I'm going to be stuck here for eternity.
Today I went to apply for my first car loan. I expected them to say I had bad credit or that I needed more money down. Had they said either one of those things I would have sucked it up and continued to work on my credit and continued to save money.
But that's not what they said. They said the same thing all the apartment rental places said. They are words I've come to dread as much as, "You're over-qualified," or "You need more experience." They said, "You need a co-signer."
I don't know what to do. No one in my family has good enough credit. I know they don't, I've tried to use them as co-signers before. The car dealership told me I actually have fairly decent credit and that they could get me a nice loan, but because I have no history of any major financial loans (student loans don't count) they can't finance me alone.
The people in my family with good credit won't take a chance on the "losers" of the family. My parents are the only ones out of all 22 of their siblings who don't own a home. My parents can never make it to family reunions becaue they can't afford the trip. My brother and sisters and I don't have careers, we have jobs. We're black sheep.
I had one window of opportunity. My parents have filed for bankruptcy after bankruptcy ever since I was a child. My only chance was when I left for graduate school, when my parents each qualified for a car loan and paid off each car. If I had only known then that was the one moment I had a chance, I would have done something. Have I ever talked about the three most useless words in the English language? Could, woulda, shoulda.
My parents keep saying that they'll go to one of those "buy here, pay here" places and get a car. I keep telling them that won't help me, because that won't be a major loan for them and so five years down the road they still won't be able to co-sign for me. It won't get me into position to get out of here.
In January, my sister got $5000 from her income taxes (just in federal), $800 in child support, $2000 from her online school to buy a computer, and $900 in paychecks. That's $8700. She bought dinner three times. She put gas in the car every few days. She gave the standard $400 a month she has agreed to for living with my parents. And that's it. No way in Hell that equals $8700. And yet she was angry when my mother asked her to give me some money to put down on a car, seeing as what ran my good car into the ground was her brood needing to go everywhere under the ever-loving sun. She reluctantly handed over the money ($400), claiming it to be the last she had. For four years, my parents have waited for tax season every year because my sister says she's going to move out this time, she's not going to waste her money, she's going to get her driver's license and a car and an apartment and $8700 was by God enough for that and she still didn't. Just like last year. Just like next year.
I don't know how to get out of this. My only option, really, is to get either a second job or a better job and start saving money. I'm afraid of even that, because when someone gets $8700 and doesn't even pay one bill, doesn't offer extra help in any way, and so still my parents are struggling to pay the electric bill and turn to me to come up with it on the day of the disconnect notice, I don't know how to say no. Everyone tells me to just say no, but how can I? I live here and it would be my electric being turned off, too. If the water is turned off, how will I shower for work? If there's no insurance on the car what would happen if I got pulled over for my headlight being out, like last year? It isn't as easy as it sounds to just pretend I shouldn't have responsibility.
Last year, when I had the money and the means to get out of here, I applied for a few apartments. Everyone needed a co-signer and no one was good enough. I don't know how to climb out of this hole. It seems like the dirt just gives way and I fall back in, covered with that dirt.
March 29, 2012
March 27, 2012
Writing Strong Women
My latest kick has been watching a marathon of the TV show Criminal Minds. A lot of writers shun watching television programs and prescribe a regiment of reading and writing every waking moment. Well, first of all, I call shenanigans if any writer in the modern day tries to say he doesn't watch television. It's just implausible to imagine he doesn't indulge in guilty pleasures. Second of all, it goes against the study of writing. A high percentage of television shows are scripted (even a good deal of "reality" shows) and particularly scripted television series can teach a writer about pacing, character, and plot.
Case in point: on the show Criminal Minds the main character is an FBI agent named Aaron Hotchner (played by the very handsome Thomas Gibson) who in the beginning of the series had a fairly happy marriage with a baby on the way. During the course of the first few seasons, his wife became more and more disenchanted with his demanding job and his random schedule. Eventually, she filed for divorce and took their son.
I completely understand her feelings. Especially after the birth of their child, it must have been difficult when she needed support and he couldn't be there. It must have been lonely trying to juggle doctor visits and grocery shopping and showering with less help than she would get if her husband had a nine-to-five job. It must be frustrating to plan a family picnic only for her husband to be called away at the last minute and either have to go without him or cancel. I bet it's hard to adjust to that kind of life.
