Early Morning Philosophy #1

Most people think that optimists--hopeful people, people who choose to focus on the good--turn a blind eye to the realities of the world. That they live in houses made of fuschia glass, incapable of facing truth. I disagree. In my experiences, people of hope are more aware of the world than most, because they look at each moment. They refuse to sweep all negative events into a sweeping, 'Well, what do you expect these days?' generality that the pessimistic and the despairing do; instead, they believe that each victim, each sad tragedy is worth being mourned in and of itself, and not just part of some overarching (and therefore ignorable) whole. They refuse to let themselves become desensitized, and so, feel each sadness fresh each time. It easy to shrug off sadness, easy to act as if it is to be expected, and after all, what could *I* have done about it anyway? It is much harder to refuse to accept that as the rule, to strive instead to make it the exception. To focus on the good is to encourage it...Evil is the greatest, and original troll which thrives off the attention it gets. Optimists don't claim the world is great. I don't even think it's that good. But the potential for good is there, and to trivialize it by considering any such encouragement as juvenile does no favors for anyone. Pessimism is an easy way out because it gives those who do wrong an excuse, a cop out. "How could you have expected me to do the right thing?" they ask, "When the wrong thing was so much easier and practically EXPECTED?" I am willing to accept, though not agree, that optimism is probably foolish. I will never accept that it is weak.

Failblog

Wow, July. That was a while ago. I've frequently thought of things I would like to talk about but I always end up ranting to whoever is around and then lose the fire to type it all out. Plus I figure anyone who cares what I think enough to read this, I probably have talked to about it anyway. This is mostly self-defeating because I honestly would like to be a solid blogger, like my friend Cynthia.

So with that redundant explanation, let's move on.

Usually, to get me to write, you have to make me angry. Not mad, being mad burns out quickly. Honesy-to-God righteous indignation, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

So first, let me introduce a new word for everyone.

Conflate, verb. The noun is "conflation." It is when you mistakenly equate two things that are separate. That is, you think things are the same when they are not. This is done on a nigh daily basis, usually benignly and frequently without any consequence other than the individual being (sometimes understandably) confused.

Other times, it could very well lead to bloodshed.

A few weeks ago, my brother asked me what I thought of the whole "Mosque at Ground Zero" controversy. Due mostly to being buried under work and getting future plans worked out, I had honestly no idea what he was talking about, and therefore didn't feel I could make an educated response.

My first response, and one of the points that I don't feel is REALLY under contention is that they are legally allowed to build a worship center anywhere they want, without federal intervention.

So the issue becomes not "can they" but "should they?" I said I thought it was a community issue, they should talk it out in a civil manner that would be educational to all parties and if the community was simply too offended, then maybe it shouldn't be built. My brother said something that seems to be a common feeling in this country. He said "It offends me as an American."

This bothered me a bit but again, I didn't know all the facts, so I didn't think I should respond. There also seemed to be a feeling that the President was siding with the Muslims and endorsing the worship center, which isn't his place.

Well, now I've done some checking and feel I can speak to the issue better.

First, I remind the class that freedom of religion means everyone's religion, not just the ones we like. In the end, our opinions don't really matter because if they want to build it, they will, and that is their constitutional right. End of story.

Secondly, this worship center isn't AT Ground Zero, it is not being built on the rubble of the Trade Centers. It's a few blocks away and there are already other Mosques, at least one, that is actually closer. I think saying "Mosque at Ground Zero" is purposefully inflammatory and misleading, and like so much of this contrary, dependent on the ignorance of the populace. So the idea that this is a conscious slap in America's collective face is already refuted. I do not believe the Muslims behind building this center--most of whom have shown themselves to be moderate--are trying to hurt anyone. I admit, they should have been prepared for this to become a firestorm, and maybe they did, but I don't think they chose the location for that reason.

Thirdly, *I* am NOT offended as an American. To be honest, I'm much more offended by the visceral, usually ignorant, sometimes downright hateful, but mostly just knee-jerk reaction of the Americans I've heard. This sort of issue should be handled with sensitivity, civility and respect. Instead, we get "Not In My Backyard" on a national level. Guess what? It's THEIR backyard, too. I have always been proud of America's inclusiveness, that our national identity is made up of a variety of flavors. However, this means America will only work if we choose to let it. And sometimes people don't seem to want to do that.

