The Faux-ization of culture OR Construction by means of blunt trauma.
We live in a time of constant change. The IBM law states that every 4 years technology will double itself. Computing power will be twice as strong, graphics twice as realistic, and, I suppose, people half as competent with the new material. But separate from this change in technology comes a change in culture. Culture is not something that doubles or triples. It isn’t something that can be quantified and can rarely be accurately qualified. Its an ethereal something that both strangles and frees our society. America is a place of myriad subcultures.
I, for whatever reason, think too much. See, I see people and I see construction. The guy walking down the street with the saggy pants, large hoodie and the ‘gangsta’ face; the girl decked out in her American apparel, taking a drag on her cig before class; the ‘my new haircut’ guy; you know these people as well as I do. I see these things, the shells that people wear, as construction.
(Parenthetically, I do not consider myself exempt from this self construction.)
“But Dan” You might say, “Whatever do you mean by construction?” Simply answered is this: The conscious decisions we make to portray ourselves to the world. We understand the connotations behind certain ways of dressing, what they mean for our profile to the word. “Dan, but its part of who we are!” Correct, but it is only so based on what you want it to be.
Style originates somewhere. Each one has its origins. Oversized pants being ‘ghetto’ comes from hand-me-downs not fitting the younger brother. Tight clothes (in the jock polo sense) come, originally, from lifting a lot and then having the shirts that you currently own not fit anymore. However both of these instances have been, in their own sense (and not to say that they were platonically pure or ideal) bastardized. Guys buy their jeans too big or their polo’s too tight. A tightly bought polo now says ‘look here, I’m in shape.’ And a pair of baggy jeans says ‘I’m straight thuggin,’ as it were.
The most obvious example I can summon is the classic worn and torn jean. The image I got when the first started marketing these patched-up-pre-washed jeans was the idea of a guy on the road, wearing the one pair of jeans that he had and the one white tee shirt. Hitch hiking across the country to California for no better reason than because his restless soul called him that way. Through a series of stories, hilarious, tragic, dramatic and romantic, he earned these shredded jeans, a memento to a summer of youth and memories. But now as I sit here in my 70+ dollar express jeans with small torn up areas built in I can say that they were not earned through sneaking to that beautiful girls window, losing a shoe while running from her fathers dog or even from getting thrown to the ground in a epic brawl over her honor.
As mentioned before, each of these styles has its roots, however, the meaning of these roots gets lost in the imitation, the Faux-ization of a culture. It is something quite similar to watching a foreigner trying to act American, it is the very act of trying to be the thing that they are trying to be that sells them out.
Have you ever met someone who wanted you to believe they knew all about European culture and that they themselves were a paradigm of it? You spot them out right away. Maybe you play along with the charade for niceties sake but you leave with an awkward taste in your mouth and your ears sting with a ringing sensation from their badly accented pronunciations of espresso and cappuccino and latte. These, I posit, are the ultimate artifice architects. Building up images of self, rife with implications about personality, interests and ambitions. A one dimensional portrait of who they are. no matter how ‘deep’ that portrait might try to be, it cannot release itself from the bonds of being a flat image.
That brings me, circuitously, to my point: People tend to use these easy monikers of appearance as ways of stereotyping. However, they do not use them primarily to stereotype others. I see the primary function of these facades as a method of stereo typing themselves. However it is done in such a way that it is painfully obvious.
This is called “Construction by means of Blunt Trauma.” These individuals pound you over the head with the sledge-hammer of the translucent self-definitions. That hipster you know with the rolled up pant leg, the ironic mustache, the plaid ugly shirt. They are saying something, associating themselves with the culture that they wear.
