits. Looking a certain way. Talking a certain way. Thinking a certain way. Why people have such a need to categorize themselves in this way is anyones guess. Maybe people have a need to look down on others so they feel superior. Maybe it's just a form of tribalism. Who really knows, but this is a problem I believe that must be addressed by our educational system.
I was in a class just earlier today when I noticed a few symptoms of this problem. I'm not really sure what it is about this class, but it seems to have attracted a more elitist audience then other classes I can remember. Yet I would describe my classmates from this class as having a certain kind of conventional intelligence. They seem confidant and are effective communicators, maybe even slightly charismatic. But at the same time they are arrogant.
During the class today we were watching a video, and as part of the video the voice of a black man was describing the effect of hurricane Katrina. He was speaking in a rather informal manner, just like he was talking to someone out on the street. Some of my classmates thought this was funny and they laughed openly at his manner of speaking. Yet, if they had actually given the man a chance before they laughed they would have seen that he was not a stupid man and he made a few good points. Sadly I can't say I was terribly surprised by my classmates behavior. People just seem unable to control themselves when they see or hear something that sounds "stupid", and they just laugh. Whether it's flagrantly laughing at a fellow classmate for asking what they thought was an idiotic question, laughing at someone for talking in a certain manner, or just for not having the right "look", the central problem seems to me that they are not being accepting of diversity. No not diversity of race. Diversity of thought. Just because someone is not thinking in the same manner as you or does not grasp one thing as quickly as you, it does not make them "wrong". It just makes them different. Neither better nor worse.
However many people don't seem to have learned this lesson quite yet. I think it is about time for our educational system to rise to the challenge. Instead of a "accept this other person or else" mentality we need to really focus on convincing other people that differences don't mean inferiority. Convincing them, as opposed to beating them with the stick of social shame should they fail to comply. Because while we can silence the voicing of prejudices in public with that approach, we cannot destroy them. And we must destroy them, because if you look around to see who is laughing in my class you do not see some strange, backwards, freaks of nature. You see ordinary people, who simply do not know any better.
Vocab:
Pigeonhole:a specific (often simplistic) category
Flagrant: conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible
And is it better this way, that everyone should simply shut up and pretend there is no issue? Some people seem to believe so. Instead of confronting the various stereotypes with facts and smashing them down, many in our society employ a "shutup everything is fine" kind of approach. The main idea seems to be that if we don't acknowledge stereotypes, then they magically disappear. Then we wonder why despite how "progressed" we become there is still fragmenting and infighting going on in our society. Or maybe I should not say "we", maybe I should just say "I". Since while most people seem to think of "progression" when it comes to stereotyping as being a racial thing, I am looking at the big picture. Racism is not the root of this way of thinking, it is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
The problem is that some people just seem to have a natural tendency to form themselves into some kind of caste system. They group up with others who they perceive as being "worthy" of hanging around them, then lump anyone who does not fit into that category of people as being inferior and having no value. Often this category of "worthy" people is defined in a way that based on purely superficial traits. Looking a certain way. Talking a certain way. Thinking a certain way. Why people have such a need to categorize themselves in this way is anyones guess. Maybe people have a need to look down on others so they feel superior. Maybe it's just a form of tribalism. Who really knows, but this is a problem I believe that must be addressed by our educational system.
I was in a class just earlier today when I noticed a few symptoms of this problem. I'm not really sure what it is about this class, but it seems to have attracted a more elitist audience then other classes I can remember. Yet I would describe my classmates from this class as having a certain kind of conventional intelligence. They seem confidant and are effective communicators, maybe even slightly charismatic. But at the same time they are arrogant.
During the class today we were watching a video, and as part of the video the voice of a black man was describing the effect of hurricane Katrina. He was speaking in a rather informal manner, just like he was talking to someone out on the street. Some of my classmates thought this was funny and they laughed openly at his manner of speaking. Yet, if they had actually given the man a chance before they laughed they would have seen that he was not a stupid man and he made a few good points. Sadly I can't say I was terribly surprised by my classmates behavior. People just seem unable to control themselves when they see or hear something that sounds "stupid", and they just laugh. Whether it's flagrantly laughing at a fellow classmate for asking what they thought was an idiotic question, laughing at someone for talking in a certain manner, or just for not having the right "look", the central problem seems to me that they are not being accepting of diversity. No not diversity of race. Diversity of thought. Just because someone is not thinking in the same manner as you or does not grasp one thing as quickly as you, it does not make them "wrong". It just makes them different. Neither better nor worse.
