Friday, July 25, 2008

What You'll Be Looking For

I’m just going to mention, perhaps discuss, some of the things that I think are really interesting, and stuff that I’ve been thinking about lately. One is the conformist and non-conformist thing going on. The whole thing where there’s one side that gives in to the pop culture and mainstream “media” (ahem…*c*r*a*p*…most of the time), and those who purposely try to stray away from those. But if you think about it, those two supposed black and white sides aren’t so different at all. If those people who try to be different think those other people are misguided and mislead, well, so are they. Pop culture or whatever thrives on people, solidarity, and collectiveness. Or for example, people going, have you heard about so and so, and so the chaos ensues. So, people do something, because other people do it right? Well if you think about, those who try to be different, only try to be different because of what other people do. They base their beliefs and actions on what other people do, just like the supposed mainstream jackals they so despise. Now the black and whites just become a mixed gray…

So you should just believe in what you believe, like what like. It's ok maybe for others to affect what you like and believe, but completely basing it off of someone else is not something that'll lead to much good. You shouldn't care if what you like is liked or disliked, popular or not, despised or not, but you still have to listen to others, feedback is important, especially if it's constructive.

Who really thinks that most of the new these days isn’t over bloated, exaggerated, and is propaganda anyway?

Another thing I think is interesting is the whole punk/anarchist ideology. No, not the jackass who wanders neighborhoods being a, well, jackass. The ones that actually care about the ideology behind it are the ones. I’m not saying I’m one, I doubt I’m one, not even close, haha, doubt I’d even want to be one. But it’s still interesting to know about and read about. Anarchists believe in no government. They say that any government or authority basically sucks. But there are still several forms of anarchists, of course. One that is really interesting is the non-violence part of these groups. Some believe violence is necessary to achieve radical changes. But I read about one that believed so, until she visited the Soviet Union and saw stuff there that changed her mind. Then there are the punks. One group that is really interesting is the one that believes music and ideology are what define a punk. A guy with a Mohawk and ripped jeans could be some freaky Neo-Nazi who drives a Ferrari for all they care. They’re anti-consumerist too. So apparently some of them hate it when you buy and do stuff that just means you got screwed over so someone far a way could get rich.

Something else too is the feminist movement, which is by the way great, so don’t say anything just wait. But even some feminists today hate the modern feminist movement. It’s interesting also how that has affected men, and it has, which is often overlooked. Now people say there are stereotypes against women, which is true, and cruelly unjust. But, there are also stereotypes for women as well. And sometimes, things don’t always work out the way they should. These issues could get a bit sensitive too. Many women talk about equality, which is great. But at the same time, they go and ask for favors, as if nothing happened. And men are often discriminated against as well. In domestic issues, women are often favored. Custody cases, domestic abuse cases, etc. Now I’m not saying that men have been completely overlooked and women are wrong, it’s really not as black and white as that. It’s confusing and weird. Now, I’m not sure how many would want to read and extremely long article on it, but I did, so it can’t be that long. But it’s really interesting, in my opinion, haha… So here it is, posted by HuntanPeck near the top.

Elections are coming up. Who are you going for, or were? One thing I have to point out, that just pisses me off a lot. When someone says they support them, and the best they can give me, I’d be change, a women in charge, or an African-American. It's like saying you're going to vote for them just because they're a women, an African-American, an Asian, or their last name soudns like one of those badass movie character names (i.e. McClane, etc.) You know, I don’t give a shit what race they are, if they have an odd accent, what gender they are, maybe they used to be a sewage worker (no offense to sewage workers, I’m sure they’re great) and not a lawyer. It doesn’t matter people! Please, the person who is best for the job should be the one. That’s it, doesn’t matter if they’re an inspiration or whatnot. If they make you feel good great, doesn’t mean they’re right for the job though.

To end it, something sad. Randy Pausch has passed away. Don’t know if any of you saw his “last Lecture”. It truly was moving (kinda long, but I'm sure there are shorter versions). It is the saddest, most heart-wrenching, gut-punched, shoved-up-your-___-, happy, inspirational video about dreams (maybe?) ever. It could bring you to tears even when its not sad, or at least shouldn’t be. When I saw that video, I just went ****, I’m screwed, I’m so far behind, I’ve been doing everything wrong. Then I laughed and went, yea I already knew that. Here is a man, who has no regrets he says, who is maybe content with the life he lived, which is something we all try to do. Cheers to you Randy.


"Brick walls aren't there to keep you out, they're there to prove how badly you want something."

"Don't bail; the best of the gold is at the bottom of the barrel of crap."

(this one i can't remember too well...) "I'd rather see someone who's earnest than hip, hip is short term."

-digital delay

Add to Technorati Favorites


Anonymous said...

I'm with ya, brother! I feel the movement! =O

Very interesting article. I say it's probably one of the best I've read on AM. But on the other hand, I like A LOT of articles. But, still, it's a great article. I like the demo song, by the way. The girls sound amazing.

Anonymous said...

That first comment was from Nathaniel. Nathaniel forgot to put his own name. The shame! =O

N. S.

mourning.glory said...

