Category Archives: outrage culture

August 5, 2022 · 5:37 pm

Why I Don’t Feel Bad For Enjoying Alex Jones’ (Growing) Misfortune

In general, it’s not good, healthy, or ethical to take pleasure in someone else’s misfortune. Even if you despise someone for what they do, what they say, or what they believe, it’s usually not good for someone mentally or emotionally to take excess joy in someone else’s suffering. I won’t say it’s entirely wrong to feel a slight twinge of happiness when someone you don’t like endures loss or misfortune. It’s just one of those things you should not overdo.

I certainly don’t deny that I’ve had those feelings in the past. There have been a number of occasions in which I felt genuinely happy to hear that someone hurt themselves or in some way faced meaningful consequences for some egregious misdeed. I’m not proud of it. I generally try not to feel that way when it happens and when it does, I try to remind myself that this isn’t good for me as a person.

All that being said, I will gladly make an exception for someone like Alex Jones.

Now, if you’ve never heard of Alex Jones, consider yourself very lucky. Hell, I envy anyone who has lived much of their life having never seen or heard of this unhinged, eccentric blowhard. I won’t provide a detailed breakdown of why he’s a relevant figure, how he came to become a mini-celebrity of sorts, or recount his lengthy history of gross misdeeds.

I don’t even want to link to the man’s Wikipedia page. I flat out refuse to burden anyone with excess knowledge of who this man is.

All you really need to know about Alex Jones is that he is the most extreme of extreme right-wing media grifters. He is also one of the loudest/most obnoxious proponents of the most insane and extreme conspiracy theories to ever be conjured by unthinking minds. This isn’t just a guy who believes there’s a shadowy cabal of elites who secretly control and guide the course of world events. This is a guy who thinks aliens, shape-shifting lizards, and Jewish bankers conspire to turn frogs gay.

Seriously, I wish I were making that last one up, but that’s disturbingly real. It became a meme for a while and is supposed to be funny. But make no mistake, there’s nothing funny about the extremism that Alex Jones promotes or the suffering it causes.

You need look no further than the suffering he’s caused the families of the children who died tragically at the Sandy Hook shooting. It’s bad enough that these parents suffered the loss of their child, a pain no parent should ever have to endure. But because of Alex Jones and the people who take him seriously, those grieving parents were subjected to endless harassment by those who claimed they were crisis actors and that their child never even existed.

Seriously, that’s what Jones actively promoted. He believed the whole Sandy Hook shooting (and most other mass shootings, for that matter) was a plot orchestrated by the government to enact stricter gun control laws so that the general populous could be disarmed. It’s as crazy, callous, and downright ghastly.

Just take a moment to appreciate what these parents have been through. First, they had to bury their own child. Then, some asshole on the internet claims they’re just actors pretending to be sad and they’re actually plotting with shape-shifting lizard people in the government. And because there are too many sadistic assholes with internet connections, they start harassing you and your family, claiming the child you loved and had to bury never existed.

There’s being a dick, there’s being cruel, and then there’s that. I honestly don’t have a word for just how awful that is on so many levels. Nobody should have to endure that, let alone the parents of grieving children.

That’s why when the parents of the Sandy Hook victims sued Alex Jones for defamation, I eagerly cheered them on. I never expect Jones or anyone like him to go to jail or anything. They’re too good at hiring competent lawyers and pushing the limits of free speech to ever suffer a fate that deserving. At the very least, I hoped they would hit Jones in his wallet in a way that really hurt.

A part of me even hoped that this lawsuit would render Jones penniless, homeless, and no longer able to maintain his bullshit conspiracy show. I know that was hoping for too much. However, it seems as though his egregious behavior is finally catching up to him. Thanks to his own ineptitude, and a huge mistake by his own lawyer, Alex Jones has lost this defamation case.

AP News: Alex Jones ordered to pay Sandy Hook parents more than $4M

It’s no longer a matter of if Jones will have to pay the parents of the Sandy Hook victims money for his bullshit. It’s just a matter of how much he’ll have to pay. That $4 million is just for compensatory damages. The amount for punitive damages is potentially much higher. Given the amount of suffering this man has caused to parents grieving the deaths of their children, I honestly don’t know if there’s an amount high enough for him to pay.

I don’t care that Jones claims his company is bankrupt, which is bullshit. Even if he were, he deserves to pay a high price for what he’s done.

This isn’t about free speech, as he loves to claim.

It’s not about silencing him, as he also loves to claim while playing the victim.

This is about what he has done and the consequences of those deeds. Because of the crap he spewed on his show, the parents of these dead children have suffered horrendous abuse. On top of that, Alex Jones knew about this. The trial presented ample evidence that he knew and he did not do anything to stop it, let alone rectify it.

Like it or not, he is responsible for the continued suffering of these people.

He should pay a price.

He’s gone many years saying egregiously wrong things, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. In the process, real people have suffered real harm that they never would’ve endured, had it not been for Jones.

Yes, he still has a right to say what he said. He can’t be punished for that.

But that sacred right of free speech is not a shield from consequences.

For too long, he has evaded any semblance of consequence for what he’s said and done on his joke of a show. On top of that, he uses that same show to peddle bullshit supplements and products like the worst kind of snake oil salesman. As a result, he’s made millions from his viewers and his used his platform to elevate the voices of some truly despicable people who have done too much to foster hate, mistrust, and ignorance.

Now, Jones is finally poised to suffer real, tangible loss for his misdeeds. And since his misdeeds go beyond even harassing the parents of slain children, it sets a precedent for others to follow. Personally, I hope more follow the lead of the Sandy Hook parents. I hope more opt to sue Jones for every last penny he has and then some.

It’s bound to hurt him financially, as well as personally. But whatever he suffers, I don’t feel a shred of sympathy for him. I’ll even let myself take some enjoyment in his failure to evade repercussions. Because sadly, it’s exceedingly rare for assholes with money to face any real consequences for their actions. I don’t expect this trail with Alex Jones to change that on a large scale, but a little karmic justice goes a long way these days.

It’s still not clear how much the results of this trial will hurt Jones in the long run. Whatever it does, it’s still far less than he deserves. And in case there’s still any lingering ambiguity about how I feel on this issue or this arrogant blow-hard, allow me to end this with one simple message.

Fuck you, Alex Jones!

Fuck off, you lying, selfish, ignorant, grifting, loud-mouthed, snake-oil selling, pitiful excuse for a slob of a man!