I don’t think the problem is that we as humans do this. I see the problem being that we as humans deny that it is happening. People try to deflect accusations along these lines, that they are conforming to a culture to attain a certain image, instead insisting that it is part of who they are. I say that we must break free of that denial, and instead we have to insist upon consciously arranging our appearances to create the culture we choose. I own a variety of clothes, tees, oxfords, polos, jackets etc, so that I can present the needed face. Some see this as disingenuous, I see it as more real than the people who deny the conscious choices made when dressing.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Monday, November 17, 2008
Child Rearing
I'm 20 years old and hopefully won't be worrying about this issue for quite a few years. However when interacting with a number of my compatriots I have noticed a striking difference in certain outlooks and personality traits that i have to wonder about. What in a person's upbringing causes individuals to view certain things as they do?
My example is this: When i sit around in front of a t.v. or video game all day I feel unaccomplished and I have a sense of guilt about it. If I do not read, write or workout during the course of a day I feel as though I wasted that day. A good day for me incorporates all of those elements and then some more.
Recently I realized that many of my friends have no problem with all downtime spent watching t.v. or playing a video game. They see it as a viable option to pass the time with. They see no reason why that should not consume every unscheduled hour of their life.
I began to wonder, why do i view that as a poor way to spend time? Why am I compelled to read and write and to work out?
I feel it boils down to the way my dad in particular interacted with me. In his eyes there was always something more productive that could be done. Reading and sports and writing were things that should all be done before playing a game or watching t.v. I'd be sitting in the basement helping yoshi and baby mario work their way across the screen when my dad would call down 'Isn't there anything else you could be doing with your time right now?'
Things that were acceptable? playing sports, lifting weights, reading, writing, doing homework, playing chess or any board game, cards, etc etc.
So now i have this thing where i cannot allow myself to do too much veggeing, not that i do school work (as my grades will reflect) but i read and write and get to the gym and apparently i blog from time to time. I spend time reflecting and thinking. Someone who i used to be quite close with asked me why I'm always trying to change who I am. I was puzzled by this question but then I realized that they were talking about how I'm always doing something they see as unnecessary.
So let me pose this question. Is it important to do these things? or do they hold just as much value as video games and t.v.?
Does a book telling a story have more inherent value than a t.v. show? or a video game?
Your thoughts? Things?
My example is this: When i sit around in front of a t.v. or video game all day I feel unaccomplished and I have a sense of guilt about it. If I do not read, write or workout during the course of a day I feel as though I wasted that day. A good day for me incorporates all of those elements and then some more.
Recently I realized that many of my friends have no problem with all downtime spent watching t.v. or playing a video game. They see it as a viable option to pass the time with. They see no reason why that should not consume every unscheduled hour of their life.
I began to wonder, why do i view that as a poor way to spend time? Why am I compelled to read and write and to work out?
I feel it boils down to the way my dad in particular interacted with me. In his eyes there was always something more productive that could be done. Reading and sports and writing were things that should all be done before playing a game or watching t.v. I'd be sitting in the basement helping yoshi and baby mario work their way across the screen when my dad would call down 'Isn't there anything else you could be doing with your time right now?'
Things that were acceptable? playing sports, lifting weights, reading, writing, doing homework, playing chess or any board game, cards, etc etc.
So now i have this thing where i cannot allow myself to do too much veggeing, not that i do school work (as my grades will reflect) but i read and write and get to the gym and apparently i blog from time to time. I spend time reflecting and thinking. Someone who i used to be quite close with asked me why I'm always trying to change who I am. I was puzzled by this question but then I realized that they were talking about how I'm always doing something they see as unnecessary.
So let me pose this question. Is it important to do these things? or do they hold just as much value as video games and t.v.?
Does a book telling a story have more inherent value than a t.v. show? or a video game?
Your thoughts? Things?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A few Talking Points.
Barack Obama Is our President elect. I could not be more proud of our country for breaking the mold of the Invisible 'no African Americans allowed' sign not the White house. I have not been alive for too many elections (this Is the 5th I've been alive for and probably the second I've really been cognizant of) and yet I've never seen or heard about an objection to a president-elect as I have seen from so many republicans as of late. Throughout the campaign and even now In the hours and ostensibly days since the election of Barack Obama Republican America (or 'Real America according to some Alaskan Governors) the republican supporters have not only been derisive and upset about Barack's election, but have also been whole heartedly offensive.
