Advertisement

Saturday, April 2, 2016

America is Sick, Part III: Tribal Mentality


(This is a continuation of an essay examining the many ills of American society, as I see them, and hopefully some solutions to them as well).

What I have done so far is to attempt to write persuasively, to attempt to sway people to see the light, at least, the light as I see it.

To attempt to persuade people, I try to appeal to their sense of reason and their empathy for other people. The problem with that tactic is that the people I want to reach often lack reason or empathy for other people.

The lack of reason, or rationality, has already been discussed when talking about cognitive dissonance (see Part I of "America is Sick"). Why people lack compassion is complicated. Like with cognitive dissonance, it's often about values: Some value their personal freedom over the well being of others, for instance. And because people seem to be psychologically inclined to believe they are "good" or on the right side, few people consciously admit or even realize they lack compassion.

And truthfully, few people are wholly good or evil, if any are. The person who gave a nice donation to the local soup kitchen might also think they are the victim of theft if they pay taxes that help feed poor children. The person who lobbies for universal healthcare might walk to the other side of the street to avoid a coughing homeless person.

In both those examples, a logical argument can be made for the "evil" that was done. In the first, someone might believe in helping people but they don't want to be coerced to do it. In the second, the person might want to help the homeless person, but he or she isn't willing to risk getting sick to do it. All of us have some point at which our selflessness ends and our selfishness begins.

But the lack of compassion and empathy in America today is disturbing, and I've put a lot of thought into understanding it. I won't claim to have a full grasp of the whole picture though. Still, it doesn't take a highly analytical mind to notice that the more people have in common the more compassionate toward each other they tend to be, and with some people, this tendency toward compassion for the similar is more pronounced.

I call it a tribal mentality. Human beings have been around for about 100,000 years at least. Only in the last few thousand years have we had civilization. When people lived in tribes and small villages or camps with no nations or broad societies, tribal mentality made perfect sense.

Tribal mentality kept us suspicious of people in other tribes, people who looked different, who dressed differently, who had different religions and customs. This suspicion made sense because each different tribe was a potential threat. Whereas shared religion and customs created loyalty to each other and kinship and ultimately a better chance of prosperity, suspicion of those who were different was a necessary evil for the sake of survival.

But in a modern day, melting pot culture such as the United States of America, tribal mentality does not make obvious sense and instead harms our society in many ways. Suspicion of those who are different than us causes us to hate and fear our neighbors. In a mixed culture, tribal mentality destroys loyalty to each other, ruins kinship and ultimately, it sabotages our chances for prosperity.

Unfortunately, because we are a melting pot, people encounter different people than them all the time. These many clashes of culture activate those old tribal feelings, the us-versus-them attitudes. In the end, and somewhat ironically, America, with the most diverse society in the world, is also the most divided, tribalistic modern society in the world as well.

Because while I call it tribal mentality, most people call it conservatism.
(If you consider yourself a conservative and you find yourself right now searching your mind for ways to argue against my assertions about tribal mentality, know that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance and it may be standing in your way of learning something. Push aside those thoughts and ask yourself instead if you agreed with me before I revealed that I was talking about conservatism. Even if not, fight against your urge to refute me and instead continue reading, please. Then, afterward, don't react. Think.)

Of course, this tribal mentality, conservatism, is not meritless. Even today, we still face threats, and frankly, if I was in a fight, I'd love to have a bunch of conservatives on my side. Conservatives are often loyal friends, reliable, hard working, brave in many ways, and pragmatic.

But most tribalistic, conservative beliefs are, unfortunately, instinctual and emotional. They are often not based on facts or a logical examination of a situation but instead on pre-existing beliefs and emotional attachments. Worse yet, because humans are wired to believe we are rational, even when we're not, cognitive dissonance drives tribalistic people to rationalize their beliefs or ignore facts that refute their beliefs. Sometimes entirely new "facts" are created in elaborate schemes to support their beliefs.