So why are people offended? This is where our friend "conflation" comes in. People seem to have mixed up "Muslim" with "terrorist." While it *should* go without saying, I'm going to anyway: they are NOT the same. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Maybe a few thousand are "violent extremists." That means the vast majority are peaceful, probably similar to us in more ways than they are different.

The Muslims who are pushing for this center are, as far as I know, peaceable, moderate people, who just want to worship their way.

This is why wars on ideas never work and have so many unfortunate consequences. It is also the problem of terrorism. The rules are different, we can fight conventionally. We aren't fighting the Muslims or the Afghanis or the Iraqis. We are fighting terrorists and criminals.

Someone once said that humans are the instruments of ideologies. While this is true, I argue that ideologies are also the tools of people. After all, there are people who claim to subscribe to the same ideologies I do, yet act in a way that I find morally reprehensible. I'm sure many Muslims feel the same.

It bothers me that people don't recognize bombing abortion clinics, and events like that, as domestic terrorism. It seems the height of hypocrisy. But, they retort, those people are evil and doing evil things. We are getting rid of armful elements.
What do you think the terrorists think THEY'RE doing? And you can't say, "but they're wrong and we're right" because that means not only are you a hypocrite, you're also incredibly arrogant.

I'm sure many of these terrible acts are committed by people claiming they are doing God's will. But in the end, they are just fallible humans, choosing to enforce their personal beliefs on others. At that point, it doesn't even MATTER if they were right or not. A God that asks you to cowardly bomb undefended individuals, however you disagree with them, is not a God worthy of worship. There are better ways to make your case, to further your cause.
My point is that the truly broken inside would have found a way to be violent anyway. The fact that they use their religion as a smokescreen does not make it that religion's fault. There's good and bad in all of us, and there are good and bad elements to every group. We are all imperfect humans.

So I wanted to say: Dear America, this shouldn't offend you. Get over your small minded, ignorant hangups and learn to respect the views of others. The Worship Center is *not* a victory for the terrorists, your close-minded self-aggrandizing response is. Put simply, you're making us look bad.

And that would have been that.

Until yesterday.

The whole thing with the Mosque was mildly irritating but at least I could more or less understand where people were coming from. 9/11 is still a raw nerve, still a deep scar in our national soul. I feel some leniency should be given to the high running emotions that go with it.

That does not, nor does anything else, justify burning Q'urans to "memorialize it." I honestly can't even wrap my head around this. The level of "not okay" is in the stratosphere. I don't like it when people burn American flags. I remember becoming incensed when some kids at my university were using the Bible as a kick ball.
For one thing, NO book, not even Twilight, should be so mistreated. Books should be respected, if only for being books. For another thing, it is extremely disrespectful. You can respect other views even if you don't share them, even if you're opposed to them. When we start deciding who does and does not get to have what views is when we reach a new dystopic low.

So, of course, when I found out this was being done by a "church" I was furious. This is exactly what I was talking about. Now, if I tell someone I'm a Christian, I have to disclaim it and say "but I'm not THAT kind of Christian." It's stomach-turning that I should have to do that.

As General Patreaus has already said, this could have serious consequences for our soldiers. It could effectively set us back by years. We are already failing to win the hearts of the Afghan people so of course they don't want to help us. Now we run the risk of turning millions of otherwise peaceful people into radicals. I mean, what would YOU do if someone was going to burn YOUR holy book? There's no excuse for this.

Now, under freedom of religion, I concede that this could be protected. However, under freedom if speech, it's not. Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution, and that's exactly what this is.

As if all this wasn't bad enough, the Florida pastor who is spearheading this has already shown himself to be less than reputable when he was sent away from one church for dipping into it's funds for his own personal use. I don't find that really relevant to this issue though, it's horrid enough on it's own.

It makes me plenty angry, but do I wish ill on them? No. I don't want them to be bombed, vandalized or hurt in any way. I just want them to recognize that the God they claim to follow is one of love and that only he who is perfect should cast the first stone.

I think people, not just Americans, but all people, should just get over themselves.

And I truly hope things don't get worse.

On the frequently demonstrated but infrequently considered...

There are, I'm positive, countless blogs on the nature of fandom. Some of which exist for the very discussion which will be addressed below. As for myself, I've had numerous conversations with friends, fan and nonfan alike, which, if I had any kind of decent memory, I'd love to transcribe for the sake of internet discussion.

This subject is just one of the potentials, just one issue that has recently come up.

Everyone has things they like, things they are fans of, at various degrees of interest and devotion. Conversely, everyone has things they don't like, from disinterest to vehement disdain. There are people who have no strong feelings about much of anything, but no one is completely devoid of opinion.