However many people don't seem to have learned this lesson quite yet. I think it is about time for our educational system to rise to the challenge. Instead of a "accept this other person or else" mentality we need to really focus on convincing other people that differences don't mean inferiority. Convincing them, as opposed to beating them with the stick of social shame should they fail to comply. Because while we can silence the voicing of prejudices in public with that approach, we cannot destroy them. And we must destroy them, because if you look around to see who is laughing in my class you do not see some strange, backwards, freaks of nature. You see ordinary people, who simply do not know any better.
Vocab:
Pigeonhole:a specific (often simplistic) category
Flagrant: conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Uninspired
I seemed to have a hard time finding a topic today. I attempted writing several blogs before this, but none of them have lived up to my standard of quality. They all ended up being saved as drafts. I also considered writing this blog about a philosophical topic to make it easy like I usually do, but given that I prefer to end my persuasive arguments only after I have supported them somewhat, a post like that could have easily ended up taking more time then I wanted to spend blogging today. So today I blogged about bees.
I was actually rather ignorant of bees until recently. In fact I would assume most
Vocab:
Diminutive: Very small.
Hirsute: Having or covered with hair.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Experts
I've noticed a disturbing tend in our society recently...it seems that we have almost deified the phrase "experts". Experts have gone from being normal people just like you or I who happened to be more knowledgeable in a certain area, to being these demi-god like beings who have no face or name, but whose word is law. It should come as no surprise really if you think about it. Where do people get most of their information? Why, the news of course. Does the news like to go into specific detail about which experts said what, the minute details of their experiment, or what others in their field have to say? Not always no. This can be important because minute details like how many participants were in the study or who funded it can help determine accuracy. It is not un heard of for organizations to attempt to set up their own studies in ways that skew their results one way or the other. But regardless, the media does not always cover the minute details. So the result is that we hear about what "experts" have said and what the "study says"--a study of course being one of the integral processes of the scientific method we prize so dearly, we give it considerable weight just because of that authoritativeness--but are not always informed as to who these experts are or any details of the study.
It's possible that overall this has caused us to be slightly more trusting of anything where an "expert" is said to be involved. If I start a sentence using a phrase such as "Experts have recently found" Or "recent studies suggest" I instantly become more credible. Even if I don't really elaborate at all as to who I'm talking about, go into detail about whether there is a consensus within the field regarding this information, or give any additional specifics at all. I believe that this is a fallacious way of looking at things, to be so overly accepting. Sure, maybe society groomed us to be trusting of these words and people, but that doesn't mean we have to stay that way. We as a society should demand more transparency before we take the word of others at face value.
Vocab:
Minute: characterized by painstaking care and detailed examination
Fallacious: based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information
It's possible that overall this has caused us to be slightly more trusting of anything where an "expert" is said to be involved. If I start a sentence using a phrase such as "Experts have recently found" Or "recent studies suggest" I instantly become more credible. Even if I don't really elaborate at all as to who I'm talking about, go into detail about whether there is a consensus within the field regarding this information, or give any additional specifics at all. I believe that this is a fallacious way of looking at things, to be so overly accepting. Sure, maybe society groomed us to be trusting of these words and people, but that doesn't mean we have to stay that way. We as a society should demand more transparency before we take the word of others at face value.
Vocab:
Minute: characterized by painstaking care and detailed examination
Fallacious: based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information
Sunday, September 27, 2009
I'm on a blog. I'm on a blog. Take a look at me because I'm on a
Today's subject is..absolute power
It seems that there is-- and perhaps has always been--an eternal quest among the powerful for more power then they already have. It's not enough that in the past 50 years we have made astounding gains in terms of technology in virtually every area, someone always wants a more superfluous influence then they already have. Now I do not believe that striving for success is wrong, or that one should simply forget the world once they have become successful. It's the people who are already obscenely wealthy and powerful yet never seem to be satisfied that bug me.
I have often ruminated about why would anyone behave in such a way. One possible explanation is that gaining power is just wired into some folks DNA in a somewhat Darwinian fashion. Gain more power, increase chances of success for you and your descendants. Or maybe it's not about you at all, maybe it's solely about your descendants. Make a mad dash for as much power as possible during your short life--we must remember for most of human history the average length of life was very low--, spending every waking second plotting how to gain more until the day of your death. It would certainly be no stranger an approach to life then some of the other organisms on this planet. Some creatures seem to spend their entire lives either eating or desperately trying to mate, then once they mate they die. It makes sense in some fashion when you consider how perilous life is for many of them and how low the survival rate often is for newborn wild animal.