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, extremism, human nature, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, psychology, rants

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 30, 2021 · 7:52 am

Why We’ll Never (Fully) Get Rid Of Misinformation

How Private Information Helps Fake News Hoodwink the Public

Being informed is important. In some cases, it is literally a matter of life and death. That’s a big reason why I’ve made multiple posts urging people to get vaccinated against COVID-19. It could literally save your life. It’s also free, by the way. How many other things that could save your life are also free?

Seriously, people, get vaccinated. I’ll belabor that as much as I have to.

However, this isn’t only about vaccines or the idiots who refuse to get them. It’s about the “information” that these people are using to justify their choices. I put “information” in quotes because calling some of this stuff information is a poor use of the term.

Information, by definition, is supposed to inform. It’s supposed to make you more aware and educated about the world around you. Lies, propaganda, and misinformation do none of that. That sort of thing makes you dumber, more vulnerable, and more easy to manipulate by those willing to do so.

It happens in politics, religion, pop culture, business, and even shady marketing schemes. Much of these endeavors don’t have facts, truth, or verifiable information on their side. As a result, they require that people buy into whatever misinformation they feed them. It’s dishonest, disgraceful, and should be condemned to the utmost.

The problem is that people still buy into it.

Moreover, some people actively seek for this kind of information.

This is something I think many people have experience with, either directly or indirectly. I also suspect it has become a lot more relevant lately, given the rise of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theories. This sort of mentality was always present. The problem is that the internet and social media have made it disturbingly easy to spread.

Now, it’s easy and tempting to blame big tech companies for this phenomenon. Make no mistake. Big tech companies are certainly at fault to some degree. Many of these same companies also have done some incredibly shady things, to say the least.

However, I’m still of the opinion that, no matter how disreputable big tech companies can be, it still ultimately falls on the users to control what information they seek. Whether it’s Google, Facebook, or TikTok, these systems don’t operate in a vacuum. They simply respond to user input. We are, to some extent, responsible for the information we seek.

I’m certainly guilty of seeking out information that isn’t exactly reputable. There have been times, including a few very recent instances, where I find myself seeking information that turned out to be less than truthful. Even if it was for something as innocent as comic book news or NFL trade rumors, it’s still misinformation as best and outright lies at worst.

That may not do much harm if the information you’re seeking is only damaging to your Fantasy Football team, but if that information involved politics or your health, then that’s where the real damage can occur. I’ve already seen it manifest with friends who fell down some very dark internet rabbit holes. Some of that might have just been by accident, but I also don’t doubt it was intentional in some cases.

In recent years, I’ve tried to make a more concerted effort to seek accurate, truthful information. I haven’t always succeeded, but I genuinely try to find true and accurate information, even if it’s something I don’t like. The fact it takes so much effort has me worried.

On top of that, it has led me to believe that it might not be possible to avoid misinformation. Even without the internet, it will find you. Propaganda and lies did exist before the digital age. It’ll likely always exist to some extent, so long as human brains are wired a certain way. Since we can’t change that anytime soon, despite the best efforts of Elon Musk, we’re likely stuck with misinformation.

This has me genuinely concerned because, even as some tech companies are making greater efforts to combat misinformation, it’s still relatively easy to find. On top of that, there are people out there working for nefarious organizations who are actively engaged in creating, spreading, and supplementing misinformation. Even if you shut them all down tomorrow, others will just spring up to replace them.

In some respects, it’s a lot like the war on drugs. You could arrest every single drug dealer in the world this morning, but by dusk a bunch of new dealers will emerge to take their place. Like it or not, there’s still a demand and there’s money, influence, and power to be gained.

Misinformation may not be the same as heroin or pot, but is subject to the same incentives. People actively seek it. Taking it in makes them feel special, important, and smarter than their neighbor. Today, it’s misinformation about vaccines, liberals, and gaming culture. Tomorrow, it might be about something else entirely.

It all comes back to how we’re wired. Our brains are not designed to seek truth or accurate information. They’re designed to keep us alive. Misinformation might be damaging in the long run, but it can make us feel better in the short-term, which is sadly more than enough incentive for some, even if it proves deadly in the long run.

I seriously wish I could end this on an uplifting note. I genuinely tried to find some way of putting a positive spin on this struggle. Unfortunately, the best I could come up with is to simply urge everyone to try harder to seek true and accurate information. If these past two years have taught us anything, it’s that bad information can cause a lot of harm.

We can never get rid of it, so long as our brains operate as they do.

We can and should still do our part. Truth and accuracy matters. You may not like it, but it may very well save your life in the long run.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, psychology, rants, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 23, 2021 · 6:56 am

The Steps To Telling Whether Someone Is A Dishonest Grifter

Why you don't hear about Milo Yiannopoulos or Mike Cernovich anymore - Vox

There are lying, cheating, whiny grifters everywhere these days. They were always present to some extent, but the internet, social media, and algorithms have made them more prominent than ever. It’s never been easier to be a grifter, telling people what they want to hear or trolling them into giving you their money, attention, or trust.

These people are assholes, plain and simple.

Do not give them the time of day, let alone a penny of your money.

They are just scamming you while pretending to enlighten you. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Some are religious grifters. Some are political grifters. Some are just plain attention whores. The only common thread is that they’re assholes seeking money, attention, likes, or subscribers.

Most of the time, it’s easy to tell the grifters from sincere individuals just seeking to put themselves out there. It’s not exactly subtle. More often than not, you can rightly assume that most professional trolls are just blatant grifters.

Others are more subtle and it’s these types you have to be careful with. They’ll rarely claim to have an agenda. If they do, they’re usually good at hiding it behind coded language and dog whistles. It’s important to be on the lookout for that sort of thing because it’s easy to get sucked into their narrative. Once you’re in that narrative, they’ve got you in their grasp and like cult leaders, they’ll do whatever they can to possess you.

Having come across plenty of grifters over the years of being online, I’ve noticed plenty of telling signs. I’d like to share some of those signs. Everyone, regardless of age or affiliation, should be mindful of all the grifts and scams on the internet. The more we recognize them, the more we can call them out for the lying, cheating assholes they are.

Sign #1: Their opinions and reviews on certain movies, TV shows, comics, or public figures never changes, be it negative or positive.

Sign #2: Their opinions, ideology, and rhetoric are extremely similar, if not identical, to other known grifters.