While cruising facebook in the hours after the election I saw some really Interesting status updates. Things such as 'Great, now we have a baby killer for president' or 'way to fuck up America!' Classics that crop up in any election can be seen such as this one: 'I'm moving to Canada!' or the more exotic 'I'm moving to Italia!' However those are rare and more common are the ones that read more like those I listed above and also ones like this: 'Sorry founding fathers...It was good while It lasted' (perhaps the one that makes me most angry...more on that In a bit).
Facebook was not the only place that held jeering and jabs. During McCain’s concession speech his audience again showed their colors (or perhaps lack thereof) by jeering and booing Obama whenever McCain mentioned him. And despite McCain’s Insistence that they calm their mob mentality they seemed to have a knee jerk reaction to his name.
As evidenced above, It would appear to me that there are some very strong feelings about tonight’s election and rightfully so. It is great to see that so many people felt so strongly about politics. It is rumored the Philadelphia had a 90% voter turn out and that this may have been one of the largest elections in history. Congratulations America for truly representing the Ideals of Democracy!
However, those strong feelings must be tempered with the cooling waters of Intellect. Firstly, to my dear friend who wants to move to Canada when Barack is in office I say this: Canada has been and always will be more socialist than America
Secondly: Socialism is not a dirty word in reality. Most of Europe works on that system and they seem to be doing quite fine.
Thirdly: Barack Obama is not Muslim. One of my favorite Incongruence in Republican slander to Obama can be summed up in these two statements: Barack Obama Is a Muslim terrorist! And soon after: Barack Obama has attended Reverend Wright’s church most of his life! Man...That’s one odd Muslim!
Fourthly (and this Is a pretty good segue): To anyone who thinks like my friend above ('sorry founding fathers, It was good while It lasted') or anything along those lines. Perhaps this is to those who think some fundamental value within America has been betrayed: America was founded on the concepts of acceptance both racial and religious. Our founding fathers were In America because of religious persecution In England and other nations. So If Barack were Muslim; to a true American, one who believes In America and all It stands for, that would not matter In the slightest. Furthermore the fact that he Is black (something I really did not even consider until this evening because It was brought up so much by pundits) should mean even less, except for the relatively remarkable turn around since the civil rights movement.
Fifthly: The demographic that Obama picked up the most votes in compared to his colleagues before him? The educated white male... That Is Information that, if I were so bold, I could make some stunning and inflammatory assumptions and logic lines about. I'll leave that to your own Imagination.
Sixth: America is a democracy, democracy does not mean that one side is right and the other is wrong it means that there are different solutions to every problem and each candidate has their own say. McCain realizes this and that is why he so eloquently urged all of his supporters to back their new president.
Seventh: Backing your president Is Patriotic. Oh...that’s funny...because Barack Obama Is President-elect and I don't hear much support from 'Real America'
on a separate note; I find that this election is a truly pivotal moment in our history. Never before have had two candidates represented opposing Ideologies as these two have. Never before has the nation rallied together for change as It has and then been opposed by the status quo as It was. Both candidates are great men and great leaders. However it truly was time for Barack Obama.
Why? Because the legal definition of Insanity is repeating the same action expecting different results.
Why? Because foreign nations are not only supportive of him, they support him with landslide figures. The country with the lowest support from its studied population? Russia with 53% other nations reach as high as 90%.
Why? Because he is an excellent orator with a diamond for a mind and a fresh new face.
And now I would like to take a moment and Introduce my first 'thing' I have posted a number of thoughts but no 'things'
My first thing, I think, will be the next great American Speech. I'm putting my money on it and I think you'll hear people saying it within the next week or so.
He is smooth, he is confidant. He touches on all of the elements of good speech making (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) he alludes to other great works such as MLK JR's I Have a Dream and Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. He uses repetition, and other techniques.