So perhaps some people are behaving just like animals, ruthlessly pursuing as much influence as possible because of some primal instinct designed to maximize their success. However, what does all of this mean for the rest of us? What happens when so much of the power becomes concentrated in the hands of the few, does capitalism fall to pieces? Does democracy cease to be by the people for the people and instead meta-morphs into by rich for the rich? One also has to wonder what will our world look like once we finally figure out how to slow down the aging process even further, and people start routinely living for hundreds of years--which if I am not mistaken is the current optimistic estimate. Will certain individuals who don't have an "off switch" for their desire for more suddenly find themselves living virtually forever, able to be kept alive by technology? Maybe some of them will even become heads of state, able to hold their office for many generations, Fidel Castro style.
Perhaps our societies can only really function if there is a system of checks and balances..for every force pushing one way, there most be another force pushing in the opposite direction. The alternative--unchecked power--seems to me rather dangerous.
Vocab: Ruminated: to meditate on; ponder.
Superflous: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
It seems that there is-- and perhaps has always been--an eternal quest among the powerful for more power then they already have. It's not enough that in the past 50 years we have made astounding gains in terms of technology in virtually every area, someone always wants a more superfluous influence then they already have. Now I do not believe that striving for success is wrong, or that one should simply forget the world once they have become successful. It's the people who are already obscenely wealthy and powerful yet never seem to be satisfied that bug me.
I have often ruminated about why would anyone behave in such a way. One possible explanation is that gaining power is just wired into some folks DNA in a somewhat Darwinian fashion. Gain more power, increase chances of success for you and your descendants. Or maybe it's not about you at all, maybe it's solely about your descendants. Make a mad dash for as much power as possible during your short life--we must remember for most of human history the average length of life was very low--, spending every waking second plotting how to gain more until the day of your death. It would certainly be no stranger an approach to life then some of the other organisms on this planet. Some creatures seem to spend their entire lives either eating or desperately trying to mate, then once they mate they die. It makes sense in some fashion when you consider how perilous life is for many of them and how low the survival rate often is for newborn wild animal.
So perhaps some people are behaving just like animals, ruthlessly pursuing as much influence as possible because of some primal instinct designed to maximize their success. However, what does all of this mean for the rest of us? What happens when so much of the power becomes concentrated in the hands of the few, does capitalism fall to pieces? Does democracy cease to be by the people for the people and instead meta-morphs into by rich for the rich? One also has to wonder what will our world look like once we finally figure out how to slow down the aging process even further, and people start routinely living for hundreds of years--which if I am not mistaken is the current optimistic estimate. Will certain individuals who don't have an "off switch" for their desire for more suddenly find themselves living virtually forever, able to be kept alive by technology? Maybe some of them will even become heads of state, able to hold their office for many generations, Fidel Castro style.
Perhaps our societies can only really function if there is a system of checks and balances..for every force pushing one way, there most be another force pushing in the opposite direction. The alternative--unchecked power--seems to me rather dangerous.
Vocab: Ruminated: to meditate on; ponder.
Superflous: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Machiavelli and morality
The first I heard of Machiavelli was when I was a junior in high school. My government teacher described him as being someone who believed that cruelty was always justified as long as it got results. I believe the example he used was "Machiavelli thought that instead of having a loving relationship with your wife you should beat her to make her fear you, because fear is a more effective method of control then love". That is not an exact quote but it was something along those lines, the main point being that Machiavelli would approve of beating his wife to maintain control of her. Now I respect my old teacher who gave this example to try to make his students understand what Machiavelli was all about, but I thought and still do think it's a very crude and inaccurate interpretation of Machiavelli's work. I don't think this characterization is an isolated incident either, it reflects a larger more mainstream view of Machiavelli which I believe is flawed.
Indeed one only has to do a simple internet search to find Machiavelli’s infamous quote “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. "shortened down to "it is better to be feared then to be loved" To me this seems completely taken out of context. Within the very same passage Machiavelli more elaborately demonstrates his views on the subject of fear by saying "Nevertheless a Prince should inspire fear in such a fashion that if he does not win love he may escape hate. For a man may very well be feared and yet not hated, and this will be the case so long as he does not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens and subjects. And if constrained to put any to death, he should do so only when there is manifest cause or reasonable justification." Is this not the very thing that government, or any body that imposes a law does? Make any who would seek to break the law fearful of the consequences, but at the same time avoid the hatred of the people? So then it could be said that a society with any laws at all is Machiavellian.