Creationism is an example. Some conservative Christians believe that the Theory of Evolution is a threat to their pre-existing beliefs. Even though, objectively, a god could have used evolution to create humanity, that is not what creationists argue. They instead argue that almost 200 years of scientific study and the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world are somehow fraudulent. The science didn't suit the creationists' beliefs, so they created their own version of "science."

Another example is the American College of Pediatricians. The College was founded as a protest when the American Academy of Pediatrics decided to support adoption by gay couples. The American College of Pediatricians, which sounds like a reputable source, was founded to inject its "values" into science, while ignoring the science. Whether adoption by a gay couple harms or helps children should be decided by science, not political philosophy or religion. And now with organizations like this and the creationist groups, pointless confusion about what is real and what is actual science is sewn.

And here is an example of conservatives ignoring facts because they did not suit their previous beliefs that you can try out yourself. I recently learned that the idea of "going to heaven when you die" isn't really in the Bible. I've done some research and asked around, and apparently that's true. There are references to heaven and some similar ideas, but the belief that people's spirits go to heaven when they die sprang from old Catholic teachings, not the Bible. In fact, the Bible contradicts the idea that spirits go to heaven by saying people will stay in their graves until the judgment day.

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." - Thessalonians 4:16-17

Of course, not surprisingly, you will find Bible scholars who rationalize that verse, such as one I read which said "the spirit goes to heaven, but the body rises when Christ returns." I guess that is literally a zombie Apocalypse.

Anyway, to a person who values rationality and things making sense, it seems clear that the Bible at least contradicts the idea that people go to heaven when they die, and it would seem, in a rational world, that those who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible would change their views when they learned one of their religious beliefs was not in the Bible. But go ahead and tell people that "going to heaven when you die" isn't in the Bible and let me know how many conservatives you convince.
Of course, all of us experience cognitive dissonance, and probably all of us rationalize irrational beliefs at some point or other. Many conservatives just take it to an absurd degree because too often, their pre-existing beliefs are based on what their parents taught them, religion and other traditions. And traditions, while comfortable and accepted, are not often based on rationality and even when they are, they are often based on a situation that no longer exists.

It's like a dog that waits by the front doorstep for its owner every afternoon after work, but even after the owner dies, the dog keeps waiting by the doorstep.
And even though the average middle schooler knows more about the world than many of the authors of our ancient texts, people continue to believe everything written in their particular favorite book is true. And this staunch belief not only stands in the way of compassion, in some ways it perverts what compassion is there.

For instance, those who use the Bible's opposition to homosexuality to endorse conversion therapy, which is when people try to "pray the gay away" and force homosexuals to not be gay, even though the science tells us that doesn't work. In their minds, proponents of conversion therapy think they are saving young people from gayness. Instead, the rest of us realize they are doing great harm to young people already dealing with a psychologically difficult situation.

And sure, there are Bible verses that oppose homosexuality, but people have used the Bible to justify their wrong and hateful beliefs for centuries. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed due to a dispute with its northern brothers over slavery, which the Bible is at least permissive of. When the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's manservant or maidservant" it's not talking about butlers and French maids. In Ephesians 6:5, Jesus apparently commands slaves to obey their masters. In the 1800s Southern land owners routinely used the Bible to justify slavery.

Morality has evolved as society has evolved. We now know that slavery is evil. We now value women as equals instead of property. We are coming to realize that two people loving each other and harming no one should be accepted in our society, but we're facing opposition from the forces of tradition and tribal instinct. Eventually, beating children with belts and paddles will be recognized as child abuse in our society, but I guarantee you, the major obstacle to that realization will be people waving the Bible and saying "spare the rod, spoil the child."

And even though this seems like I am picking on conservatives and Christians, that isn't my intention. There are great people who are conservatives. Most of my friends are Christians, and many of them are great people. Religion can bring people happiness and fulfillment and greatly benefits the world in many ways.
But conservatism, and to a large extent its connection with religion, stand as a barrier to compassion and rationality, and it keeps us constantly divided between those lobbying for progressive values of compassion and reason against those standing by traditional and religious values. To some extent this is good, because it keeps us from progressing too fast, and that is a fact we liberals should not dismiss out of hand, especially when we stand on the precipice of descending into a state that is more similar to the brutal, tribal past than the shining, Utopian future of which we all dreamed.