All In all I am happy about tonight and really just hope that the Republican side of the equation realizes that this kind of change is what America Is all about. Btw if any KKK members even think about killing Obama...they should realize that in doing so they would send the entire nation on lock down. We would root them out and destroy them. Racism is not a part of America. It fits no where in our constitution and nowhere in our Ideologies.
Thoughts? Things?
While cruising facebook in the hours after the election I saw some really Interesting status updates. Things such as 'Great, now we have a baby killer for president' or 'way to fuck up America!' Classics that crop up in any election can be seen such as this one: 'I'm moving to Canada!' or the more exotic 'I'm moving to Italia!' However those are rare and more common are the ones that read more like those I listed above and also ones like this: 'Sorry founding fathers...It was good while It lasted' (perhaps the one that makes me most angry...more on that In a bit).
Facebook was not the only place that held jeering and jabs. During McCain’s concession speech his audience again showed their colors (or perhaps lack thereof) by jeering and booing Obama whenever McCain mentioned him. And despite McCain’s Insistence that they calm their mob mentality they seemed to have a knee jerk reaction to his name.
As evidenced above, It would appear to me that there are some very strong feelings about tonight’s election and rightfully so. It is great to see that so many people felt so strongly about politics. It is rumored the Philadelphia had a 90% voter turn out and that this may have been one of the largest elections in history. Congratulations America for truly representing the Ideals of Democracy!
However, those strong feelings must be tempered with the cooling waters of Intellect. Firstly, to my dear friend who wants to move to Canada when Barack is in office I say this: Canada has been and always will be more socialist than America
Secondly: Socialism is not a dirty word in reality. Most of Europe works on that system and they seem to be doing quite fine.
Thirdly: Barack Obama is not Muslim. One of my favorite Incongruence in Republican slander to Obama can be summed up in these two statements: Barack Obama Is a Muslim terrorist! And soon after: Barack Obama has attended Reverend Wright’s church most of his life! Man...That’s one odd Muslim!
Fourthly (and this Is a pretty good segue): To anyone who thinks like my friend above ('sorry founding fathers, It was good while It lasted') or anything along those lines. Perhaps this is to those who think some fundamental value within America has been betrayed: America was founded on the concepts of acceptance both racial and religious. Our founding fathers were In America because of religious persecution In England and other nations. So If Barack were Muslim; to a true American, one who believes In America and all It stands for, that would not matter In the slightest. Furthermore the fact that he Is black (something I really did not even consider until this evening because It was brought up so much by pundits) should mean even less, except for the relatively remarkable turn around since the civil rights movement.
Fifthly: The demographic that Obama picked up the most votes in compared to his colleagues before him? The educated white male... That Is Information that, if I were so bold, I could make some stunning and inflammatory assumptions and logic lines about. I'll leave that to your own Imagination.
Sixth: America is a democracy, democracy does not mean that one side is right and the other is wrong it means that there are different solutions to every problem and each candidate has their own say. McCain realizes this and that is why he so eloquently urged all of his supporters to back their new president.
Seventh: Backing your president Is Patriotic. Oh...that’s funny...because Barack Obama Is President-elect and I don't hear much support from 'Real America'
on a separate note; I find that this election is a truly pivotal moment in our history. Never before have had two candidates represented opposing Ideologies as these two have. Never before has the nation rallied together for change as It has and then been opposed by the status quo as It was. Both candidates are great men and great leaders. However it truly was time for Barack Obama.
Why? Because the legal definition of Insanity is repeating the same action expecting different results.
Why? Because foreign nations are not only supportive of him, they support him with landslide figures. The country with the lowest support from its studied population? Russia with 53% other nations reach as high as 90%.
Why? Because he is an excellent orator with a diamond for a mind and a fresh new face.