But on the other hand...people like firefighters, police officers, lawyers, doctors, and investigators are everyday heroes. There are women who marry them (and men who marry women in those professions) who can sacrifice that idea of the perfect marriage because they understand their spouses can't just say "No, I won't come help with emergency surgery when there was a ten car pile-up and the hospital needs extra surgeons." If fire spreads to neighboring houses and is raging out of control, how can a firefighter say he won't come help? How can an FBI agent say he can't go save the missing victim of a serial strangler because his wife planned a family birthday party?
One might argue that there are plenty of doctors, firefighters, and FBI agents and that shows like Criminal Minds aren't an accurate depiction of how often one specific person would be called to an emergency. Fires don't really often rage out of control to the point of needing to call in back-ups. Hospitals are usually staffed with the right amount of doctors at any given time for routine emergencies. There are scores of qualified FBI agents who would be sent to a given crime scene and it's silly to portray this set of FBI agents as the only ones who are ever called and who could possibly be trusted to solve a case.
But I think that argument makes the women in these series look even worse. If we take into account the logistics of a TV show, there are on average 20-22 episodes which are usually spread out over about two days of fictional time (because they are often working against a clock where if they don't find the missing person, statistics say she won't be found alive). That means Agent Hotchner is called away from his wife once about every two weeks. He spends approximately forty-four days out of 365 not in a nine-to-five routine (with occasionally longer cases). That's actually pretty normal for anyone who has a job where he travels; he may even spend less time away than, say, a training manager or a high profile insurance salesman.
And to boot, he saves lives. This isn't being called away to Japan on business to close a multi-million dollar corporate deal. This is being called to the scene of a serial rapist whose violence just escalated to smashing the woman's head in. He's the best FBI agent to call for assistance. How would his wife feel if she were one of these women, or the family member of one of these women, and she didn't get the best because his wife feels a little lonely?
I just think it's detrimental to women to paint them as never being able to handle a marriage that isn't perfect. I think it makes women look selfish and weak. He isn't going out drinking with his buddies or intentionally pushing her away. He isn't leaving for days on end with no contact and returning with lipstick on his collar. He isn't abandoning her.
I believe women in her situation have every right to have feelings of frustration, loneliness, and anger. I believe they should express those feelings to their husbands and see if there are any compromises that can be made. I believe they have every right to decide they can't cope with those feelings and need more stability. I believe they have every right to leave that situation and seek a more satisfying marriage.
But for once I want to see a woman who struggles with these feelings but makes the decision to sacrifice herself. I know it's like throwing fuel on the fire to suggest women should sacrifice more than they do, but it takes a really strong woman to be able to make that extra sacrifice. I was reading a blog the other day where a woman said that if her husband of thirty years died she would be fine because she's a strong woman who doesn't define herself by the man she married. I find issue with that statement as one of arrogance instead of strength. I don't see how that will prove how independent she has remained. There will be a hole in her life and it shouldn't matter the gender of the person who occupied it.
But sometimes, being a strong woman is being able to accept the "traditional" role, and the strength is in the fact that she had other options but made a choice to support her husband in his difficult but necessary job. It doesn't make her less than the women who make the choice to find happiness elsewhere. I just...I just want to see a balance between these choices. I want people watching (and when they read or see a movie or any kind of written media) to know all of the options. I want them to know feminism is not defined by hating men - an all too common perception, unfortunately. I want them to know that on one hand a woman can go her whole life without needing a man to "complete" her but on the other hand another woman may feel empowered by giving her husband a loving home to return to when he's seen the horrors of the world.
When I was in college, I had a class about the philosophy of feminism. We read an article about a woman who had decapitated her two children on the lawn in front of her house. In the article, there was a round table with other women where they identified with her, joking about how there are days they feel they could follow in her footsteps. The discussion in class was about the new power women had to express these kinds of feelings - to be able to joke about post-partum depression and their feelings of hatred toward having to be the rock of the family. I'm afraid of this power. This wasn't a woman who shared her feelings of depression; this was a woman who acted on it by murdering innocent children. I expressed this feeling in class and was met with shouts that I have probably felt the same in my life. I argued and argued about the difference between discussing feelings and acting upon them. It isn't feminism to identify with a murderer. It was argued that she was suffering from a common illness and so I couldn't judge her. I understand. But I also don't. I don't feel like the article made any woman who read it go into therapy to deal with her own depression and feelings. I feel like it gave feminist dissenters an article proving that feminism is destructive.