And why are we so close to degenerating as a society? Because there is profit to be made in deepening our natural divisions and sharpening those edges where our conflicts meet.

To be continued.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

America is Sick, Part II: An Arena for Arguments


(This is a continuation of an essay examining the many ills of American society, as I see them, and hopefully some solutions to them as well).

If you use social media, you may have noticed Facebook and other social media are often filled with arguments. Even before Facebook and Twitter and comments sections on news sites turned the internet into an arena for arguments, the rise of specialized sites allowed fringe beliefs to flourish. People were able to find like-minded racists, chem-trail conspiracy theorists, believers in ceremonial magic, or whatever. Even though finding people with common interests can be good, not all interests are good, and no interests should be allowed to dominate at the exclusion of all others.

This was a step toward division, not unison.

A brief series of attempts to correct the outlandish things that one of my oldest friends said on Facebook only led to arguments, so I stopped attempting to refute people's posts, no matter how lunatic they seemed. Only if something is factually and provably incorrect and directly contributing to the dumbing down of society will I post a link to a fact check site refuting it, and of course, no one ever thanks me for that because we like to "shoot the messenger."

In essence, I decided to no longer argue on Facebook.

As someone whose religious and political views would be well accepted in Scandinavia but not so much in the over-hanging beer belly of the Bible Belt, I tend to post some things my Facebook acquaintances have found objectionable. This has led to some rather debilitating and pointless arguments. This led me to being extremely reluctant to express myself on a format which is supposed to be ideal for expressing yourself.

It seems to me that people will say things on the internet that they would never say in person, probably stemming from when most comments were made anonymously. Civility and basic politeness and decency seem to erode on the internet, and I think that may be carrying over into the rest of society.

Imagine if elementary or high school teachers allowed their students to argue with them. It would be chaos. If we're arguing, we're not learning anything except how to argue better.

So recently, I had an idea. I decided to specifically disallow arguments on some of my posts. We all have full editorial control of our Facebook pages. If we find a response disagreeable to one of our posts, we can remove it.

So, on three of my posts now, I have asked people not to argue, and so far, people have abided by my request and I haven't had to delete one response, for which I am thankful. (In fact, since asking people not to argue on some posts, no one has argued on any posts I've made, but that may just be coincidence.)

One of the posts in which I asked for no arguments was about as inflammatory as I can imagine, and I used it as sort of a social experiment. One of my friends posted a link to an article about a scientific study that found that the more religious people are the more racist they tend to be. In the original post, at least one person argued against the study, accusing it of bias, when clearly the bias rested with the person protesting against the article and not with the objective scientific study.

But more and more I realize that no matter how convincing information is, someone will argue based on their pre-existing beliefs, and when they argue, they set themselves up in an adversarial position to the information and therefore will learn nothing from it.

And there was a lesson to be learned from the study. The study revealed that when a congregation was made of mixed races, members of the congregation tended to be less racist, although mixed race congregations were rare. A wise person might take that information and decide to take steps to end the voluntary segregation of many churches in an attempt to curtail any racist tendencies.

So, I decided to post a link to the study, and again I asked people not to argue. Remarkably, they didn't, and instead, I thought there was a fruitful, civil discussion in which new ideas were offered. I learned more, the others who commented learned more, and hopefully, even those who disagreed and did not post a response processed the information and maybe even they learned something from it.

Since then, I've seen one of my friends post about a possibly controversial subject and he asked people not to argue. The result was a fruitful, civil discussion without arguments, and personally, I shared views I might have kept to myself if he had not asked for civility, which made me feel safe to express my opinion without worry of being attacked and needing to defend myself.

I call on you to do the same. Don't be afraid to post something you know will be inflammatory, but when you do, ask people politely not to argue. You may be surprised at the results, you'll help to reinforce civility, and you may find yourself feeling more freedom to express yourself.

Arguing deepens the divisions in our society, but it is not the sole problem with the internet and social media. The overuse of memes has reduced human thought and political discourse to a war of bumper stickers.