And now I would like to take a moment and Introduce my first 'thing' I have posted a number of thoughts but no 'things'
My first thing, I think, will be the next great American Speech. I'm putting my money on it and I think you'll hear people saying it within the next week or so.
He is smooth, he is confidant. He touches on all of the elements of good speech making (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) he alludes to other great works such as MLK JR's I Have a Dream and Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. He uses repetition, and other techniques.
All In all I am happy about tonight and really just hope that the Republican side of the equation realizes that this kind of change is what America Is all about. Btw if any KKK members even think about killing Obama...they should realize that in doing so they would send the entire nation on lock down. We would root them out and destroy them. Racism is not a part of America. It fits no where in our constitution and nowhere in our Ideologies.
Thoughts? Things?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
just a brief thought
Haven't updated this in a while so i figured i'd throw out an idea that just popped into my head for anyone who reads to ponder.
What would George Bush's administration look like now had 9/11 never happened?
How drastically different would this current election be?
I guess it just brings to light how entirely world changing 9/11 is/was.
I am a liberal, not afraid to state that but i do believe that, given no wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, George Bush would not be the infamous president he is today. I believe he would have faded into obscurity (aside from his scandalous elections) and been mediocre to fair. Thoughts? Things?
What would George Bush's administration look like now had 9/11 never happened?
How drastically different would this current election be?
I guess it just brings to light how entirely world changing 9/11 is/was.
I am a liberal, not afraid to state that but i do believe that, given no wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, George Bush would not be the infamous president he is today. I believe he would have faded into obscurity (aside from his scandalous elections) and been mediocre to fair. Thoughts? Things?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Who are you...Who am I?
Have you ever looked in the mirror and realized how nebulous you are?
Not that you, per say, are vague and large or in anyway similar to a nebula, but that perhaps you are not quite as consistent as you think you are.
For instance; I know I am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think of myself as a funny person who can really get out and have a good time at a party, entertain people and have everyone wrapped around my finger because I'm so hilarious.
I'd also know that I am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think of myself as a very serious, reliable, educated and thoughtful person who can debate, read, write and be taken very seriously when i talk because everyone respects my opinion.
However I also know i am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think that i am artistic with a poetic penchant and can be rather eccentric, avoiding social interaction to be alone and more fully understand my art and my mind.
I suppose all of these things are true, personalities are not one consistent, infallible fact about a certain individual, rather an incorporated conglomorate which ebbs and flows, one facet yeilding dominance to another as situations change.
However if you read my peice a few weeks ago you'll have read about the Symbolic interaction theory. In brief it works on the same premise as operant conditioning: That the reaction of society to our actions, eventually determines who we are. A bully is a bully because when he attempts to intimidate, people are intimidated. A class clown is a class clown because when he attempts to be funny, people laugh.
So someone can try to be a bully but if they are not intimidating they will not be effective. One can attempt humor but that doesnt mean they will be funny.
So, as I see it, simply because i believe certain things does not neccisarily make them true. I believe i am a physically tough person with whom you do NOT want to get into a fight with.
I don't know how true that is.
So my question becomes this: are we really what people see us to be? So are the only segments of my personality that are true the ones that other people confirm? In essence does it matter what i believe of myself? For if no one sees certain aspects of your personality does that mean it doesn't exist?
On the one hand Symbolic interactionism does make it seem as though that is the case. What use is something if it is not seen? How true can something be if it is only internalized? We are social creatures (humans) and thrive on our interactions.
Conversely, if i believe myself to be an intellectual that will have a vein in all limbs of my interactions, be they humorous or serious.
Thoughts? Things?
Not that you, per say, are vague and large or in anyway similar to a nebula, but that perhaps you are not quite as consistent as you think you are.
For instance; I know I am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think of myself as a funny person who can really get out and have a good time at a party, entertain people and have everyone wrapped around my finger because I'm so hilarious.
I'd also know that I am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think of myself as a very serious, reliable, educated and thoughtful person who can debate, read, write and be taken very seriously when i talk because everyone respects my opinion.