I believe feminism is a move toward options. The woman above had options other than murdering her children. That was proven by the women who had similar feelings but found other options to release those feelings (I just wish that had been clear in the article). I just want there to be more depictions of the decisions women make and why they make those decisions, and why it's okay to make either decision but also why one is not better, more feminist, or a sign of more strength than the other (it will always be a sign of more strength to not murder children, though). I argue with my boss constantly about how people don't have to come to the same conclusions or make the same decisions she has because their lives have led them to different needs or situations. It frustrates me when she uses the phrase, "That's not what I would do if I was her." You're not. If you're worried about her choices help her see her options.
I judge people all the time. I'm not above it and I wouldn't pretend to be. One of the reasons I'm writing this is because I have recently found myself thinking more and more about a book I read last year - The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. In my original review I said "I enjoyed it well enough." I think maybe I enjoyed it more than I understood at the time. It was about the roles women were expected to play, and funny enough, it was about the new kind of woman being just as shocked by women making choices that seemed foreign to the "feminist idea." I think I may change the grade on that book. I may have to dig it out and reread it.
Case in point: on the show Criminal Minds the main character is an FBI agent named Aaron Hotchner (played by the very handsome Thomas Gibson) who in the beginning of the series had a fairly happy marriage with a baby on the way. During the course of the first few seasons, his wife became more and more disenchanted with his demanding job and his random schedule. Eventually, she filed for divorce and took their son.
I completely understand her feelings. Especially after the birth of their child, it must have been difficult when she needed support and he couldn't be there. It must have been lonely trying to juggle doctor visits and grocery shopping and showering with less help than she would get if her husband had a nine-to-five job. It must be frustrating to plan a family picnic only for her husband to be called away at the last minute and either have to go without him or cancel. I bet it's hard to adjust to that kind of life.
But on the other hand...people like firefighters, police officers, lawyers, doctors, and investigators are everyday heroes. There are women who marry them (and men who marry women in those professions) who can sacrifice that idea of the perfect marriage because they understand their spouses can't just say "No, I won't come help with emergency surgery when there was a ten car pile-up and the hospital needs extra surgeons." If fire spreads to neighboring houses and is raging out of control, how can a firefighter say he won't come help? How can an FBI agent say he can't go save the missing victim of a serial strangler because his wife planned a family birthday party?
One might argue that there are plenty of doctors, firefighters, and FBI agents and that shows like Criminal Minds aren't an accurate depiction of how often one specific person would be called to an emergency. Fires don't really often rage out of control to the point of needing to call in back-ups. Hospitals are usually staffed with the right amount of doctors at any given time for routine emergencies. There are scores of qualified FBI agents who would be sent to a given crime scene and it's silly to portray this set of FBI agents as the only ones who are ever called and who could possibly be trusted to solve a case.
But I think that argument makes the women in these series look even worse. If we take into account the logistics of a TV show, there are on average 20-22 episodes which are usually spread out over about two days of fictional time (because they are often working against a clock where if they don't find the missing person, statistics say she won't be found alive). That means Agent Hotchner is called away from his wife once about every two weeks. He spends approximately forty-four days out of 365 not in a nine-to-five routine (with occasionally longer cases). That's actually pretty normal for anyone who has a job where he travels; he may even spend less time away than, say, a training manager or a high profile insurance salesman.
And to boot, he saves lives. This isn't being called away to Japan on business to close a multi-million dollar corporate deal. This is being called to the scene of a serial rapist whose violence just escalated to smashing the woman's head in. He's the best FBI agent to call for assistance. How would his wife feel if she were one of these women, or the family member of one of these women, and she didn't get the best because his wife feels a little lonely?
I just think it's detrimental to women to paint them as never being able to handle a marriage that isn't perfect. I think it makes women look selfish and weak. He isn't going out drinking with his buddies or intentionally pushing her away. He isn't leaving for days on end with no contact and returning with lipstick on his collar. He isn't abandoning her.
I believe women in her situation have every right to have feelings of frustration, loneliness, and anger. I believe they should express those feelings to their husbands and see if there are any compromises that can be made. I believe they have every right to decide they can't cope with those feelings and need more stability. I believe they have every right to leave that situation and seek a more satisfying marriage.