Sign #3: They frequently make the claim that they have inside sources on a particular industry or sub-culture that they never name (and can usually be traced to trolling comments from sites like 4chan).

Sign #4: They throw around politically loaded insults like SJW, whamen, and plebs while talking about non-political topics.

Sign #5: They try to sell you something other than a typical sponsorship like vitamins, merch, or subscriptions services that they exclusively control.

Sign #6: They claim to offer the “real” story behind a particular media narrative, be it political or entertainment.

Sign #7: They constantly claim they’re being oppressed, marginalized, and censored by some nefarious organization with no official name or face (think Big Tech, establishment media, or some outsider sub-group).

Sign #8: They claim that they’re representing the “true” opinions of fans/Christians/Americans/whatever group they’re affiliated with.

Sign #9: They have a select number of public figures they go out of their way to hate, criticize, or demean.

Sign #10: They reject all criticism and debunking as part of a conspiracy against them or people like them.

Sign #11: They never, ever stop whining.

Again, these are just some of the signs. There are probably plenty more. If you have others, please share them in the comments. Remain vigilant for lying, grifting assholes of all types. They’re always out there, looking for their next grift. Don’t let them get you. You don’t deserve to be their victims.

Leave a comment

Filed under outrage culture, psychology, rants, YouTube

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 1, 2021 · 5:48 am

A Brief Message To Those Who Threaten Election Workers And Officials

Ballot box fabricator navigates unprecedented demand for early voting

Fuck you.

Seriously, fuck you and fuck your bullshit excuses for doing something so stupid, cruel, and outright un-American.

Fuck you and your ass-backwards definition of patriotism.

I apologize for the harsh language, but sometimes some extra profanity is both justified and necessary to get the point across. In general, I try to be fair and understanding, especially for touchy issues that include hot-button political topics. I always make it a point to offer respect to those who might not agree with me on certain topics, be they abortion or religion.

I just can’t do that here.

I just can’t muster a shred of sympathy or understanding to people who go out of their way to harass, threaten, and denigrate the people who volunteer their time and energy to ensure American democracy functions.

In case you’re not aware of this deplorable trend, this has actually been an ongoing issue since the 2020 election. A sizable segment of the American population did not like how that election turned out and, like whiny children who didn’t get their way, those same people have been lashing out ever since. Then again, most children don’t make death threats to public officials, so I’m hesitant to call them childish.

Now, I’ve actively avoided this topic since the end of 2020. I’ve seen time and again how it brings out the worst people and the ugliest kind of politics. There’s really no convincing anyone something other than what they’ve come to dogmatically believe. They only ever consume news that tells them what they want to hear and assume every fact to the contrary is a lie.

Usually, I’m perfectly fine with someone living inside their own bubble, provided that they don’t harm anyone else. This is America. We can believe whatever we’d like. However, I draw a hard line when those beliefs become an excuse for making threats to election workers and people who volunteer in the name of democracy.

Some of these threats aren’t vague, either. Here is one story from Reuters that offers some rather graphic examples.

Here’s another video from CNBC. Again, the examples they give are pretty damn graphic.

There are plenty more I could give, but this news is upsetting enough. I don’t care what your political affiliation is or how you voted in the last election or several. This is not how civilized people in a functioning democracy conduct themselves. This isn’t even how children conduct themselves at a little league baseball game.

This is fucking outrageous.

If you are a proud American and actually value the principles of democracy, then I hope this upsets you. These aren’t people with a political agenda being threatened. These are just ordinary Americans doing their jobs. Threatening them because you don’t like how the numbers are panning out doesn’t make you a patriot. It makes you an asshole.

Again, fuck those people.

Fuck them and all their un-American values.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, outrage culture, politics, rants, real stories

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 12, 2021 · 5:44 am

Whistleblower Confirms That Facebook Is Harmful: So What Do We Do About It?

See the source image

There are certain products in this world that we know are harmful, but use them anyway. Cars kill thousands every year through traffic accidents. Thousands die every year by overdosing on drugs that were legally prescribed to them. However, we still use these products because they are essential for our way of life.

With that in mind, I think most people already know that certain social media platforms, such as Facebook, can be harmful. You don’t need to look that hard to find harmful or damaging misinformation on Facebook. Having been in college at the time Facebook really took off, I think most people understood to some extent that this product could be used for immense harm.

So, was it really that surprising when a whistleblower came out and revealed just how much Facebook was aware of the damage they were doing? Just like tobacco companies before them, they could see that harm unfolding in real time. They just weren’t willing to take the kinds of steps that would hinder their profits.

They’re a multi-billion dollar business. They want to keep making billions for years to come. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. That’s the nature/flaw of capitalism.

In case you haven’t been following this story, the fallout from this whistleblower’s revelations are still unfolding. If you want details on the story, here is what NPR reported:

NPR: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm children and weaken democracy

Facebook’s products “harm children, stoke division, weaken our democracy and much more,” Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee who leaked tens of thousands of pages of internal documents, will tell lawmakers on Tuesday.

“When we realized tobacco companies were hiding the harms [they] caused, the government took action. When we figured out cars were safer with seat belts, the government took action,” she will say, according to her prepared testimony. “I implore you to do the same here.”

Haugen will urge lawmakers to take action to rein in Facebook, because, she says, it won’t do so on its own. “The company’s leadership knows ways to make Facebook and Instagram safer and won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their immense profits before people,” she will say.

There’s much more to the article, but I singled out this excerpt because it effectively sums up the situation. Again, most reasonable people probably suspected that a platform like Facebook was doing real harm to public discourse and the psychology of teenagers, especially girls. It’s still nice to have confirmation.

As someone who uses Facebook, I can attest to its harms. There is some pretty toxic crap throughout the site, as well as some equally toxic people. Sadly, some of that toxicity comes from friends and relatives sharing content, often of a political nature, that gets people upset and outraged. That’s not a bug, either. According to the whistleblower, that’s entirely on purpose.

Now, in the interest of maintaining some kind of perspective, I’m inclined to remind everyone where that content on Facebook comes from. Remember, they’re not the one’s producing it. They’re just the platform. It’s the users and the people who are creating that. It’s people willing to lie, denigrate, demean, and troll who create the content that makes Facebook and social media so toxic.

To blame Facebook entirely for these harms is like blaming car manufacturers for traffic fatalities. At the end of the day, the car itself doesn’t cause the harm. It’s the person using it.