Why then do people use terms like "Shocking" to refer to Machiavelli's delineations on princely life? I think comes back to the fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of Machiavelli by the mainstream culture. I admit that when I first heard of the generalizations of Machiavelli by my teacher and others, I came to think that Machiavelli must be a complete fool. What kind of idiot thought you could just abuse people constantly and it would work out? That way of thinking, using brutality to achieve ones ends is tried and tested throughout history and always fails in the end. So when I actually read some of Machiavelli's work I was surprised to see that my understanding of him was wrong. Machiavelli didn't advocate mindless destruction to achieve ones ends, nor did he make any mention of what anyone should do in their personal lives. Rather he laid out a thoughtful, logical perspective of how a prince should operate in order to be successful. He seemed to advocate not that force should predominate life nor that it should always be the primary method of conflict resolution, but simply that force in addition to prudence was required to be a successful prince. Essentially he seemed to be saying that being a prince requires brawn as well as brains, and that to survive in a world where your enemies could be mercilessly brutal to you it was sometimes necessary to be mercilessly brutal to them as well.
The concept that most people seem to get wrong is that just because Machiavelli promotes using unorthodox tactics sometimes, that doesn't necessarily mean he is an evil or mean spirited person. After all, every politician must make choices that are in the interest not only of himself but the national good. In making such choices sometimes there is no universally right answer, they are required to choose between bad and worse.
Then again, are those really accurate terms to define things? In our culture people tend to define things in black and white, something is either right or wrong. Good or bad, up or down. Perhaps the core issue is that this is a foolish way to look at the world. I tend to find that most things have elements of both good and bad blended together. It is no different when one has to make hard choices. One may find that each choice has an element of good and an element of bad, and that they must choose the one that leads to the greatest sustained good.
Vocab:
Prudence: The quality or fact of being prudent.
Delineation: Something made by delineating
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The internet and the future
I was struck by a rather interesting thought the other day as I was contemplating youtube. Given that you can save the videos that people put up there and just re-upload them using your own account if they are taken down, it seems to me that once you put a video on youtube there's a chance it will be around the internet literally forever. I don't think this concept applies only to youtube either; Myspace, Facebook, Blogs, and virtually any other kind of media can be saved by someone. With videos of course the video itself can simply be saved, and for websites like blogs all archived versions of a page tend to automatically be saved by google and other search engines. With dozens of engines attempting to emulate google's success and probably dozens more in the future, I wouldn't doubt cached pages are something that's here to stay. Which means that even if a web page on a site is deleted or changed it is and will continue to be possible to see what was there before. That means that in twenty, thirty, even fifty or one-hundred years from now we may still be able to read the web pages of today. Perhaps we will get so good at archiving the net that they will just stay there forever.
But of course, what kind of implications for the future will any of that have? Well I for one have to think of political campaigns. In an age where the slightest off script remark or gaffe can be turned into a million dollar slander campaign against you, just how will having all of this old internet material around affect current and future generations of politicians? Using youtube as an example, consider the following individual. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ATY9MP0Gs&feature=related) His original video was taken down, but it had over 1 million views and tens of thousands of comments. So I think it's safe to say that video is going to be around for a while. Knowing that, I have to wonder just whats going to happen to that kid if he ever wants to run for public office. Would his campaign even be able to get off the ground, or would it be stopped as soon as it started by the release of the video? I doubt his competitors would release it themselves or mention it publicly, but I can easily picture it mysteriously finding its way into the picture through attention given to it by third parties.
Of course the question must be asked, are average voters so immature that they would take something from twenty to thirty years ago and use it to make a judgement about someone? Would they allow such an old video to obfuscate the present? If they are egged on properly, then I believe yes. So then, has this individual just limited some of his options in life by making a childish mistake of his youth? It's certainly possible. All of us make infantile mistakes in one fashion or another when we our young, but until now we've had the good fortune of doing so in relative obscurity. Now however because of cell phones virtually anyone has access to a pocket camcorder. Are all of the kids growing up around that kind of scrutiny going to be hurt decades later just because they made a few simple mistakes of youth that get caught on film?
Maybe none of this would ever be an issue if people weren't so judgmental, but that is not the world we appear to live in. Not only are people quick to judge but they also tend to give more weight to things they can see first hand then to things they are told on the basis of trust. It also doesn't help that we live in a political landscape where shaping other peoples opinions is a million dollar industry. I have no doubt in my mind that if the above mentioned youtube video was given to the proper individuals and they were told to politically ruin the creator, that it could be done. Then again maybe the world will turn out differently then I am imagining. Maybe the general populace will become desensitized enough to propaganda and misinformation to be skeptical of it rather then overly trusting, and perhaps in the future we will all become less judgmental. I suppose only time will tell.