But for once I want to see a woman who struggles with these feelings but makes the decision to sacrifice herself. I know it's like throwing fuel on the fire to suggest women should sacrifice more than they do, but it takes a really strong woman to be able to make that extra sacrifice. I was reading a blog the other day where a woman said that if her husband of thirty years died she would be fine because she's a strong woman who doesn't define herself by the man she married. I find issue with that statement as one of arrogance instead of strength. I don't see how that will prove how independent she has remained. There will be a hole in her life and it shouldn't matter the gender of the person who occupied it.
But sometimes, being a strong woman is being able to accept the "traditional" role, and the strength is in the fact that she had other options but made a choice to support her husband in his difficult but necessary job. It doesn't make her less than the women who make the choice to find happiness elsewhere. I just...I just want to see a balance between these choices. I want people watching (and when they read or see a movie or any kind of written media) to know all of the options. I want them to know feminism is not defined by hating men - an all too common perception, unfortunately. I want them to know that on one hand a woman can go her whole life without needing a man to "complete" her but on the other hand another woman may feel empowered by giving her husband a loving home to return to when he's seen the horrors of the world.
When I was in college, I had a class about the philosophy of feminism. We read an article about a woman who had decapitated her two children on the lawn in front of her house. In the article, there was a round table with other women where they identified with her, joking about how there are days they feel they could follow in her footsteps. The discussion in class was about the new power women had to express these kinds of feelings - to be able to joke about post-partum depression and their feelings of hatred toward having to be the rock of the family. I'm afraid of this power. This wasn't a woman who shared her feelings of depression; this was a woman who acted on it by murdering innocent children. I expressed this feeling in class and was met with shouts that I have probably felt the same in my life. I argued and argued about the difference between discussing feelings and acting upon them. It isn't feminism to identify with a murderer. It was argued that she was suffering from a common illness and so I couldn't judge her. I understand. But I also don't. I don't feel like the article made any woman who read it go into therapy to deal with her own depression and feelings. I feel like it gave feminist dissenters an article proving that feminism is destructive.
I believe feminism is a move toward options. The woman above had options other than murdering her children. That was proven by the women who had similar feelings but found other options to release those feelings (I just wish that had been clear in the article). I just want there to be more depictions of the decisions women make and why they make those decisions, and why it's okay to make either decision but also why one is not better, more feminist, or a sign of more strength than the other (it will always be a sign of more strength to not murder children, though). I argue with my boss constantly about how people don't have to come to the same conclusions or make the same decisions she has because their lives have led them to different needs or situations. It frustrates me when she uses the phrase, "That's not what I would do if I was her." You're not. If you're worried about her choices help her see her options.
I judge people all the time. I'm not above it and I wouldn't pretend to be. One of the reasons I'm writing this is because I have recently found myself thinking more and more about a book I read last year - The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. In my original review I said "I enjoyed it well enough." I think maybe I enjoyed it more than I understood at the time. It was about the roles women were expected to play, and funny enough, it was about the new kind of woman being just as shocked by women making choices that seemed foreign to the "feminist idea." I think I may change the grade on that book. I may have to dig it out and reread it.
March 18, 2012
Random Updates
I've been sick for the past four days. Just a little flu bug that knocked me out. Luckily I had the past four days off from work and was able to leave early Wednesday, the day I first felt signs of being under the weather. The bad part was my work called me both Friday and Saturday, basically trying to convince me that I should be well enough by now to fill in and they needed someone to fill in. Well, too bad, because I didn't feel well enough, I wasn't scheduled, and I can tell you no anytime I want to for any reason I want to. Today I had my first cup of coffee in three days and I'm high as a kite right now. They said I should be able to make it through since I would have been sick Wednesday and Thursday and would have recovered Friday and Saturday. Well, unfortunately illness doesn't work on a set schedule for the conveniences of retail.
This happens frequently at my work. Someone will need to call off, so all the other employees not already working get called to see whether they can fill in. If anyone says no, their reasons are grilled to the point of ridiculousness. You know, if they weren't scheduled when the schedule was posted (and initialed as complete) they don't have to give any reason whatsoever as to why they can't fill in. I've tried to tell my boss this on several occasions but she argues that part of their job descriptions is flexibility. I say, yes, but not spontaneous flexibility. The agreement is the schedule is posted two weeks prior to the dates it covers and at that point becomes a contract. We argue constantly over whether we should sign the schedule when it's posted (agreeing to work the days scheduled) or after it has transpired (agreeing it accurately depicts the hours we worked). While the handbook states the latter, I think I'm going to start practicing the former.