That being said, Facebook is not a car, nor should we treat it like one. It’s also not a tobacco company and we shouldn’t treat it like that, either. Facebook doesn’t create a tangible product that we can hold in our hands to harm ourselves, nor is it a chemical we willingly put in our bodies. It’s a digital service that we engage with and, in turn, it engages with us.

From that exchange, real harm is possible. This whistleblower confirms that and, based on the available information, I think the data presented is valid. That still leaves one question to ponder.

What do we do about Facebook and other companies like it?

That’s still an unresolved question and one that too many people try to answer bluntly. Shortly after this story came out, the ever-popular #DeleteFacebook hashtag started trending. However, I doubt anything will come of that. I’ve seen that hashtag trend on multiple occasions and it has done little to affect Facebook’s growth.

These revelations are bad, but I doubt they’ll be enough to bring Facebook down completely. They may lose subscribers and revenue in the short-term, but they’ll adapt and grow in the long run. You don’t become a multi-billion dollar company without being able to adapt in lieu of bad press.

At the same time, I think we should take some action to mitigate the impact of Facebook and social media. What could that entail? I’m not smart enough to offer a comprehensive answer, but I do know the extremes people are throwing around just won’t work.

For one, Facebook can’t be banned or shuttered. It makes too much money and it would set a dangerous precedent for every business, online or otherwise. It’s also probably grossly unconstitutional, at least in western democracies like the United States and Britain.

Even if it were banned, people would find a way to get around it. Just look at the countries that have tried to ban porn. People still find a way to get it.

Others have thrown around ideas like splitting up Facebook, just like America once did with oil companies and phone companies. That would certainly be extreme and there are precedents for doing so. However, would that really change how Facebook and social media are utilized by real people? Would those not satisfied with the newly broken up Facebook simply create something similar under a different name?

The most logical recourse might just involve demanding that Facebook make the changes they refused to make, according to the whistleblower. They could also be subject to major fines and taxes, as we’ve done before with tobacco. Will those measures be effective? I don’t know, but I’m skeptical, to say the least.

I honestly don’t think there’s an easy answer to the question. I also think that, even if governments did implement new measures on social media companies to combat their harms, both the companies and the users would find a way around it. Both sides are just too motivated at this point.

I still believe there’s a better solution. I just don’t know what it is and if anyone has one to offer, please share it in the comments. In the meantime, I guess the best recourse we can all do is to just be careful about what we place on Facebook and be more mindful of the content we consume.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, health, human nature, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, psychology, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2021 · 5:49 am

A Question (And A Challenge) For Those Who Once Opposed Same-Sex Marriage (But No Longer Do)

Fighting for the right to recognize same-sex marriage in Japan | The Japan Times

People change.

Societies change.

General attitudes towards certain subjects, ideas, or behaviors change.

None of that should be news to anyone. Change is the only true constant in this crazy, complicated world. I’ve certainly seen plenty over the course of my life. It really wasn’t that long ago that the idea of marijuana being legalized in one state, let alone a dozen, seemed unthinkable.

It also wasn’t that long ago that the idea of same-sex marriage being legalized nationwide seemed equally unthinkable. In terms of major social and/or political issues, that issue resonates with me because it became a hot button topic while I was a teenager. In essence, it grew as I grew.

I still remember all the headlines from 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. I also remembered all the heated discussions that came from it. I even participated in a few. I felt like I understood the arguments made by the proponents. I had little issue seeing the logic behind their points.

Two individuals love each other and want to get married.

The state currently prevents them from doing so, thereby denying them the many benefits associated with marriage.

That denial is simply not reasonable in a free society that permits people to marry whomever they choose.

However, it was the arguments made by the opponents that I often struggled to understand. Honestly, their arguments from tradition, morality, or the idea of “defending marriage” just didn’t make sense to me. Even as I got older and saw arguments against it from major pundits and thinkers, often from those who identified as conservative, I still didn’t get it.

How does two gay people getting married affect anyone?

How does it tangibly and measurably undermine marriage between heterosexual couples?

I never got a straight answer. Most of the time, I just got hit with a bunch of bible verses from the Old Testament or some variation of “marriage has always been this way.” I never found any of those arguments convincing.

Fast forward two decades and suddenly, the lack of substance in those arguments really show. More and more, people are started to realize that too, including those who identify as conservative and likely opposed same-sex marriage at one point.

Just recently, Gallup released a poll indicating that support of same-sex marriage was at a record high. On top of that, even those who vote republican and identify as conservative have since come to support it. It’s still not quite on the same level as that of liberal democrats, but it’s still a majority and that’s a big deal.

Gallup: Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage

U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70% — a new high in Gallup’s trend since 1996. This latest figure marks an increase of 10 percentage points since 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all states must recognize same-sex marriages.

…

Republicans, who have consistently been the party group least in favor of same-sex marriage, show majority support in 2021 for the first time (55%). The latest increase in support among all Americans is driven largely by changes in Republicans’ views.

Now, I welcome this news. I think it’s an objectively good thing that more and more people support same-sex marriage. The opposition to it never came off as anything more than varying degrees of bigotry.

I also think homosexuality and LGBTQ issues have gotten to a point where they’re no longer so unfamiliar or radical. We see them on TV, in movies, and in major positions of power. At the same time, the brand of reactionary religious zealotry that condemns homosexuality has fallen out of favor.

Again, this is good news. Accepting same-sex marriage and affording same-sex couples the same rights and protections isn’t just fair and just. It’s the right thing to do. Even if you despise homosexuality, you can’t justify having your personal preferences imposed and enforced by law. That’s just un-American.

Beyond that news, though, I have a question and a challenge for those who once opposed same-sex marriage, but no longer do. I’ll even extend it to those who still oppose same-sex marriage. Now that same-sex marriage has been legal for over five years, I think this question is worth asking.

How much or how little has your life changed since same-sex marriage was legalized?

It’s an honest, sincere question. I’d really like to know. There was a lot of fearmongering on the part of opponents to same-sex marriage. I won’t get into the specifics, but there were real concerns by opponents that legalizing same-sex marriage would have dire consequences.

Have any of those consequences even played out? If so, what data indicates as such?

Again, that’s an honest inquiry. I’d really like to know.

In addition, I also have a challenge to those who once opposed same-sex marriage. It’s a bit broader in scope, but is just as relevant.