However I also know i am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think that i am artistic with a poetic penchant and can be rather eccentric, avoiding social interaction to be alone and more fully understand my art and my mind.
I suppose all of these things are true, personalities are not one consistent, infallible fact about a certain individual, rather an incorporated conglomorate which ebbs and flows, one facet yeilding dominance to another as situations change.
However if you read my peice a few weeks ago you'll have read about the Symbolic interaction theory. In brief it works on the same premise as operant conditioning: That the reaction of society to our actions, eventually determines who we are. A bully is a bully because when he attempts to intimidate, people are intimidated. A class clown is a class clown because when he attempts to be funny, people laugh.
So someone can try to be a bully but if they are not intimidating they will not be effective. One can attempt humor but that doesnt mean they will be funny.
So, as I see it, simply because i believe certain things does not neccisarily make them true. I believe i am a physically tough person with whom you do NOT want to get into a fight with.
I don't know how true that is.
So my question becomes this: are we really what people see us to be? So are the only segments of my personality that are true the ones that other people confirm? In essence does it matter what i believe of myself? For if no one sees certain aspects of your personality does that mean it doesn't exist?
On the one hand Symbolic interactionism does make it seem as though that is the case. What use is something if it is not seen? How true can something be if it is only internalized? We are social creatures (humans) and thrive on our interactions.
Conversely, if i believe myself to be an intellectual that will have a vein in all limbs of my interactions, be they humorous or serious.
Thoughts? Things?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Common Collectivity
If you've never read Immanuel Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?" you should. It is an excellent piece and quite easy to get through. Within he expounds an idea that we should learn and participate in the world on our own terms, not depending upon paid professionals to determine certain aspects of our life.
I now, after a long time of simply not analyzing Kant's statement, realized that he is wrong just as Freud was wrong. Not in the sense, perhaps, that he is a blundering buffoon whose logic is entirely flawed and erroneous, but more that he must be toned down.
The trend in many modern fields is a move towards niche-isim. The idea that we are trying to reach a very niched audiences and that everyone must have a very specific field of understanding.
Thus it could be argued that while yes, we all should take a personal interest and put some personal thought into our diets, our learning, our legal rights and a variety of other topics, we cannot understand all of these things to the utmost efficency and thus should use profesionals as supplements to our understanding. We need not fully replace nutrionists with our own understanding.
Keep thinking your thoughts and things
If I have a book to have understanding inOne of my basic beliefs applies here. That in order to make a point, more extreme ideas must be presented, with the understanding that the pendulum will swing back towards moderation eventually, bringing the essentials of your ideas with it. Example: Freud believed that absolutely nothing aside from the subconscious affected your psychology. While the idea that only that single aspect of psychology has long since been debunked, psychologists still consider his work influential and, certain aspects, relevant.
place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge
my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think,
so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.
I now, after a long time of simply not analyzing Kant's statement, realized that he is wrong just as Freud was wrong. Not in the sense, perhaps, that he is a blundering buffoon whose logic is entirely flawed and erroneous, but more that he must be toned down.
The trend in many modern fields is a move towards niche-isim. The idea that we are trying to reach a very niched audiences and that everyone must have a very specific field of understanding.
Thus it could be argued that while yes, we all should take a personal interest and put some personal thought into our diets, our learning, our legal rights and a variety of other topics, we cannot understand all of these things to the utmost efficency and thus should use profesionals as supplements to our understanding. We need not fully replace nutrionists with our own understanding.
Keep thinking your thoughts and things
Thursday, September 25, 2008
A collage of ideas: Farting is offensive to Cops; In need of a writing community; lies and the liars who lie in them
Title is, by no means, in order or a complete compendium of what i might say in here.