As stated in my previous post, I'm just an idiot when it comes to commenting on anything on the internet. I've received several replies to my statement that I didn't like the comedian, including one that just said, "god ur dumb." I let myself get roped in, wasting precious moments of my life trying to convince all of these people that I'm entitled to say I don't like him and they should just agree to disagree. Of course I'm going to get a thousand emails saying people have responded to my comment and even though I will probably ignore them, I know they're all going to just continue the insanity and I'll be tempted to see just how much hate I can possibly cause. Am I a troll?
Also while sick, I've been reading some back issues of Poets and Writers. One thing I've learned - I can't be interested in every article and should just skip the ones I'm not interested in after the first paragraph. One article I loved, though, was about book lists (with commentary from Tony Doerr!). The author of the article (not Tony Doerr!) talked about how he realized one day that he would never, ever be able to read all the books on his list and how this had depressed him greatly. Eventually, he was able to come to grips with the fact that it is impossible to read even a fraction of the books that are published in even a given year (thousands upon thousands), especially in the growing market of self-publication through e-readers. He also talked about the guilt many writers feel when they think a so-called canon masterpiece is crap. He had to convince himself it's okay to put down that masterpiece and pick up something more personal - and that whatever an individual chooses to read is just fine as long as she is reading. Tony Doerr(!) said something along those lines as well. This is a constant issue I struggle with, often not feeling these masterpieces are really all that masterful and are really more pieces of.... Anyway, the author of the article suggested making a list of the ten or so books we enjoyed reading the most every year and see if there's any theme. I liked this idea very much.
My sister is in the hospital with an infection in her spinal cord. She had a bed sore at her tailbone that became infected and spread up her entire back, and is now swollen to the size of a basketball. She will need surgery to try to remove the infection and plastic surgery to repair her back. Part of her tailbone is actually sticking through the bed sore. We don't know when the surgeries will happen or what exactly all of the surgeries will entail, so I'll keep updating.
I know all of this seems a bit random, but my mind is a bit addled right now and I was just writing as things came to me. I'm hoping I'll be able to drink some coffee tomorrow and not feel like I'm floating on a cloud. I have to pick up my new glasses tomorrow morning (with transitions lenses, thankfully) and then spend my evening at work, so I'm just hoping I won't be this loopy. I guess it will be a fun evening if I am.
P.S. I've edited this to add that it's Poets & Writers magazine. One of the articles was all about the ampersand, and how certain poetry editors think it's just so annoying and basically would pause before considering a poem just because the author used an ampersand. That's ludicrous. It's a symbol. A well known one. It means "and." Get over it.
This happens frequently at my work. Someone will need to call off, so all the other employees not already working get called to see whether they can fill in. If anyone says no, their reasons are grilled to the point of ridiculousness. You know, if they weren't scheduled when the schedule was posted (and initialed as complete) they don't have to give any reason whatsoever as to why they can't fill in. I've tried to tell my boss this on several occasions but she argues that part of their job descriptions is flexibility. I say, yes, but not spontaneous flexibility. The agreement is the schedule is posted two weeks prior to the dates it covers and at that point becomes a contract. We argue constantly over whether we should sign the schedule when it's posted (agreeing to work the days scheduled) or after it has transpired (agreeing it accurately depicts the hours we worked). While the handbook states the latter, I think I'm going to start practicing the former.
As stated in my previous post, I'm just an idiot when it comes to commenting on anything on the internet. I've received several replies to my statement that I didn't like the comedian, including one that just said, "god ur dumb." I let myself get roped in, wasting precious moments of my life trying to convince all of these people that I'm entitled to say I don't like him and they should just agree to disagree. Of course I'm going to get a thousand emails saying people have responded to my comment and even though I will probably ignore them, I know they're all going to just continue the insanity and I'll be tempted to see just how much hate I can possibly cause. Am I a troll?
Also while sick, I've been reading some back issues of Poets and Writers. One thing I've learned - I can't be interested in every article and should just skip the ones I'm not interested in after the first paragraph. One article I loved, though, was about book lists (with commentary from Tony Doerr!). The author of the article (not Tony Doerr!) talked about how he realized one day that he would never, ever be able to read all the books on his list and how this had depressed him greatly. Eventually, he was able to come to grips with the fact that it is impossible to read even a fraction of the books that are published in even a given year (thousands upon thousands), especially in the growing market of self-publication through e-readers. He also talked about the guilt many writers feel when they think a so-called canon masterpiece is crap. He had to convince himself it's okay to put down that masterpiece and pick up something more personal - and that whatever an individual chooses to read is just fine as long as she is reading. Tony Doerr(!) said something along those lines as well. This is a constant issue I struggle with, often not feeling these masterpieces are really all that masterful and are really more pieces of.... Anyway, the author of the article suggested making a list of the ten or so books we enjoyed reading the most every year and see if there's any theme. I liked this idea very much.