Hmmm... Great article. You got me thinking. I like how you don't try to sugarcoat things.

nietzsche216 said...

“Being yourself,” sounds like good advice, especially when construed against a background of a world who either follows the pack or rebels against it for the point of rebellion. One must stop to ask, however, what exactly the “self” is. The self is not singular entity, existing solely in a vacuum. The self is a multitude of personas – the persona one assumes around one’s friends, one’s parents, one’s loved one, at the workplace, and with strangers, all constitute the self. In this sense, the self is inescapably the product of our interactions with those around us, whether it be in agreement or not. The cult of individuality, especially in the West, suggests that basing our actions should be made based wholly off what only we would do, when our actions will always and infinitely be influenced by the actions of those around us. Accusing those who “go against the flow” of being victims of a more surreptitious mainstream is an age-old argument – the real topic of interest is the motivation and the environmental factors that end up sculpting a person’s “self.”

I agree that anarchy and feminism are excellent topics of discussion – perhaps something to be flushed out in more depth and clarity of thought in the future.

I however, must disagree completely with your opinion of the presidential candidates. While it is certainly dubious to vote for someone with disregard to their ability to handle any sort of job, the significance of gender and race (out of many, many other qualities) is one of the key factors of interest in this election. Out of the forty-three presidents America has ever elected, all forty-three have been older, wealthy, white males (let us not forget that forty-two were Protestant Christians). For a nation which prides itself in equality, America cannot claim the title of having nominated the first female head of state. For a nation which prides itself in its diversity, we are lacking terribly in a variety of positive, real-world role models of different races, creeds, and genders. For a nation that prides itself in its freedom of opportunity, we give opportunities only to those who are willing to succumb to one, hegemonic model of thinking. Women approach problems differently than men, and different races are subject to different experiences and thusly, different ways of looking at the world than others. One of the claims made by Hillary Clinton’s campaign was that having a woman as the leader of the United States of America would be a landmark for women all over the world, and allow for discourses which otherwise would have been impossible (imagine, for instance, the irony of having a leader of a nation known for its sexist beliefs meeting with a female who leads a nation with even greater influence and prestige than his own).

In essence, much like the questioning of the self, “just vote for whomever’s the most qualified” seems like good advice, but fails to address the issue at heart – “what makes a persona more qualified for the job of president?” In addressing this question, we discover that the very traits which were marked off as irrelevant were in fact, at the very heart of the matter. The issue then, is not one of “What are we looking for,” as it is “Are the right questions being asked?”

digital delay said...

i honestly do have appreciate such a long, thorough, and intriguing comment on such a lowly article, or post. Anarchy and feminism are indeed interesting topics to discuss at any given time and place.

By no means is America a perfect country. Good intentions never end up ending well. The foundation of a building is not always cared about as much as what lays atop it now does it? Also, no such perfect place exists. That is why utopias are a thing of books and movies, and not of reality and reason.

of course people coming from different backgrounds and cultures will have different views and beliefs. They were raised with a different set of morals, and customs. Voting for whomever is qualified is always an opinion, a belief, it just cannot be scientifically, reasonably, decided on. If it was, then we wouldn't need a vote, much less the electoral college. To put, imagine a list of the greatest albums ever, such as the one on a yahoo blog. No matter how scientific you get, no matter how many numbers you input, no matter how much data you crunch, it will never be for certain. Opinions will vary on the data itself, if it was ever relevant to the question posed. Do total sales mean an album is good, it means its popular. Does that means its good, sometimes maybe. So it all entirely depends, nothing can be for sure, except as a certain someone said, death and taxes, unless anarchists get their way. So yes, asking the right questions is great. And yes too, is that topic an open and debatable issue.

the clam said...

In reference to nietzsche216:

I wouldn't say that a woman can't run our country, but just for the fact that the American citizens have never been faced with the concept of a having a female president. Sure, some may be paranoid, but we have yet to have seen a female president run our country, so we cannot jump to conclusions. But then again, her actions (Clinton's) within her campaign may have had shown some of her abilities (whether it may be good or bad), and the citizens have the choice to decide on whether they trust her or not. Everyone has their own opinions (which this blog is based on!).

Thanks for expressing another opinion!

my.great.ESCAPE. said...

In response to nietzsche216's comment,

I also think that, even though voting for whoever most qualifies is the best result, quite a number of people (though not most) would take the time to consider other factors. Such as, business with other countries...Some people might feel it be less sufficient to exchange with a woman president...Other countries, with most likely, men leaders, might possibly have a problem interacting with a woman in a business case. Examples would be, importing oil, cars, etc...

Another thing you should consider would be, would america go chaotic under a colored president?
I think, that there is absolutely not one person who can step up and say "I am NOT racist!". It just is not possible...People have stereotypes and prejudice thoughts all the time...

So yes, even though the election and decisions that citizens make should be as fair as possible, considering only on qualities and personality, it cannot be 100% possible.

I hope that made sense :/

Anonymous said...

O_O Holy cow, you guys...