Nerds or fans, are naturally the most vocal. Anyone who has stumbled onto the internet (that's you) would have to travel in very limited circles to never come in contact with fans, trolls and others of the grammatically impaired who triumphantly declare their Thing the most, best, etc.

Part of this stems from the fact that nerds appear to be slaves to hierarchy. The appeal to stereotype would be to say nerds were/are so used to being the bottom of any totem pole that once they were passed the point of being shoved into lockers, they had to set up new totems on which to place themselves.

Part of it stems from human entitlement. The problem with fandom is that at its core, it is the internalization and personalization of an opinion. It is the movement from 'Yeah, this is something I think of positively' to 'My opinion of this is now part of my identity.' The consequence is that any disagreement amounts to an attack on the individual's character and personal identity.

These two considerations create an Oroboros of angst I like to refer to as Punch-You-In-The-Face-Hatred.

An otherwise rational and intelligent friend of mine is a fan of the Twilight series. As you can probably guess from that drive-by snarkiness, I am not. My level of disgust felt for these books has reached capacities I did not know I was capable of and there is no metaphor hyperbolic or graphic enough to fully convey my true feelings. He (yes, it's a he) asked me today, in all sincerity, why I, and others like me, have such a visceral reaction to the series.

The answer, as you can imagine, was probably way more convoluted than he wanted, so I attempt to disentangle it here, and hopefully, this argument can be generalized to other subjects.

Step 1: Have something you don't care for. There are a lot of reasons, both silly and legitimate that I don't like Twilight, but for the most part, I could write it off as trashy teenybopper nonsense and not give it a second thought. There are lots of things like that, probably most I'm not even aware of. The issue comes from...

Step 2: Have it be stupid popular. This is where everything goes South. Now, usually non-troll people, that is, those who don't wish to fight with others over opinions, simply do not want to deal. I would be happy if I just didn't have to talk to Twilight fans (I dislike the terms Twitard or Twihard for the simple reason that I consider it unfair to individuals with cognitive disabilities). But this is no longer an option because they're EVERYWHERE. This is particularly an issue for me because I live in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, I had my honeymoon very close to Forks, Washington. I live in the town that Bella and Edward had their first date. So not only do I deal with the ubiquitous fandom of teenage girls (and boys), I get to deal with people who travel all over the world for the chance to sleep in the room where "Edward and Bella had their wedding night."

I remind the class that we are talking about fictional characters. They never visited here. They never ate in our restaurants or slept in our hotels. They do not exist. But I have to smile and nod because it's doing great things for our economy and we can't alienate the fans even though they do things like pester the Quileute tribe by asking them if they're really werewolves and desecrate their sacred burial grounds (no, I'm not making this up.

As one friend put it, they're up in my grill.

But really, this could apply to anything that achieves popularity because popularity is assumed to lend legitimacy. "If so many people like it, it can't be that bad" or "If it's successful, who cares if the writer is an uninspired hack?" Ahem. It would be hypocritical to totally dismiss this argument. We have all, at some point, defended something we like, especially in terms of literature, and have used the 'success' argument. The issue is that it forces us to confront something we didn't like in the first place, over and over and over again, which is grating, frustrating and inevitably leads to greater agitation every time it is mentioned.

This will ruin many things. I have friends who can't listen to some bands, regardless of talent because they were forced to hear devoted fans incessantly gush about how great the band was. Whereas before, my friends had no opinion, now they automatically react with disdain. Unfair? Probably, but totally understandable.

There is also the desire, particularly among nerds, to not appear to be 'jumping on the bandwagon' just because something is popular. This can be silly, but it's an almost automatic, sub-conscious motivation. Of course, the irony is that the desire to not be 'a tool' or a 'poser' usually leads people to not like something because they think it will make them look cool. Being anti-establishment, and all that.

So in conclusion, people don't like being surrounded by evidence of an object (in this case, a series) they don't care for or like, especially when they are made to feel antagonized by the fans, of whom there have become many. This is what leads someone to PYITF hatred. We define ourselves by who we are and who we are not. When constantly surrounded by who-we-are-not, this creates a stronger identity of someone who is against said object and makes them react more emotionally to it.

Post-Script:

I personally, have an issue with the Twilight series, that I know many others share and illustrates another reason people react viscerally to a popular trend. Remember that thing about feeling personal identity is attacked? And then remember that discussion about 'tools'? Both go in here.