My sister is in the hospital with an infection in her spinal cord. She had a bed sore at her tailbone that became infected and spread up her entire back, and is now swollen to the size of a basketball. She will need surgery to try to remove the infection and plastic surgery to repair her back. Part of her tailbone is actually sticking through the bed sore. We don't know when the surgeries will happen or what exactly all of the surgeries will entail, so I'll keep updating.
I know all of this seems a bit random, but my mind is a bit addled right now and I was just writing as things came to me. I'm hoping I'll be able to drink some coffee tomorrow and not feel like I'm floating on a cloud. I have to pick up my new glasses tomorrow morning (with transitions lenses, thankfully) and then spend my evening at work, so I'm just hoping I won't be this loopy. I guess it will be a fun evening if I am.
P.S. I've edited this to add that it's Poets & Writers magazine. One of the articles was all about the ampersand, and how certain poetry editors think it's just so annoying and basically would pause before considering a poem just because the author used an ampersand. That's ludicrous. It's a symbol. A well known one. It means "and." Get over it.
March 12, 2012
My Big Fat Opinion Piece
Which will all be about opinions on the internet. So, there's a part of me that hates the internet because I think it has bred a generation of people who think their opinions are completely entitled. Now, it's fine to have an opinion. It's even fine to express said opinion. If said opinion is expressed thusly:
"I like this show."
"I don't like this show."
...all is well and good. There can even be a bit of exposition on why or why not the show is liked by said individual. Even if the exposition turns into a rant about the qualities of the show it's okay. My problem lies with attacking someone else's opinion by calling him names or insinuating something about his intelligence because his opinion differs. I see this all the time. I experienced it myself two years ago.
I hate The Colbert Report. I can't watch it. I've never been able to watch anything Stephen Colbert has appeared on because I just can't stand him or his humor. It's something about his delivery. He rarely smiles. He was on Whose Line Is It Anyway once and I can't watch that episode because he just seems too serious throughout. I understand he's trying to stay "in character" and that a lot of improvisers find it unprofessional to even smile while "in character" but Whose Line has never been established as a serious show. I also hated him on The Daily Show because he would often do the segments I absolutely despised. Namely, he would do the mock interviews with real people who it seemed didn't know they were being mocked, and it was actually infuriating to me to watch it dawn on them that they were the butt of a national joke. The few times I've seen The Colbert Report I just can't seem to laugh even though I understand what Colbert is doing is actually mocking the very thing his "character" is supposedly supporting. I understand it's basically a mock show. I just don't like Stephen Colbert and, by proxy, don't like his show.
One day I was talking to a co-worker and he expressed his opinion on loving The Colbert Report. When I expressed the opposite opinion, the first words out of his mouth were, "Well, you obviously don't understand what he's doing." I was enraged. I mean, I've rarely been so insulted. I'm not an idiot. And my co-worker knew I wasn't an idiot. But his first inclination upon hearing an opinion opposite his own was to degrade me and make me feel inferior to his own knowledge. No. Just no.
I see this everywhere on the internet. I was just watching a British program called The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006, and there was a celebrity appearing on it who many people find annoying. Many people expressed this opinion in the comments. And instead of just posting their own comments saying, "Well I like him because..." a lot of responders had to attack the first people by "explaining" what it is those first people aren't "getting." No, I get it. The celebrity is "in character" as a smarmy know-it-all who can't relax and wants to win and can't take it when the game doesn't play by the rules. It's a freaking TV show - there's no prize (except a cheesy trophy), no money goes to charity, no advantage next year or "reigning champion" titles. It's just a game that's supposed to be fun and make fun of the news from the year gone by. And maybe some people find his "character" funny. I don't. I'm allowed to express that and so are the thousands of other people who feel the same way.