What other issues besides same-sex marriage have you come around on?

Like I said earlier, change is the only true constant. What’s considered normal and acceptable today might be considered atrocious tomorrow. The same goes for what we consider immoral or deviant. A couple decades ago, it was same-sex marriage. A century ago, things like divorce and interracial marriage were just as taboo.

It’s hard to understand the attitudes of generations that have long since passed on. However, the vast shift in attitudes do offer some perspective. I believe they challenge us all to contemplate our current attitudes and how differently they’ll be seen in future generations.

We can’t know for sure which position will change drastically between now and twenty years into the future. We should still make a concerted effort in refining our perspective. Same-sex marriage showed just how much attitudes towards one single issue can change within a couple decades. Which issue will undergo a similar change two decades from now? Only time will tell.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, LGBTQ, Marriage and Relationships, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, psychology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 9, 2021 · 8:53 am

A (Sincere) Question To Critics Of Critical Race Theory

Sawicky: Critical Race Theory is not what its critics suggest it is | Community Views | loudountimes.com

In general, I try not to wade into a hot button political topic until the rhetoric has become less heated. I think it’s rarely productive to throw your voice into the fray when everyone is still shouting their talking points at the top of their lungs. I know I’ve weighed in on political issues in the past, but I’ve tried to do so from a broader, bigger picture perspective.

Sometimes, though, it’s too hard to wait for everyone to stop shouting. In certain instances, the extent of that shouting is symptomatic of a larger mentality. It’s not just about the topic that’s relevant. It’s the general sentiment, passions, and feelings surrounding it.

Not too long ago, it was social justice and feminism.

Before that, it was same-sex marriage.

Before that, it was civil rights and sex discrimination.

Go back far enough and you’ll see similar discourse. When an issue is very relevant, it brings out both heated rhetoric and the prevailing attitudes of the time.

Today, I get the sense that Critical Race Theory has become that issue. Whenever people talk about it, their political tribalism rears its head and it’s neither subtle nor pretty. While I don’t doubt this issue will eventually pass to make way for the next one, it’s something worth touching on.

At its core, the particulars of Critical Race Theory aren’t that radical. If you look it up on Wikipedia, it doesn’t sounds wholly unreasonable. It’s simply a study to evaluate how social, culture, and legal traditions have impacted larger institutions and social systems.

As a social science, it’s hardly revolutionary. These are concepts that social scientists have been studying for decades. The main difference with Critical Race Theory is its emphasis on race, especially those pertaining to the African American community. After what happened with the murder of George Floyd in 2020, it only grew in relevance.

Now, I’ve stated before that we, as Americans, should not avoid the less flattering parts of our history. Acknowledging past mistakes doesn’t make you any less patriotic. It just offers a larger perspective towards certain American ideals.

However, that’s a point that those protesting Critical Race Theory don’t seem to harbor. Ever since the George Floyd protests erupted last year, this theory has been attacked and protested on multiple levels. In general, I try to sympathize and empathize with the passions of these people. They are my fellow Americans, after all. I believe they have a right to voice those passions.

At the same time, I cannot help but groan and cringe. I also genuinely wonder if they understand the full implication of what they’re arguing.

It’s true that Critical Race Theory has some distressing implications. Beyond acknowledging America’s racist past, it further complicates efforts to create a more just society. Addressing the transgressions of the past is not as simple as passing a few pieces of landmark legislation.

The system, as it functions now, is still very flawed. Fixing it may require greater effort, as well as a larger cost. Many people, who likely believe in themselves to not be racist, are bound to have a problem with that. They see it as an agenda, one that will label them and their children as a racist by default.

Whether or not that’s a reasonable concern is beside the point. I won’t claim to know what those protesting Critical Race Theory are truly thinking. I’m not psychic. However, in reviewing all this heated discourse, I’d like to offer a simple question to these people. It’s a sincere question and one I ask you consider seriously.

Why do you oppose teaching or discuss one particular idea over the other?

With that in mind, take a step back and look at this without Critical Race Theory being the main subject. Now, take a moment to appreciate what you’re asking of society, at large. You’re saying this idea that you think is wrong or flawed should not be discussed.

Even if you think it shouldn’t be discussed outside certain fields, you’re still making a statement. This is a dangerous idea and it shouldn’t be discussed, especially with children. Even in a country like America, which espouses the value of free speech, you’re arguing for an idea to be censored or suppressed.

Now, I don’t doubt there are some horrible ideas out there. Some are legitimate precursors to violence. That’s why organizations like the Ku Klux Klan are rightly vilified and prosecuted. Except, Critical Race Theory is nothing like that. So why, in that context, does it warrant so much outrage? Again, it’s a sincere question and I’d like to get a sincere answer. Please explain your reasoning in whatever way you see fit.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, history, human nature, outrage culture, political correctness, politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 29, 2021 · 5:49 am

Why Superhero Secret Identities Are More Relevant Than Ever

Superman

You don’t have to be a lifelong fan of superheroes to know the role that secret identities play in their over-arching narrative. It’s one of those story elements that often goes hand-in-hand with a hero’s journey. Part of becoming a hero involves forging an identity and, more often than not, this identity can’t function alongside the one they start with.

It’s a story that has roots in the early days of modern superhero comics. It wasn’t just a common plot point. It was practically a given. It was as necessary as capes, colorful costumes, and punishing masked criminals.

From a practical standpoint, having a secret identity has some legitimate merit. There are things Bruce Wayne can do as Batman that he cannot do and vice versa. The same goes for Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, and many other iconic heroes. In “Batman Begins,” Bruce Wayne set the stage for his secret identity by crafting Batman as a symbol, one that conveyed an idea that went beyond the person in the costume.

In recalling that scene, I think that idea was more prophetic than Christopher Nolan initially intended. When I look at how secret identities have come to define many characters, I believe they’re more important today than they have been in any other era.

I don’t just say that as a long-time fan of superhero comics who has used his knowledge of the genre to explore serious issues. I believe that we, as a society, are entering uncharted territory when it comes to how we manage our identities. The influence of the internet, social media, and an increasingly connected world is more powerful than any fictional hero. It’s already finding its way into superhero media.

This topic became especially relevant for Superman fans because back in late 2019, the release of “Superman #18” officially revealed Superman’s identity as Clark Kent. Now, it wasn’t not the first time Superman’s identity has been exposed, but this time it wasn’t a gimmick. Now, Superman had to learn how to be Superman without a secret identity.