I really wonder how many people today get their political knowledge from these one or two sentence posters people place on Facebook. Even worse, some people probably get their political information from people who get their political information from Facebook memes in a form of watered down ignorance.

I call on all Facebook users to stop posting memes related to the subjects of politics, philosophy or religion. If you want to post a funny cat photo with a caption or a meme making fun of a movie, go right ahead, but memes about serious subjects are making us stupid. Instead, post links to articles or at least videos which give a more nuanced and thorough examination of the subjects you hold dear.

And if you absolutely must post memes, make them yourself! Posting someone else's political meme is just spreading propaganda. Try having an original thought!
Facebook and other social media could be a great tool for sharing ideas and learning, but currently it is largely the opposite, but we can choose to change how we use it.

Unfortunately, much of the damage is already done. We're already at war with ourselves. As this essay continues, I'll examine who profits from the cavernous divisions in our society, and how they use those divisions against us.

Monday, March 7, 2016

America is Sick, Part I: Cognitive Dissonance


America is sick.

I mean that there is an illness in American culture. Three years ago, I was hopeful about the future and held a positive attitude about my nation. I even wrote a newspaper column refuting those who believed the times were so woeful. But over the past two years, I have seen that belief that our society was an improvement on the past completely dissolve.

There have been three main factors in my change in attitude: The often ignorant and argumentative nature of American society, the aggravated, festering status of race relations in this country, and the US presidential race which continues to embarrass us all.
I have always wanted to solve America's ills, even when I thought they were fewer. Now, that desire to fix our society borders on obsession. And in the past month, a variety of factors have led me to a greater understanding of our collective psychological disorders.

Sadly, despite this new enlightenment, I doubt I am any closer to finding an antidote to our many poisons.

How we think
I see America, people in general, in a new and fascinating light because of Cobra Commander. That may sound crazy, but it is the truth. Cobra Commander is a fictional comic book character, the leader of the Cobra organization based on the 1980s GI Joe toys. About a month ago, I read a comic in which Cobra Commander explained the concept of cognitive dissonance to a soldier he was trying to convince to betray GI Joe.
I'll admit that I didn't really understand the Commander's speech about cognitive dissonance, so I looked it up. That's when my view of human behavior really started to expand.

Cognitive dissonance is a big pair of words that essentially mean "mental discomfort." According to Wikipedia, the technical definition is "In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values."

A good example of the concept is illustrated by the Aesop fable "The Fox and the Grapes" where a fox wants to eat some grapes hanging from a tree, but he can't reach them, so he decides that he didn't want the grapes at all, even though he obviously did. In this form, resolving cognitive dissonance is a lot like rationalizing. Oddly named, rationalizing happens when we want something to be true and then create apparently rational reasons for our emotional wants to be true.

I at first thought about these ideas in terms of my own life. I had decided I was happy with my own state in life, at a low paying job with a small audience for my writing, because I had convinced myself I didn't want to be successful, as moronic as that may seem. Another example is how I had convinced myself that I don't want a relationship because my past attempts at romance had ended so disastrously. I decided I didn't want the "sour grapes" of success or romance.

But then I thought more deeply about the subject. Cognitive dissonance is when someone believes in two contradictory beliefs, and our minds unconsciously correct that imbalance by favoring one belief over the other.

In my case, on the surface, I saw that I had resolved my desire for romantic partnership and my exhaustion with being emotionally damaged by my pursuit of romantic partnership by deciding that I no longer wanted romance. But it went far deeper than that.

When I did pursue romance, I was just that: Romantic, but to a sappy, overbearing degree. I wrote poems and songs and tended to fall very deeply in love without good reason. Conversely, I was rarely overtly sexual. This too was an example of cognitive dissonance being resolved. I grew up in a sexually regressive society in the South, and due to that and my upbringing, I resolved the conflict of my "dirty" desires with my beliefs about proper behavior by channeling my sexuality into an obsessive form of sappy romanticism.