One of the comments was about how much this certain poster loves this celebrity, and people who don't should keep it to themselves. Well, no. When people go overboard and get violent, vitriolic, or nasty about something (particularly something as stupid as a celebrity on a game show) that's one thing. If someone were to come on and say, "I hope that guy dies in a fire because he's a fucking retard," that bothers me. That's not an opinion, that's just offensive. But nothing is universal. There is no celebrity, book, piece of art, issue, or human right that anyone can agree on. Not even the death penalty or gender equality. Do I feel there are issues I can't believe people don't agree on? Of course. Do I want to call them morons when they spout hate speech or racial slurs or other offenses? You betcha. Do I want to go off on a rant like this one when they feel themselves superior to others because they "get" the issue and others "don't"? Fuck ya. And, well, I do, to an extent. As seen here.
But what I try not to do is call them names whilst in an actual debate with them. Just now, in the comments on The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006, I made a comment asking people to just say "I like him" or "I don't like him" and move the fuck on. There were two other celebrities who are quite polarizing, who were actually not taking the game seriously AT ALL, and there are plenty of people who were annoyed by that. And that's fine. In the end those two (who I liked) were straining everyone's patience a bit. It's fine to not like something. It's not fine to force other's into that same opinion.
Wearing down someone's feelings in effect does force them into adopting the opposite opinion. We've all grown tired of an argument to the point we just concede to end the argument altogether. Look, I know this seems trivial, because it's a TV show and who cares? It's not a real issue. Except, for this generation their manners are being learned in this capacity, and since our abilites to deal with greater issues stem from how we handle smaller social issues as we age, my fear is the future of society is going to be even worse than it is now because the latest generation can't hold a civil debate or compromise to someone else's ideas. I never knew it was a talent to agree to disagree. Some might call it indifference, but I call it necessity. I think it's why we can't come to an agreement on how to handle certain situations.
Let's talk, incredibly briefly, about gay rights. I'm totally for complete rights for homosexuals. However, I'd be willing to compromise on the issue of gay marriage by saying that if each state would legalize gay marriage (recognizing it as equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law) it could also be mandated that individual churches would have jurisdiction over whether they would allow gay marriage ceremonies to be held on their premises. There are plenty of churches that have begun to accept homosexuals. If a church declares that within its culture homosexual marriage isn't accepted, so be it. Those churches and their parishioners can continue to practice their religion as they choose fit. Just keep it out of the government and out of my chosen culture/religion. There are, of course, many other issues surrounding gay marriage, but I said "briefly."
The reason I can compromise is because I'm indifferent to others opinions or practices as long as it doesn't hurt me or another human being. It may seem like I've leapt from something stupid to something serious but, well, yeah. And I can because I've learned how to debate from the social situations I've been put in previously. I used to play with a little girl who wanted her way, all the time, and if she didn't get it she didn't want to play anymore. Well, after a while, no one wanted to play with her and she was lonely and she learned to take turns. But it took a long time and several experiences of her friends going home or telling her they didn't want to come over at all before she came to her revelation of compromising. On the internet, where a good deal of kids spend their lives interacting these days, everyone is anonymous or easily replaced. If a kid can't compromise she just clicks off that tab or changes her screenname or moves to a different chat room. She doesn't have to compromise. She doesn't have to learn.
This worries me.
"I like this show."
"I don't like this show."
...all is well and good. There can even be a bit of exposition on why or why not the show is liked by said individual. Even if the exposition turns into a rant about the qualities of the show it's okay. My problem lies with attacking someone else's opinion by calling him names or insinuating something about his intelligence because his opinion differs. I see this all the time. I experienced it myself two years ago.
I hate The Colbert Report. I can't watch it. I've never been able to watch anything Stephen Colbert has appeared on because I just can't stand him or his humor. It's something about his delivery. He rarely smiles. He was on Whose Line Is It Anyway once and I can't watch that episode because he just seems too serious throughout. I understand he's trying to stay "in character" and that a lot of improvisers find it unprofessional to even smile while "in character" but Whose Line has never been established as a serious show. I also hated him on The Daily Show because he would often do the segments I absolutely despised. Namely, he would do the mock interviews with real people who it seemed didn't know they were being mocked, and it was actually infuriating to me to watch it dawn on them that they were the butt of a national joke. The few times I've seen The Colbert Report I just can't seem to laugh even though I understand what Colbert is doing is actually mocking the very thing his "character" is supposedly supporting. I understand it's basically a mock show. I just don't like Stephen Colbert and, by proxy, don't like his show.