Over the past decade, the value and vulnerabilities of secret identities have been under fire. One of the most jarring moments of the original “Iron Man” movie was the very end when Tony Stark didn’t attempt to hide the fact he was Iron Man. For those not familiar with the comics, it might not have seemed like a big issue. Trust me, it was a major shift.

While Tony Stark debuted as Iron Man in 1963, his identity didn’t become public until the early 2000s. That’s nearly four decades of him operating with a secret identity. In the context of his journey, this was not a trivial decision.

What happened to Spider-Man at the end of “Spider-Man: Far From Home” was even more jarring. While his secret identity has been revealed many times in the comics, it’s almost always retconned. Like Batman and Superman, he has to have a secret identity. He has to have a civilian life that’s separate from his superhero life.

There’s even a notable episode of “Superman: The Animated Series” in which Superman flat out admits that he’d go crazy if he couldn’t be Clark Kent. Think about that for a second. Superman, one of the most powerful and iconic superheroes of all time, admits that can’t handle a life without a secret identity. This is someone who can handle Lex Luthor, Darksied, and Brainiac. If he can’t handle it, then what hope do we have?

That question might not have been too relevant 20 years ago. Before the age of smartphones, broadband internet, and social media, a superhero might have been able to get away with having their identity exposed. You could say the same for anyone who happened to have a dirty secret or a double life. Whether it was an affair or a secret hobby, you didn’t have to work that hard to keep it secret.

Back then, not everyone had a fully-functional camera in their pocket or a means of sharing their media on a mass scale. Even if someone did manage to take a compromising picture or video, it wouldn’t be a huge revelation unless it was published by a major news source and even then there was no guarantee it would have staying power, especially if other major stories broke at the same time.

Now, anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection can capture compromising footage of anyone and share it with the world in seconds. In the world of superheroes, it makes keeping an identity harder than ever. Spider-Man found that out the hard way at the end of “Spider-Man: Far From Home.” Ordinary people and major celebrities are finding that out as well in the real world.

The internet and social media has created an unusual, yet potent system that skews the dynamics of having an identity, secret or otherwise. On one hand, it’s easier than ever to create an anonymous persona on the internet. With that persona, people are unbound by the propriety of real-world interaction.

It’s part of why the comments section of any website or social media feed is full of deplorable rhetoric that highlights the worst in people. Ordinary people can use the anonymity of the internet to say thing they would never say to another human being face-to-face. At the same time, celebrities and people of influence have the opposite problem.

In this hyper-connected world, every word and every action is permanently archived and subject to greater scrutiny. Every mistake or misstep is amplified and blown out of proportion. Every bit of subtext and nuance is completely lost in the various biases and agendas of the public. In essence, public figures have little to no control of their identity. They are very much at the mercy of how others perceive them.

That kind of scrutiny can have benefits and drawbacks. You could argue that the added scrutiny of social media has held celebrities and people of influence to a higher standard. They can no longer operate in the shadows with impunity. Dirty secrets will come out. Bad behavior will be documented. The O.J. Simpsons and Bill Cosbys of yesteryear could not get away with their deplorable behavior in today’s environment.

That may be a good thing on some levels, but it comes at a cost and not just for those who have had their lives ruined by the internet. In a world where anonymous identities are easily created and valued identities are easily ruined, how can anyone hope to maintain a balanced perspective? Whether you’re an accomplished celebrity or just some random blogger, don’t you still need a persona that feels true?

For people who are stuck in difficult situations, such as those belonging to racial, religious, or LGBTQ minorities, having that secret identity might be the only one that feels true or genuine. If that gets exposed, then those individuals could be in legitimate danger. There are parts of the world who will punish these individuals in ways far more serious than online trolling.

In the past, these kinds of people didn’t have an outlet or a means of connecting with others who share their struggles. They either had to organize in secret or set up their own communities, which often meant making themselves real-life targets. The ability to create an identity, secret or otherwise, can be a powerful mechanism for helping people forge an identity that feels true to who they are.

To some extent, superheroes embody the importance of these identities. They can’t do what they do without them. They can’t remain connected to the people and the world they’re trying to protect if they’re always in costume, trying to maintain this persona they’ve created. Without it, they become disconnected and overwhelmed. As a result, they can’t be the heroes they need to be.

For people in the real world, having these identities is more important than ever. You don’t have to be a superhero to appreciate their value, but as our world becomes more connected, it’s become a lot easier to understand why Spider-Man and Batman work so hard to preserve their secret identities.

The fact they still struggle, despite having super-powers and billions of dollars, is a testament to just how difficult it can be. As the world becomes increasingly connected and increasingly tribal, it’s only going to get harder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, Marvel, media issues, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, psychology, Spider-Man, superhero comics, superhero movies

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 22, 2021 · 5:49 am

How A Female 007 Can Succeed Or Fail

We live in a strange era of popular culture. While trends and tastes are always changing, I can’t recall a time when they’ve changed in such varying ways. Superhero movies went from being a niche genre to the biggest box office draw in history. Beloved children’s movies are becoming live-action remakes. Horror movies are even starting to reinvent themselves.

One trend that has garnered more controversy than most has to do with a certain kind of remake. Specifically, it involves remakes that attempt to swap the gender, race, or some other characteristic of an iconic character. The first major franchise to try this was “Ghostbusters” in 2016 and to say that this was controversial would be like calling a tornado laced with cow shit a light breeze.

Now, I’ve tried to stay out of the discussions involving gender-swapping or race-swapping because it’s rarely productive. I’ve never seen those discussions produce anything other than frothing hatred, regardless of whether it’s online or in person. With the COVID-19 pandemic finally waning and movie theaters opening back up, I’m content to just go into movies with an open mind and hope for the best.

However, I don’t see this trend ending anytime soon. Even though “Ghostbusters” tanked at the box office, I suspect Hollywood will keep trying to push the envelope, if only to garner attention and clicks. The prevailing sentiment seems to be that the old ways of crafting characters, villains, and stories just isn’t viable anymore. They need to shake things up and do things differently.

I can already sense certain people banging their heads against the wall or groaning in dismay, lamenting over the idea that Disney may one day make an “Indiana Jones” reboot featuring a black transgender double-amputee woman as the new Dr. Jones. I understand that dread. At the same time, I think there is room for innovation. It’s just a matter of not destroying what makes stories, franchises, and iconic characters great.