But then, don't most people do this in some form? How many teenagers and young adults "fall in love" when a more accurate description would be "fall in lust" with each other? How many marriages were started when someone convinced themselves that they loved each other due to a pregnancy? Even a mother's love might be explained as someone feeling the same protective instincts as a mother rabbit or other animal, but rationalizing those feelings into "love" because we don't like to think of ourselves as creatures so beholden to instinct.

But we are. And if you feel uncomfortable now that I seemed to suggest your mother doesn't really love you, guess what you are experiencing? Cognitive dissonance.

But don't worry, her love is real; it's just the name we give to the instincts.

In fact, the more I thought about cognitive dissonance, I realized that only fear and instinct likely motivate us more than resolving cognitive dissonance. And the ways we handle fear and instinct seem to be intimately connected with it. We rationalize our fears. We rationalize our instincts.

When we feel embarrassed when someone brags on us, that awkwardness we feel is cognitive dissonance at someone else's words not matching our own self image. The self confident are not ashamed to be bragged on because there is no conflict.

A strange aspect of cognitive dissonance studies is that often when someone asks you to do a favor, you end up liking them more. Because you did something nice for them, you rationalize your behavior and decide that you must have liked them to do them a favor.

The opposite is also true. I experienced this recently when I ordered some pizza from a local restaurant. I tried to pay with a $100 bill, but the cashier told me they didn't accept $100 bills, so I had to leave, get change and come back. When I returned, I was more than a little annoyed, and even though she was the one who inconvenienced me, I could tell the cashier had decided she didn't like me. Rather than feel guilt for doing me wrong, I believe she decided, on some level, that I deserved it.

If you're getting a picture of what cognitive dissonance is, you're starting to understand it like I believe I do. It is shame. It is guilt. It leads to love and leads to hate. Almost everything we feel and do is related to this concept.

But one thing it does not do is lead to rational beliefs and behavior. What this all means is that we are not rational creatures at all.

Why we argue
A few months ago, on Facebook, I posted a video link of the famous evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins explaining why creationist arguments against evolution are invalid. I now realize the resulting backlash was predictable, but it took me completely off-guard.

I spent the better part of a day arguing with people about the theory of evolution. I was shocked that people could so readily presume that their obviously emotion- and faith-based opinions superseded almost 200 years of scientific research by some of the most intelligent people to ever walk our planet.

The arguments left me disillusioned to some extent with society, and damaged my opinion of humanity as a whole. That wound in large part led to my angst and deepened desire to fix society. That too is a form of cognitive dissonance, the conflict of my idea that society should be rational with the simple fact that it isn't.

Have you ever corrected someone who said something factually incorrect? Or been corrected yourself? In a rational world we would thank someone for correcting us, but instead we want to "shoot the messenger" don't we?

If we were rational, people would be much easier to convince with facts. Because facts often create cognitive dissonance with pre-existing beliefs, it is usually only those who place value in being rational, in things making sense, that facts will convince.
Evolution is an example. Evolution is considered by the overwhelming majority of scientists to be scientific fact, but many religious people see evolution as a threat to their faith, so they desperately seek justification for their religious beliefs, because that faith is more important to them than rationality.

But it is not limited to religious beliefs. Politics is rife with cognitive dissonance-related rationalization, too.Often people like a candidate and then they find justification for their support, rather than deciding which candidate to support based on the facts. Many political beliefs are wholly irrational and I've recently learned that is to some extent by design, but that is a subject for later chapters.

People will refuse to believe their loved one committed a crime or that their husband cheated on them. People will convince themselves their lottery ticket is a winner. People allow themselves to be conned by con artists or that a psychic can see their future. All these things are evidence that many, maybe even most people value emotion over reason.

Obviously, this has a great deal to do with people's tendency to be argumentative, but let's go deeper. Even those who value reason over emotion start fights. We see something we disagree with posted on Facebook, and whether we give into the temptation or not, we want to correct people. That temptation, perhaps all temptation, is a form of cognitive dissonance.