First off I am an aspiring novelist and I'd really like to connect with a group of people who want to get together every once in a while (weekly perhaps?) and read and critique each others works. (this, I suppose, is a more local plea)
I was very proud of my girlfriend recently. She broke an incredible social cycle, one which i have never understood. When a social clique is in conflict, it is natural for people to try and spread their bets even by playing to both sides in an attempt to fall in with the winner. For instance: two individuals disagree on a particular issue, statement etc. one of them asks the opinion of a third party source in confidence. That individual, in confidence, agrees with the person asking the question. When the other conflicted member approaches the same person, in confidence, that person will agree with them. So in reality no one has a full image of which side this person is on. The idea is that neither of the individuals would ever divulge the conversation to the other, and so by playing it safe and not choosing a side you are able to maintain friendships across the board, regardless of how truthful you have been.
My girlfriend, however, broke this cycle. While she was talking to the person she was in a disagreement with, she called out one of the people that both of them had spoken too and, in a public forum, forced them to declare who was right. To some this might seem bitchy "oh no she broke this persons trust! She forced a confrontation" well in reality what she did was a win-win for her. If she called this person out and the individual sided with her, then the other person saw that their position was weak and illegitimate. If the person she called out sided with her opponent she gains credibility, showing that the person is a fake who is willing to lie for personal gain.
I suppose the point of this rant is that we, as people, should choose sides, and if we are moderate in an argument, then openly opt to not take a side. It is cowardice in the highest form to attempt to side with both people, it shows you have no true loyalties.
I would really like to see/perform a social experiment based on the idea of social loyalties...more on that later!
http://www.startribune.com/nation/29722404.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU <----really?
How much respect do we owe police men? I live on a street where, not two days ago, two officers were shot and one was killed. I have enormous amounts of respect for the men in blue who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. It is incredible. However, how much power should they be allowed? Someone makes them a little angry and suddenly they can destroy a life. The man was drunk and should, at most, serve a minimal sentance. However now he is being charged with assaulting a police officer which could potentially get him a very severe sentencing.
Keep thinking your thoughts and things.
First off I am an aspiring novelist and I'd really like to connect with a group of people who want to get together every once in a while (weekly perhaps?) and read and critique each others works. (this, I suppose, is a more local plea)
I was very proud of my girlfriend recently. She broke an incredible social cycle, one which i have never understood. When a social clique is in conflict, it is natural for people to try and spread their bets even by playing to both sides in an attempt to fall in with the winner. For instance: two individuals disagree on a particular issue, statement etc. one of them asks the opinion of a third party source in confidence. That individual, in confidence, agrees with the person asking the question. When the other conflicted member approaches the same person, in confidence, that person will agree with them. So in reality no one has a full image of which side this person is on. The idea is that neither of the individuals would ever divulge the conversation to the other, and so by playing it safe and not choosing a side you are able to maintain friendships across the board, regardless of how truthful you have been.
My girlfriend, however, broke this cycle. While she was talking to the person she was in a disagreement with, she called out one of the people that both of them had spoken too and, in a public forum, forced them to declare who was right. To some this might seem bitchy "oh no she broke this persons trust! She forced a confrontation" well in reality what she did was a win-win for her. If she called this person out and the individual sided with her, then the other person saw that their position was weak and illegitimate. If the person she called out sided with her opponent she gains credibility, showing that the person is a fake who is willing to lie for personal gain.
I suppose the point of this rant is that we, as people, should choose sides, and if we are moderate in an argument, then openly opt to not take a side. It is cowardice in the highest form to attempt to side with both people, it shows you have no true loyalties.
I would really like to see/perform a social experiment based on the idea of social loyalties...more on that later!
http://www.startribune.com/nation/29722404.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU <----really?
How much respect do we owe police men? I live on a street where, not two days ago, two officers were shot and one was killed. I have enormous amounts of respect for the men in blue who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. It is incredible. However, how much power should they be allowed? Someone makes them a little angry and suddenly they can destroy a life. The man was drunk and should, at most, serve a minimal sentance. However now he is being charged with assaulting a police officer which could potentially get him a very severe sentencing.
Keep thinking your thoughts and things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)