Vocab: Infantile:
But of course, what kind of implications for the future will any of that have? Well I for one have to think of political campaigns. In an age where the slightest off script remark or gaffe can be turned into a million dollar slander campaign against you, just how will having all of this old internet material around affect current and future generations of politicians? Using youtube as an example, consider the following individual. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ATY9MP0Gs&feature=related) His original video was taken down, but it had over 1 million views and tens of thousands of comments. So I think it's safe to say that video is going to be around for a while. Knowing that, I have to wonder just whats going to happen to that kid if he ever wants to run for public office. Would his campaign even be able to get off the ground, or would it be stopped as soon as it started by the release of the video? I doubt his competitors would release it themselves or mention it publicly, but I can easily picture it mysteriously finding its way into the picture through attention given to it by third parties.
Of course the question must be asked, are average voters so immature that they would take something from twenty to thirty years ago and use it to make a judgement about someone? Would they allow such an old video to obfuscate the present? If they are egged on properly, then I believe yes. So then, has this individual just limited some of his options in life by making a childish mistake of his youth? It's certainly possible. All of us make infantile mistakes in one fashion or another when we our young, but until now we've had the good fortune of doing so in relative obscurity. Now however because of cell phones virtually anyone has access to a pocket camcorder. Are all of the kids growing up around that kind of scrutiny going to be hurt decades later just because they made a few simple mistakes of youth that get caught on film?
Maybe none of this would ever be an issue if people weren't so judgmental, but that is not the world we appear to live in. Not only are people quick to judge but they also tend to give more weight to things they can see first hand then to things they are told on the basis of trust. It also doesn't help that we live in a political landscape where shaping other peoples opinions is a million dollar industry. I have no doubt in my mind that if the above mentioned youtube video was given to the proper individuals and they were told to politically ruin the creator, that it could be done. Then again maybe the world will turn out differently then I am imagining. Maybe the general populace will become desensitized enough to propaganda and misinformation to be skeptical of it rather then overly trusting, and perhaps in the future we will all become less judgmental. I suppose only time will tell.
Vocab: Infantile:
1. (2) childish, infantile
(indicating a lack of maturity; "childish tantrums"; "infantile behavior")
2. Obfuscate: make obscure or unclear
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Today's topic is.. Persistence.
In today's world perseverance is an important trait to have if one wants to have any quality of life. If we want something we must be prepared to fail several times before we finally get it. But not all of us seem to have this trait of persistence, why not? Perhaps the problem is that once we become accustomed to regular success in one area, we begin to want that feeling of regular success in all areas of our life. After all, success feels good and failure feels bad. When one has become habituated to the feelings of self worth and pride that success brings, it's nice to think that feelings of insecurity and failure are a thing of the past. But if we fall into this trap, new experiences may be avoided solely for the fear of failure. Becoming overly accustomed to success can also cause us to give up easily on new endeavors. Take playing the piano for example; it's a simple fact that most people who try to learn to play the piano don't stick with it long enough to really learn to play. Why don't they stick with it? Is it because they no longer think they will ever have any success at playing the piano? Have they realized that they are such horrible piano players they will never be able to play no matter how hard they try? I do not believe so, I believe that they "put their piano playing on hold" so to speak because they are tired of experiencing feelings of failure. They have become habituated to success in other areas of their lives, and they desire it with the piano at a faster rate then they are seeing it happen. But assuming this is the case, it seems to me a terrible way to perceive and live life. Failure is a part of life and in order to be successful we must overcome any fear of it.
Perhaps we can even learn something from the animal kingdom. The tiger for example, for all its strength and cunning, will fail on average 19 out of 20 hunting attempts. Each time the tiger wants a meal it has to be prepared to fail 19 times. I wonder where our species would be today if we all had the tiger's tenacity? Perhaps some of us still do possess the power of perseverance, but many others of us seem to have fallen into the trap of complacency. If we ever find that we are among the complacent ones, we must do our best to remember that fortune favors the persistent as well as the bold.
Vocab :
Habituated: to accustom (a person, the mind, etc.), as to a particular situation.
Complacency: a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.