We believe something and we see that someone else believes the opposite. Those conflicting ideas must be resolved, and though much cognitive dissonance resolution occurs internally, it often becomes externalized when we see someone else as a threat to our pre-existing beliefs. We try to convince them of what we see as the truth, and failing that, we often try to belittle our debate opponents. Sometimes it even turns to violence.

But because people tend to favor their pre-existing beliefs, argument is usually fruitless. Even people like me who value rationality, perhaps to a fault, will often resist being convinced in the midst of the argument only to later process and sometimes accept the ideas of the person with whom I was arguing.

In fact, arguments and debates I think actually increase the chance that someone will not accept someone's ideas. People see an arguer as a threat, and they become more entrenched in their own ideas. And sometimes someone arguing with you will lead you to disagree with beliefs you once agreed with. For instance, I was once sympathetic to Libertarian views until I was attacked and called a "statist" on Facebook by Libertarians for my own views, and I now see them as the type of people who say that government doesn't produce anything worthwhile on the internet created by the government.

Of course, due to specialized web sites, comments sections and social media the internet is a major problematic factor with the argumentative nature of modern society, but I will address that later.

Going back to how hard it is to convince someone, think about how hard it is to get someone to like something. Have you ever tried to introduce someone to a band or a TV show you like and encountered resistance? Only when someone wants to impress you do they readily accept suggestions for things to like, I believe.

This is some instinctual form of suspicion, I believe, and we activate that same form of defense when we argue with others. People like to "discover" things for themselves, and when they do, I think something similar happens as when someone likes someone who asked them to do them a favor. If they discover something on their own, such as someone picking up a book on evolution perhaps, they more readily accept its points because they rationalize that they must agree with its points or else why would they be reading it.

We tend to avoid reading things we know we disagree with for similar reasons, I believe, and frankly, I'm surprised you've reached this point in this essay. But there's much more to come.

To be continued.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Trump's Tower


March 4, 2016.

I wish I was a stand-up comedian today.

I don't know if you heard, but last night, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump assured the crowd at a nationally televised debate that his "little fella" wasn't so little at all. That means the Donald Jr. was probably the fifth biggest dick on the stage last night.

Already twice this week, Trump has backtracked on things he's said. First, he had to announce that he doesn't support the Ku Klux Klan. Then, he changed his mind about torture and killing the families of terrorists. How long till he's saying his junk isn't as jumbo as he had us believe?

Obviously, this guy has some issues with the size of his manhood, which would explain why he wants to put his name on so many skyscrapers. Is this someone we really want in charge of nuclear missiles?

Imagine a general walking in and telling him, "Mr. President, Kim Jong Un said you have snubby fingers." "Oh yeah?" (*whistling sound and then a big explosion*)

I never thought the size of someone's manhood was a qualification for president, although that might explain some of America's voting record, and also why we elected folks named Johnson, Dick and Jimmy all in a row.

Seriously, by his reasoning, porn stars are more qualified than Trump to be president.

Then again, porn stars are more qualified than Trump to be president.

Now, if you found any of this vulgar, remember that last night the front-runner for president of the United States talked about these subjects in front of millions of people. I don't think I'm the one who crossed the line.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Musings


These are some of the musings I've made in the past few years (actually mostly from the past year):

  • "I've always believed in fighting for the rights of minorities, but I never knew that "sensible people" would be a minority whose rights I would need to fight for."

  • In response to a blizzard hitting the east coast: "Most of the east coast looks like that scene from Star Wars Episode VIII where Finn slices open the tauntaun on the snow planet."

  • "Those who need to learn the most are those who want to learn the least."

  • "My life is like a word search puzzle where I look for Happiness and all I find is Pines."

  • "If right now the world was as good as it possibly can get Facebook would still be full of complaints."

  • In response to the 2015 refugee crisis and Georgia's initial reaction: "Our governor just announced that no one in the state will be allowed to own pets until we can prove that none of them are rabid. He also announced that only people who can prove they are responsible gun owners can own guns... wait, no he didn't."