One franchise that is poised for a new direction that may either reinvigorate or regress it completely is the James Bond franchise. In terms of franchises in need of a boost, I think Bond needs one more than most. The last entry, “Spectre,” was somewhat of a downgrade compared to the billion-dollar box office that “Skyfall” achieved. On top of that, Daniel Craig has made clear that he wishes to move on from the character.

For a while, the big controversy was the rumor that Idris Elba would take over as the new James Bond. While Elba eventually debunked that rumor, it still ignited a glut of angry debates over the future of the franchise that only got worse when issues of racism entered the conversation. Now, if recent rumors surrounding the development of the next Bond movie, “No Time To Die,” are true, those debates will only intensify.

While the details haven’t been confirmed, the plot of the upcoming movie includes Lashana Lynch playing a black, female agent who may or may not be Bond’s replacement. Not surprisingly, this has generated plenty of uproar and it will only intensify if these details prove accurate. While I don’t have any strong feelings about Ms. Lynch playing 007, I suspect the controversy it garners will extend beyond the movie.

After what happened with “Ghostbusters,” there’s certainly cause for concern. Aside from losing money, that movie damaged both a franchise and a concept. It showed just how badly things can go when a franchise attempts to reinvent itself in a way that panders to political sensibilities while undercutting the very things that made that franchise great.

I don’t think James Bond is in a position to endure that kind of setback. It doesn’t have the same status as “Star Wars” and occupies a genre that is difficult to adapt to a world where internet trolls are a more pressing threat than Russian spies. At the same time, I believe the James Bond franchise is in a better position than “Ghostbusters” or “Star Wars” to succeed in a way others haven’t.

Make no mistake. The odds of the next Bond movie succeeding are stacked against it. If this movie tries too hard to be too progressive, then it won’t just ruin the story. It’ll set the franchise back for years. If it succeeds, however, it could reinvent the franchise in a way that will appeal to a new generation who never had to worry about Soviet sleeper agents.

Without knowing the details of the plot, it’s difficult to know how it will pan out. However, I believe there’s a right way to do a remake that attracts a new audience while not alienating long-time fans. Unfortunately, there are always fewer right ways to do things than wrong ways. What follows is my idea on how this new era of James Bond can succeed and how it may ultimately fail.

How A Female 007 Can Succeed

Female James Bond: 10 Actresses We Think Should Play 007

This is, by far, the most important aspect of the upcoming movie. If 007 is going to be a black woman played by Lashana Lynch, then this part has to work. I understand that’s a tall order. Some may say it’s impossible. I respectfully disagree. I believe that there’s no reason 007 can’t be someone of a different race or gender. It’s just a matter of building that story around that of James Bond.

Please note that I differentiate between 007 and James Bond. While I realize the two titles often go hand-in-hand, I don’t think they’re dependent on one another. James Bond can still be the same womanizing, martini-loving super spy he’s always been without the title of 007. In fact, he’s been disavowed and fired from his role on more than one occasion in more than one movie.

Titles like 007 change hands all the time in the world of James Bond. It wouldn’t completely undermine the spirit of James Bond for someone else to wield that title in some capacity, even if they’re black and female. It’s just a matter of building a proper story around it.

If the plot rumors are to be believed, James Bond is still alive in this movie. However, he has since retired from MI-6. That opens the door for someone else to take on the title of 007 and that’s where Ms. Lynch’s character comes in. Due to this connection, their paths eventually cross and the story evolves from there.

I believe this story can work, but only if both James Bond and Ms. Lynch’s character complement one another. By that, I mean they have to be true equals in terms of skill, grit, and charisma. Ms. Lynch can’t just be another female agent who occasionally clashes with Q and Moneypenny. She has to share Bond’s bravado, recklessness, and cunning.

That gives her and Bond a reason to work together. It also compounds the threats, danger, and volatility of the conflict. They don’t have to be best friends and they don’t have to try to seduce one another. They just have to demonstrate that they need each other. They make each other better at what they do. One need not outshine the other.

How they achieve this depends on the plot. It certainly won’t be easy and I definitely have my doubts that it can be done. I don’t think it’s impossible, though. If those involved find a way, then it could be a bold new direction for the James Bond franchise. There will always be room for James Bond, but having a new 007 in the mix could open up many possibility.

How A Female 007 Can Fail

There are almost too many ways for me to list how this idea can fail. Like I said earlier, making a bold concept work is difficult. Failing spectacularly is easy. For James Bond, it’s just a matter of how that failure plays out. I think the biggest risk may come from this movie not learning the same lessons as the “Ghostbusters” remake.

Chief among those lessons is maintaining the spirit of the original. James Bond is a womanizing, martini-loving embodiment of raw masculinity. Trying to make him something other than that or trying to make him the antagonist will completely derail both the story and long-time fans. Even if Ms. Lynch’s character is done well, it won’t matter whatsoever if James Bond isn’t James Bond.

Even if James Bond’s character remains intact, Ms. Lynch’s character could also derail the movie just as much. If she’s going to wield the title of 007, she can’t just be some flat character with no distinct personality traits. Being black and female, there will be a temptation to make her either too much like Bond or too different.

If she’s too competent, then she could get lumped with the infamous Mary Sue label that plagued Rey in “Star Wars.” If she’s just as reckless and promiscuous as Bond, then she’s not her own character. She’s just a black, female James Bond and nothing more. It may seem like an either/or scenario, but I believe there’s plenty of room to disguinish her. I’m just not convinced that the lessons of “Ghostbusters” have sunk in.

Even if both Ms. Lynch’s character and James Bond are intact, there’s still the matter of the overall story. That could easily get lost in the effort to make Ms. Lynch a convincing 007 that fans will embrace. If the villain or threat is unoriginal or predictable, then even quality characterization won’t help the movie succeed.

Like superhero movies, James Bond movies often succeed on the strength of their villains. Times have changed since the Cold War. The biggest threats of today aren’t what they were in the mid-20th Century when James Bond established himself as the ultimate spy. Recent movies, going back to “Casino Royale,” have noted that Bond is a relic of a bygone era. That doesn’t mean he can’t have a place in the 21st century.

At the moment, if I had to bet money on the success or failure of this movie, I would bet on it failing. I wouldn’t bet everything, but I believe the odds are stacked against it. Between the outrage culture that constantly rages on the internet and the growing cynicism surrounding remakes and reboots, there are so many forces working against this movie besides just making it entertaining.