In today's world perseverance is an important trait to have if one wants to have any quality of life. If we want something we must be prepared to fail several times before we finally get it. But not all of us seem to have this trait of persistence, why not? Perhaps the problem is that once we become accustomed to regular success in one area, we begin to want that feeling of regular success in all areas of our life. After all, success feels good and failure feels bad. When one has become habituated to the feelings of self worth and pride that success brings, it's nice to think that feelings of insecurity and failure are a thing of the past. But if we fall into this trap, new experiences may be avoided solely for the fear of failure. Becoming overly accustomed to success can also cause us to give up easily on new endeavors. Take playing the piano for example; it's a simple fact that most people who try to learn to play the piano don't stick with it long enough to really learn to play. Why don't they stick with it? Is it because they no longer think they will ever have any success at playing the piano? Have they realized that they are such horrible piano players they will never be able to play no matter how hard they try? I do not believe so, I believe that they "put their piano playing on hold" so to speak because they are tired of experiencing feelings of failure. They have become habituated to success in other areas of their lives, and they desire it with the piano at a faster rate then they are seeing it happen. But assuming this is the case, it seems to me a terrible way to perceive and live life. Failure is a part of life and in order to be successful we must overcome any fear of it.
Perhaps we can even learn something from the animal kingdom. The tiger for example, for all its strength and cunning, will fail on average 19 out of 20 hunting attempts. Each time the tiger wants a meal it has to be prepared to fail 19 times. I wonder where our species would be today if we all had the tiger's tenacity? Perhaps some of us still do possess the power of perseverance, but many others of us seem to have fallen into the trap of complacency. If we ever find that we are among the complacent ones, we must do our best to remember that fortune favors the persistent as well as the bold.
Vocab :
Habituated: to accustom (a person, the mind, etc.), as to a particular situation.
Complacency: a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Post 1
Today's topic is..Fashionable stupidity.
Why is stupidity sometimes fashionable to people? It is kind of sad really. Whether its the middle class kid who seeks to imitate the grammar and sentence structure of someone who never went to school, the net user who constantly finds humor in the dumbest and most inane "memes", or the guy who thinks that his manhood is measured by how many beers he can drink as well as how idiotic he can act afterward, all seem to be cases where someone has the capacity to act more intelligent but purposely choose not to. So why is stupidity fashionable?
My theory is that is has something to do with an image. All of these people are chasing an image of "toughness" and "coolness". While each of them may have slightly different images of what it means to be tough and cool, the values that each image represent are similiar. For whatever reason, the individuals that tend to end up as role models for people chasing these images are not mainstream people. Maybe its because having no boundaries is such an important value to many. Being able to "take care of things" yourself instead of getting the police involved or needing help from anybody but your friends with anything seems to be the way many people wish they could live, so they idolize those who seem to be able to live in that fashion. They discover these images based on what they see on television, which may or not be based upon reality. And those who are portrayed as living in such a fashion tend to have low regard for rules other then their own, which perhaps is a quality those idolizing them pick up. The end result? A powerful counter culture which were it not for various incentives (not the least of which economic incentive) could easily overrun and take the place of main stream culture. In conclusion, I believe that people flock to counter cultures to fix various deficiencies and fill voids that the main stream culture does not address or solve for them.
/endpost1
Why is stupidity sometimes fashionable to people? It is kind of sad really. Whether its the middle class kid who seeks to imitate the grammar and sentence structure of someone who never went to school, the net user who constantly finds humor in the dumbest and most inane "memes", or the guy who thinks that his manhood is measured by how many beers he can drink as well as how idiotic he can act afterward, all seem to be cases where someone has the capacity to act more intelligent but purposely choose not to. So why is stupidity fashionable?
My theory is that is has something to do with an image. All of these people are chasing an image of "toughness" and "coolness". While each of them may have slightly different images of what it means to be tough and cool, the values that each image represent are similiar. For whatever reason, the individuals that tend to end up as role models for people chasing these images are not mainstream people. Maybe its because having no boundaries is such an important value to many. Being able to "take care of things" yourself instead of getting the police involved or needing help from anybody but your friends with anything seems to be the way many people wish they could live, so they idolize those who seem to be able to live in that fashion. They discover these images based on what they see on television, which may or not be based upon reality. And those who are portrayed as living in such a fashion tend to have low regard for rules other then their own, which perhaps is a quality those idolizing them pick up. The end result? A powerful counter culture which were it not for various incentives (not the least of which economic incentive) could easily overrun and take the place of main stream culture. In conclusion, I believe that people flock to counter cultures to fix various deficiencies and fill voids that the main stream culture does not address or solve for them.
/endpost1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)