  • "Conservatives are traditionalists, so they tend to be drawn to the prevailing religion of their community and culture. In this country, there are conservatives who choose Christianity for this reason. I call them conservative first. Then there are those who are Christians who are attracted to conservative politics because conservative politicians tend to wrap themselves in the beliefs of the prevailing religion. Here, I call them Christian first. But there are times, many of them actually but rarely as obvious as now, when conservatism is at odds with the beliefs of the prevailing religion, and that is when you see whether someone is a Christian first or a conservative first. So here's the test: If you think that turning away desperate middle eastern people fleeing from horrible circumstances is the Christian thing to do, then congratulations, you are a conservative first."

  • "When are people going to stop being offended by people being offended all the time?"

  • "Now starting for the Atlanta Braves: No one you've ever heard of."

  • "If you hear a politician say he isn't a politician then not only is he a politician but he is actively being a politician as he says it."

  • "When someone defeats you, don't make them your enemy; make them your teacher."

  • "I love conspiracy theories. They're very entertaining. Unfortunately, they're usually not true. For instance, if the government was as slick as conspiracy theorists seem to think, we would have found WMDs in Iraq."

  • "My favorite character on the Walking Dead is the gritty survivor who doesn't talk much."

  • "Be careful when you build a wall. The wall you build to keep others out may be the wall that keeps you imprisoned."

  • "Sadness is coming home at 11 p.m. and realizing you never ate supper, you're out of food and all the stores are closed. Happiness is realizing, after an hour of hungering, that you have an unopened bag of chips and dip that you forgot about."

  • In response to the Trump vs. Fox News war: "On the bright side, at least Trump is turning a lot of people against Fox News. There is hope for the future!"

  • "For those of you who oppose political correctness, I'm wondering what it is you would like to say that you feel society is keeping you from saying."

  • "Where do all these memes come from? I only see them on Facebook. Are there people who search sites all day for them? How are you ever going to have an original thought if you're treating wisdom as something you can print on a T-shirt?" (while I say things that are about as wise as most memes that could easily be printed on a T-shirt).

  • "The term 'class warfare' gets thrown around a lot lately. When you hear it from someone telling you it is bad or speaking of it negatively, know that you are hearing propaganda. If you are telling people we need to avoid class warfare, know that you are spreading propaganda. We are already and always have been in the midst of class warfare. Here's the proof: In America, we aren't supposed to have any classes. But we do. We have aristocrats without titles and paupers who think they are kings. Until there are no classes in America, we are not only in the midst of class warfare, we're losing the battle."

  • "Chance of shark attack in the ocean: 0.0000000001 percent. Chance of shark attack on land: 0 percent. It's settled. I'm staying on land."

  • "Some people try to pour the ocean into a box. Others let the box float in the ocean."

  • Early in the 2015-2016 American presidential race: "I would like to announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. I figure why not. Everyone else is doing it."

  • "I've been without the internet for two days, and it reminded me of when I quit smoking, but instead of the recurring urge to smoke, it was the recurring urge to look up useless trivia on Wikipedia."

  • This is my favorite song lyric I've ever written, from the song "Genevieve": "This little pig wants to go home with you, but no, 'cause there won't be a we." (I also like "Umbrellas, this fella, have the shelter you can hold onto" from the same song).

  • "This country has a black and white problem, and I'm not talking about skin color. I'm talking about the "you're either with us or against us" mentality. I'm talking about how we handle every issue like we're high schoolers on a debate team, taking a side and only presenting the facts which support our opinions while attacking the other side and ignoring the facts which support it. As an example, America is the country that saved Europe's butt during World War II and also the country that recently killed two innocent hostages in a drone strike. It's a great country in many ways, but it's not perfect. But instead of having rational discussions about how we can improve on our mistakes or even celebrate our victories, we have people waving flags and walking on them. I would love to vote for a candidate who speaks honestly about the benefits and drawbacks of all sides of an issue and then clearly explains why he chose his side. I would vote for him, or her, even if I disagreed. Even if I'm guilty of thinking in black and white too often myself."

  • "I was playing an online video game once, and told someone "Your ears must have been burning." They didn't understand, so I said "It must be an American thing." She said "I'm American." I said, "It must be a Southern thing." She said "I'm from the south." I said, "What state?" She said "Texas." I said, "It must be a Georgia thing" because I didn't have the heart to tell her Texas isn't included in the area I consider to be the South."