However, James Bond is one of those rare franchises that has endured for decades. It has found ways of reinventing itself before. If ever there was a franchise that could raise to the challenge, it’s this one. Time will tell, but it’ll take more than gadgets, martinis, and sex appeal beat the odds.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, movies, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, sex in media, sex in society

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 1, 2021 · 5:51 am

Being Blessed Vs. Being Lucky: The (Major) Difference And Why It Matters

Picture, for a moment, the following scenario.

You’re at a prestigious awards ceremony. The nature of the ceremony and the award aren’t important. The only factor that matters is the awards are granted to only a few individuals who have achieved feats that few human beings have achieved. It’s an honor just to be nominated, but an even bigger honor to win.

With that in mind, imagine two different winners for two different feats. The first winner comes up onto the stage, accepts their award, and gives a heartfelt speech that’s something along the lines of this.

“Thank you so much for this incredible honor. It was a long, hard road to get to this point, but I’ve been so blessed with wondrous gifts and amazing support. To them and to the higher power that blessed me, I am eternally grateful!”

Chances are you’ve heard a speech like that before. We hear it all the time with athletes, celebrities, and major public figures. They achieve something spectacular and their first inclination is to say they are blessed. They don’t always thank a god for it, but it’s such a common refrain that most come to expect it. Some even joke about it.

That being said, try to imagine your reaction for the second winner. They come out on stage with the same immense joy as the previous winner. They also give a heartfelt speech of their own, but it goes like this.

“Thank you so much for this incredible honor. It was a long, hard road to get to this point, but I was just really lucky to be born with talent and amazing support. I like to think I’ve made the most of it. This award is just part of it. For that, I am so proud of myself and those who helped me!”

I doubt a celebrity has given an acceptance speech like this before. If they did, chances are it would either be a joke or an elaborate act of trolling, which some celebrities are known to do. For the sake of this little thought experiment, imagine the person was sincere. How would you feel about them? Would be different than the first?

I crafted this scenario as a way of illustrating the difference between being blessed and being lucky. These terms tend to get used interchangeably. In common language, they’re somewhat synonymous. Even though dictionary definitions have some key distinctions, the standard usage of these words carries a particular meaning.

Part of that meaning stems from the general discomfort we feel about the universe being so chaotic and meaningless. We’re wired to seek patterns and surmise order. It doesn’t even matter if the patterns or order is real or an outright trick. When people can make sense of the world, we’re better able to function. It’s a big reason why humans have been able to adapt and survive with such success.

The ideas being lucky and being blessed reflect opposite sentiments of a similar principle. We see luck as a fluke. There’s no meaning behind it. It just happens randomly and without any defined goal.

A kid is randomly born with talent that makes them a great athlete.

A person randomly picks the winning numbers to win a big lottery prize.

A person just happens to be in the right place at the right time to meet the love of their life.

None of these situations are inherently right or wrong. That’s part of what makes it so distressing on some levels. The people who benefit from luck do nothing to deserve or warrant their good fortune. It goes against that innate sense of fairness that most sensible human beings have wired into their brains.

Being blessed, on the other hand, carries a very different connotation. To be blessed implies that some person, deity, or sentient force chose to grant someone such benefits. It’s not random. It’s part of a larger plan. It may not seem like one on the surface. It may even be an outright illusion. That ultimately doesn’t matter. The semblance of a plan is enough.

To be blessed also carried with it a sense of humility. Someone who just says they’re lucky doesn’t come off as moral or gracious. Even if they’re entirely ambivalent about it, they won’t inspire respect or admiration for acknowledging their luck. If they say they’re blessed, though, it changes the context.

A person who is blessed with talent means their achievements have a greater meaning.

A person who is blessed with picking winning lotto numbers means their good fortune is part of some larger plan.

A person who is blessed with meeting the love of their live means their love is somehow pre-ordained by fate.

The difference lies within the meaning. Being blessed conveys influence from a source greater than the person receiving the blessing. To show gratitude to that force is to accept that it’s not just about you. There’s a larger plan and you’re just part of it. That sounds humble, but at the same time, it detracts from the true extent of an achievement.

Luck or no luck, it takes effort and dedication to achieve something of value. Whether it’s an award for world’s largest nose ring or setting a record for most pop tarts consumed in a day, an accomplishment still requires work. Even lottery winners have to go out of their way to pick the numbers, get the ticket, and claim their prize.

To call that process a blessing is to dehumanize the actions involved. It undercuts the countless other factors in play. Some are entirely controllable. A champion of any sport usually has talent, determination, and a willingness to refine their skill. Others are simply beyond their control, from the conditions of an event to just the general randomness of a particular moment.

To assume these factors as part of some over-arching plan is to assume there’s a governing force that consciously cares about these random happenings. Whether that force is a deity or some idea of conscious fate, people will consciously devalue their own worth to believe they’re part of something greater. It might not be real, but that’s beside the point.

It helps us wrap our brains around incredible achievements and improbable events. It shows in how people can resent those who are just deemed lucky. Again, just look at lottery winners. Those who have enjoyed that rare level of luck can attest that they are generally looked down upon by those who gained their fortune in other ways.

This isn’t to imply that the whole concept of being blessed is inherently wrong. There may actually be a higher governing power behind certain peoples’ fortunes, be it an all-powerful deity or the shape-shifting lizard men of the Illuminati. There’s no evidence of it now, but as believers and conspiracy theorists will often point out, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

That said, I believe the dehumanizing aspect of blessings over luck does more harm than good in the long run. Humility is an admirable trait, but there are better ways to encourage it that don’t involve assigning some arbitrary meaning to random events. In addition, saying someone or something is blessed has some indirect implications that are even less desirable than a random universe.

If one person is blessed, then that implies other people were deemed undeserving.

If one moment is blessed, then those that came before it are nothing more than prelude, no matter how much they meant to those involved.

If a people or society are blessed, then that basically declares that everyone else is somehow beneath them and that mentality rarely brings out the best in people.

Human beings are capable of remarkable feats. Many of those feats don’t require a higher power or some conscious force. They simply require an opportunity and a willingness to strive for something greater. Granted, opportunities can be random and there’s only so much anyone can do to control the luck they get. However, I submit that gives it even more meaning in the grand scheme of things.

Leave a comment

Filed under human nature, outrage culture, philosophy, politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,