The common term is 'hipsterizing'; that is, people demonstrating an interest, or taking on characteristics of a subgroup because it now popular or linked to something considered illegitimate by said subgroup.

Put simply, goths hate Twilight. Did everyone see that episode of South Park? Because it pretty much sums up the frustration. Even if an individual doesn't want to be 'labeled' (and most don't), if they had any predilection or characteristic before...say to frequently wear black, or like heavy jewelry with a theme of crosses, skulls, wings, etc...even if they've behaved that way for years, even decades, they are now lumped with Lisa Frank loving preteens who bolster Hot Topic sales in an attempt to emulate vampires who SPARKLE in the sun. It is very discouraging.

I was walking home, dressed in what I consider common 'me' attire. Black pants, a white button up shirt and black lace suspenders, a choker and a necklace of two skeleton hands holding an ornate cross. As I passed a group of jocks (basketball shorts, sneakers, baseball hats, shirtless, etc), one of them starts laughing and says to me, "Are you supposed to be out in the sun? Doesn't your kind sparkle or something?" All his friends laughed.

This was intensely aggravating and downright insulting. I have dressed the way I do my entire life, but, with zero provocation, an entire group of people have written me off as a wannabe vampire-lover. I am now associated with something I despise. This is, admittedly, a danger of being associated with any stereotype. I don't want people to assume I cut myself or sacrifice children to the devil either. But because of the popularity of the series, it is much more likely I will have to defend myself against charges of goth-poserness than anything else. It's a pretty classic 'We were here first' reaction that members of the fan community have some familiarity with. 'Oh, we were into that before it was cool.' Especially as we get older, and peripheral, 'fringe' groups and interests get mainstreamed. It is a natural defensiveness because we take our identities seriously (obviously) and feel threatened when we realize we don't have total control over what is and what is not included into a subgroup we belong to. Playing Madden does not make you a gamer. Wearing a top hat does not make you steam punk.

Where's the line? Honestly, that's the kind of thing that could be argued forever, and probably will. All identities are in a state of flux, and there is a constant dialogue between the individual and society (or in this case, societies) to determine legitimacy.

It just goes with the territory.

Quick blurb

This is a rant. Will be short, promise.

Was watching Gotham Knight with Chaz, Tim and Andrew. Tim thinks Batman is a 'pansy' because he doesn't kill people.

I cannot begin to describe how aggravating I find this.

The irony, perhaps, the paradox of Batman is that he truly does BELIEVE in the system. He believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, that they should be judged by society and dealt with accordingly. I'm sure he agrees there are flaws within the system: bad guys let out on technicalities, the whims of human judges. All of this, however, is irrelevant. The system is there because WE put it there, because it separates us from the beasts, and is more or less what civilization rests on. The rule of law. Not the rule of might.

Batman (at least, my understanding of him) recognizes that there are those who work outside the system. Those to whom our laws don't apply because they are simply so far flung from what would be considered in the creation of laws. Sure, he takes out common criminals too but no one really pays attention to those, and in Gotham, they well established that the entire city was pass the point of the system dealing with it.

So Batman works outside, yet parallel to The System. He goes outside, fights the bad guys on the outside, and pulls them INSIDE The System. By killing them, Batman would say that democracy doesn't work, that The System is a failure and hey, everyone, just kill those think deserve it.

Batman is a hero because he confronts evil, but he does it on just terms and he does not put himself in all positions, judge, jury and executioner. That's not his role. His role is to attain those the normal law officer can't, and to make those criminals more 'available'.

He has to play by our rules, because they are OUR rules and he works for US. That's how it works.

/End Rant

Oh, holy shrine of aural pleasure!

(You all thought of something dirty, didn't you? Cretins!)

Okay, here's another thing that's been rolling around in my head for a while, so everyone put their rant helmets on.

Like most people, I love listening to music, and there are some singers and bands and genres I like more than others. There are others I can't stand. But I try to be respectful of everyone's tastes and to keep an open mind. One thing I can't stand though, is music elitism. This takes many forms, obviously the most common is "This artist is the best in the world and everyone else is crap". Most people don't necessarily say it like that, but that's the implication. Usually, it has something to do with technical skill. I reject that as a basis for greatness. Certainly, a musician had best be able to play his/her instrument to be considered great, and obviously there must be some talent but...Yngwie Malmsteen is considered the fastest guitarist in the world but that doesn't change the fact that his music has no soul. Equally as annoying is "Oh, you like X type of music? Do you like Y artist? Well then you don't know anything about X music!"