  • "Who else remembers going to presentations in school where they would warn us about Satanic cults and how the devil wanted to steal our souls through heavy metal music? I'm sure a lot of you. Remember when the folks who were in charge (aka parents, school administrators, the media and other adults) apologized to us for being hysterical morons and making us paranoid and terrified about something that was just a run-of-the-mill moral panic? Me neither."

  • "Happy Name A Day After Some Obscure Subject Day!"

  • In response to Rand Paul accusing a Today Show anchor of editorializing: "Journalists are supposed to ask tough questions. Don't let politicians trick you into being sympathetic toward them when they get questions they don't like."

  • "These are the sorts of things I think about: There is an upper limit to how large creatures on Earth on land can be. At least I think I read that somewhere. For instance, a crab the size of the Georgia Dome might collapse under its own weight (but that's just a guess). So, I thought, what if our gravity was weaker than it is, would we have larger creatures. So, what if aliens on a planet with weak gravity visited and were just enormous. Then, I thought about the opposite. What if we were visited by aliens from a planet with very strong gravity and they were all the size of squirrels. They would be small, but proportionally they would probably be much stronger and more hardy than we are. To them, they would be able to leap like we can on the moon. Imagine... hobbits with most of the powers of Spider-Man. We wouldn't stand a chance."

  • "The next time you hear someone complaining about President Obama being an America-hating socialist (which he's probably not), tell them this interesting fact: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist. Seriously. Who could make this up?"

  • "You know what's worse than accidentally sending an e-mail to yourself? Replying to it."

  • "Those who choose to do nothing, still choose."

  • "If someone walks a mile in someone else's shoes, they should avoid the cliffs."

  • "You can't accuse someone of being pretentious without being pretentious yourself."

  • "Paranoia is the dark side of imagination."

  • "I must want to be a teacher of things no one wants to learn."

Saturday, February 20, 2016

The Contents of Facebook


To save what sanity I have left and stop being angry so often, I stopped following those people who are always complaining about people with different skin colors than theirs, those who splatter Facebook with nonsensical political memes and those who think animals have psychic powers... and now my Facebook feed is as boring as watching paint dry.
So here are the things I see people sharing on Facebook:
They share good news, their good news,  which, if they said it out loud would be called bragging. Send that stuff to the newspaper. We'll do the bragging for you.
Then there are people who ask for prayers on Facebook so they can get attention without earning it, and then there's the people who say "Prayers please, God knows the need" which really means "Send me a private message so I can share the gossip." But that's all OK. What's really bad is those who ask for prayers, then go ahead and tell everyone the gossip, when the gossip is actually about someone else who would have asked for prayers themself but they didn't want everyone in their business.
Some people post funny videos and memes, but they only make me laugh if they feature funny-faced cats or dogs. Then there are fail videos, which are collections of people failing at attempting to do things spectularly, from cliff diving to riding down hills in shopping carts. Those are funny, too, and often painful looking, but no one ever offers prayers for them.
There are constantly happy birthday wishes but that's because Facebook constantly nags us to remember so that the owners of Facebook can pretend that Facebook has any positive effect on society.
Mothers post photos of their kids, and these get an inordinate amount of likes, mostly by mothers who want other mothers to like photos of their kids. Mothers post photos of their kids doing anything, which they sometimes accurately think are cute. Fathers usually only post photos of their kids doing sports or shooting things.
Then there are the ultra-political people who post political memes or make political statements which incite arguments with other ultra-political people which causes everyone to get angry and accomplishes nothing while the non-political people they hope to convince ignore them and ask for prayers for themselves or post photos of their kids when they should be asking for prayers for all the angry political folks or making fail videos of the political folks failing at convincing others to believe what they believe.
All of these posts, especially the gossipy ones, generate dozens or hundreds of likes, by the way.
And then there are my music videos which I invested time, emotion and a great deal of thought into creating, and they get no likes at all.