One day I was talking to a co-worker and he expressed his opinion on loving The Colbert Report. When I expressed the opposite opinion, the first words out of his mouth were, "Well, you obviously don't understand what he's doing." I was enraged. I mean, I've rarely been so insulted. I'm not an idiot. And my co-worker knew I wasn't an idiot. But his first inclination upon hearing an opinion opposite his own was to degrade me and make me feel inferior to his own knowledge. No. Just no.
I see this everywhere on the internet. I was just watching a British program called The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006, and there was a celebrity appearing on it who many people find annoying. Many people expressed this opinion in the comments. And instead of just posting their own comments saying, "Well I like him because..." a lot of responders had to attack the first people by "explaining" what it is those first people aren't "getting." No, I get it. The celebrity is "in character" as a smarmy know-it-all who can't relax and wants to win and can't take it when the game doesn't play by the rules. It's a freaking TV show - there's no prize (except a cheesy trophy), no money goes to charity, no advantage next year or "reigning champion" titles. It's just a game that's supposed to be fun and make fun of the news from the year gone by. And maybe some people find his "character" funny. I don't. I'm allowed to express that and so are the thousands of other people who feel the same way.
One of the comments was about how much this certain poster loves this celebrity, and people who don't should keep it to themselves. Well, no. When people go overboard and get violent, vitriolic, or nasty about something (particularly something as stupid as a celebrity on a game show) that's one thing. If someone were to come on and say, "I hope that guy dies in a fire because he's a fucking retard," that bothers me. That's not an opinion, that's just offensive. But nothing is universal. There is no celebrity, book, piece of art, issue, or human right that anyone can agree on. Not even the death penalty or gender equality. Do I feel there are issues I can't believe people don't agree on? Of course. Do I want to call them morons when they spout hate speech or racial slurs or other offenses? You betcha. Do I want to go off on a rant like this one when they feel themselves superior to others because they "get" the issue and others "don't"? Fuck ya. And, well, I do, to an extent. As seen here.
But what I try not to do is call them names whilst in an actual debate with them. Just now, in the comments on The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2006, I made a comment asking people to just say "I like him" or "I don't like him" and move the fuck on. There were two other celebrities who are quite polarizing, who were actually not taking the game seriously AT ALL, and there are plenty of people who were annoyed by that. And that's fine. In the end those two (who I liked) were straining everyone's patience a bit. It's fine to not like something. It's not fine to force other's into that same opinion.
Wearing down someone's feelings in effect does force them into adopting the opposite opinion. We've all grown tired of an argument to the point we just concede to end the argument altogether. Look, I know this seems trivial, because it's a TV show and who cares? It's not a real issue. Except, for this generation their manners are being learned in this capacity, and since our abilites to deal with greater issues stem from how we handle smaller social issues as we age, my fear is the future of society is going to be even worse than it is now because the latest generation can't hold a civil debate or compromise to someone else's ideas. I never knew it was a talent to agree to disagree. Some might call it indifference, but I call it necessity. I think it's why we can't come to an agreement on how to handle certain situations.
Let's talk, incredibly briefly, about gay rights. I'm totally for complete rights for homosexuals. However, I'd be willing to compromise on the issue of gay marriage by saying that if each state would legalize gay marriage (recognizing it as equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law) it could also be mandated that individual churches would have jurisdiction over whether they would allow gay marriage ceremonies to be held on their premises. There are plenty of churches that have begun to accept homosexuals. If a church declares that within its culture homosexual marriage isn't accepted, so be it. Those churches and their parishioners can continue to practice their religion as they choose fit. Just keep it out of the government and out of my chosen culture/religion. There are, of course, many other issues surrounding gay marriage, but I said "briefly."
The reason I can compromise is because I'm indifferent to others opinions or practices as long as it doesn't hurt me or another human being. It may seem like I've leapt from something stupid to something serious but, well, yeah. And I can because I've learned how to debate from the social situations I've been put in previously. I used to play with a little girl who wanted her way, all the time, and if she didn't get it she didn't want to play anymore. Well, after a while, no one wanted to play with her and she was lonely and she learned to take turns. But it took a long time and several experiences of her friends going home or telling her they didn't want to come over at all before she came to her revelation of compromising. On the internet, where a good deal of kids spend their lives interacting these days, everyone is anonymous or easily replaced. If a kid can't compromise she just clicks off that tab or changes her screenname or moves to a different chat room. She doesn't have to compromise. She doesn't have to learn.
This worries me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