A slightly subtler, but personally more vexing form of musical elitism is having a problem with covers. Now, I realize that some covers totally suck, and I also realize that 'totally suck' is a normative term and a matter of opinion. Fine, we can argue over whether this or that cover is really bad, but that is different from what I'm talking about.
Here are my reasons for hating the haters. Or at least hating the hating.

1. It used to be...before records, before any form of preserving music through technological means...that the only way for an artist to have his/her songs heard elsewhere was by someone ELSE covering it in some other King's court or in some other tavern. Covers are the only reason we still have some old songs. That is how music used to be perpetuated.
2. It is NOT being disrespectful. Most people who cover a song, especially if they are really trying, are doing it as an homage, out of respect for the original. I mean, think about it. Everyone sings their favorite songs. Musicians don't live in some other dimensino where they don't get to do what everyone else does. If you get paid to sing anyway, then there's nothing wrong with singing the songs you'd like to, that you'd be singing regardless.
3. Most importantly: NO ONE IS SACRED. WTF, people, why is it that someone can cover THIS band and no one minds, they even support it, but when an artist covers THAT band, oh bob, the world is freaking OVER...?! It doesn't make any flipping sense. I know, I know, sometimes it seems like some bands have no business touching another because of difference in genre or style or (for some odd reason) morality, but it isn't our place to decide that. We don't get to say who plays what.

Here are my two biggest peeves: Bob Dylan and Pink Flloyd.
First of all, listening to Bob Dylan is like having your ear object raped with a screwdriver. I know he's a great poet but seriously, I cannot listen to him sing, and I know this for a fact because I have to at least 2 days a week since my boss loves him.
So when My Chemical Romance covers 'Desolation Row' for Watchmen, I do not get up in arms about it. For one thing, I like MCR WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than I like Bob Dylan. Secondly, even if it doesn't quite 'fit' the original, it fit the movie (in my opinion) and it made a lot of sense to me. I enjoyed listening to it. Now, I'm down with arguing that if you're going to change a song a lot, you shoudln't really be singing it, I understand that. It does seem a little strange. On the other hand, Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies only does punk covers of songs, usually showtunes. And I like their version of 'What I Did For Love' a lot more than the version from A Chorus Line. I think if an artist wants to get a little expiremental with their music...well that IS kind of their job isn't it?
Now, there is something equally appealing about staying more or less true to the original song while improving on it. I give you exhibit 'Nightwish-Phantom of the Opera', which has all the original elements of Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic rock opera but with someone who sings a lot better than Sarah Brightman does. Again, just my opinion, but my point is that we can't just sweep away all covers as bad AND we can't pick and choose which ones we are willing to accept as legitimate.

Next...there are a LOT of good reasons not to like KoRn. And I respect pretty much all of them. I like listening to KoRn under certain circumstances and only for short periods of time. I like...maybe four songs. So don't get me wrong, if someone were to say 'Yeah, I don't like KoRn', I would nod and say 'That's cool, I understand that.'
What I do NOT understand is rejecting them as a band because they covered 'Another Brick in the Wall Part 2'. I mean, seriously, of all the decent reasons, this one just seems dumb. Pink Floyd is not some holy parliament of music. To be honest, they don't really do a thing for me, yet their fans are among the most elitist people I've ever heard. I like the KoRn version more, I think it expresses what I personally take to be the meaning of the song better. Obviously, I coudl be misunderstanding the song, and maybe that's just how bad they butchered it but if I had to choose which of those two I was going to listen to, I would take KoRn over the original. Heresy, I know.

It just aggravates me because I don't consider these bands/artists the paragons of musical greatness. I mean, no one gets really upset when someone covers the Beatles. And when Metallica did Queen's 'Stone cold Crazy' they got a friggin' GRAMMY out of it, and even Queen likes their version more than the original. So if we aren't going to get violent over the Beatles and Queen...two bands that I would definitely consider Greats before either Bob Dylan OR Pink Floyd...why do we freak out over others? Metallica loved it when KoRn covered them, they thought it was cool. It's a form of flattery.

I know this is all really subjective, but I'm hoping that my fellow philosophers understand at least the concept that I'm fighting against here. Covering another band is not a good reason not to like someone, and no one is so special that they can't be loved enough that another band will pay their respects in their own fashion.

Consider all ye selves warned.