|
Post by siamesesin on Mar 19, 2009 15:15:34 GMT -5
Be honest, Mumms. If you're sneaking into an Army base at night, that's not what you'd be injecting.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Mar 19, 2009 15:51:47 GMT -5
Don't ask. Don't tell.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on May 14, 2009 22:40:11 GMT -5
Twitter - 5/14/09
So in the past few weeks, Twitter has become a BIG DEAL. I mean, it's been on the map for at least a year. It's gotten press for almost as long. And I've seen countless people talk about how much they use Twitter now instead of a blog.
But something seems to have changed in the last weeks. All of a sudden, it seems like important information is getting passed through Twitter first and then filtered out to the rest of us later. That's not a bad thing, but it's just odd. I remember the first time I realized I *had* to get a Facebook account because certain school-related stuff was only going through that site. Now it seems that I'll be forced to get into Twitter, too.
So now, yes, I have a Twitter account. I've "updated" twice, both times to tell sia hello. But this, like Facebook, is the second time now that I've been forced by circumstances to plug into various social networking sites. I'm not really irritated...just more intrigued by how certain forms of technology get popular enough that we're compelled to follow along.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on May 15, 2009 6:30:58 GMT -5
I guess I don't get it. A lot of musicians are doing it and I was told that I "MUST" use it. When I checked it out it didn't interest me - it looks like you get a lot of quick spammy notes. Maybe theirs more to it than that, but I've deleted friends (not close friends, just other musicians) on Myspace because they flooded me with updates, which seems to be all Twitter is about (at least from the perspective of the music world)
I eventually did join Myspace so who knows... like you, I might one day feel compelled to join Twitter as well.
Or not.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on May 15, 2009 9:01:01 GMT -5
Very interesting. My plan is to hold out longer than MJ - I hope I'm not forced into it at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Donna SadCat Lady on May 16, 2009 13:43:47 GMT -5
And I'll hold out longer than CH. But I do get annoyed by the accelerating pace of the jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon in our society. Or at least it seems like the time between each Great New Thing that You Must Join is getting shorter. Maybe it's just the time it takes me to learn the Great New Things is getting longer. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some kids on my lawn....
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on May 17, 2009 17:22:54 GMT -5
And I'll hold out longer than CH. But I do get annoyed by the accelerating pace of the jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon in our society. Or at least it seems like the time between each Great New Thing that You Must Join is getting shorter. Maybe it's just the time it takes me to learn the Great New Things is getting longer. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some kids on my lawn.... Jumping on internet bandwagons like this don't really bother me. As long as I can continue to get the information I want and the services are easy, I've got no problem. I learned how to use email with about a five minute learning curve. And each new iteration of "social networking" technology seems ever more intuitive. What bugs me are the people who start to get some massive sense of self from a particular medium. I've stumbled onto debates between the relative merits of Twitter and blogs as if preferring one over the other was choosing a religion. But that's dumb, of course. Use it, consume it, and throw it away when it's lost its effectiveness. What really interests me, though, is the sort of cultural inertia these things get. At first, you're going to have the usual gamut of reactions: intense love of the novelty, grumbly irritation of the skeptics/old people who just don't want to mess with something new, etc. But after awhile, it becomes second nature and no one thinks twice about it. Of course, what I'm really saying is that you should all subscribe to my Twitter feed because I'm absolutely fascinating...and that way sia won't be the only person listening to me post about how the only person who ever reads my Twitter is, well, sia.
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on May 17, 2009 21:42:42 GMT -5
Very interesting. My plan is to hold out longer than MJ - I hope I'm not forced into it at some point. [anal sex joke goes here]
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 16, 2009 9:46:58 GMT -5
Al Roker: My Personal Savior - 9/16/09 My wife watches the Today show in the morning, which means I’m subjected to it on a daily basis like a daily challenge to my higher reasoning abilities. But lately, I’ve found a reason to enjoy it: the steady decline of Al Roker’s sanity. While I used to just assume he was yet another fat jolly weatherman, there’s been evidence lately that Al actually knows the show is ridiculous. It came to the fore lately with some random reality TV “personalities” that Al seemed to lose his patience with: But there are also other examples of Al just finding things that other celebrities do simply beneath him and completely worth of ridicule. Take this example with the ever-demure and enticing Paula Deen: You can tell that, as things go on, he has already lost any shred of respect he had for this woman and now simply wants to get out of the bit with his dignity intact while making sure that she has completely lost hers. It’s that subtle passive aggressiveness that he’s started to show lately. I can’t find a clip of it on youtube, but I remember a segment where they talked about a Saturday Night Live satire of the very strange talk show with Kathy Lee Gifford that comes after the regular Today Show. The rest of the cast was trying to say that they thought the bit was unfair and made the hosts look stupid. But Al just sat there laughing to himself, repeating, “I love it, I love it.” They all just looked at him while he obviously was lost in his own little reverie of silently hating the show he was on. Now, I find this development to be fascinating. The fat, jolly weatherman is supposed to be the epitome of the inoffensive morning “news/talk” show. He’s the one who reassures you that the news stories about terrorism and a crumbling economy are really just filler inbetween bouts of sunshine and interviews with the latest self-help guru. The weatherman is comfort-food of morning TV, the part to keep you from having to deal with the world while you drink your morning coffee. But Al can’t keep up the ruse. He’s cracking. Maybe it’s a personal realization that he’s become an walking representation of vapidity. But I like to give him more credit: I like to think that Al has grown up, rather than out. I like to think that one day, he looked at his kids, and realized that he didn’t want them to grow up in a country where we have to interrupt real news with a Santa Claus mock up who allows us to think that all is running smoothly as long as we can talk about a chance of rain instead of thinking about what’s really going on. And now he’s sabotaging the thing from the inside. I expect great things in the future from Al. I expect him to start asking for both more serious and more frivolous stories so that he can upset viewers by talking about Iraq in the middle of a weather piece and asking random B-list celebrities to explain why viewers should bother with them when the poverty rate is on the rise. I want to see Al just get pissed. I want to see him fall apart one morning and tell his co-hosts that they are the limpid replacement for public intellectuals in our country. I want to see him explain to them how they are the REAL reason behind 9/11 since they represent the emptiness of American society that drives fundamentalist Islam insane. I want him to tell them that the best way they could serve their society is not to introduce yet another segment on how to lose weight by buying some new book by another hack job, but to bring both themselves and their guests to a height of public shame and BEG for forgiveness from the American viewers that they’ve done their part to make even more stupid. That’s why I love Al Roker.
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Sept 17, 2009 9:13:20 GMT -5
Check out "Wake Up With Al" on the Weather Channel.
You will not regret it.
|
|
|
Post by doctorz on Sept 23, 2009 8:48:08 GMT -5
I need to check this Al Roker business out. It sounds absolutely "Fussinating."
I do not twitter but I will probably be forced into it one day. I totally agree with you on the sad spectacle that some nerds present when a new technology bounces into the spotlight. I remember a friend of mine taking me to an Apple store the day they trotted out the I-phone. It was so bad I had to leave, both the smell and the orgasmic comments coming from nerd mouths made the atmosphere inside the store unbearable. My friend's wife and I joke behind his back that if the Apple computer had an...um...orafice he'd marry it.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Feb 1, 2011 13:57:02 GMT -5
Why I am an asshole, by mummifiedstalin
I changed the name of my blog because I think, first, it is a more accurate representation of what I actually write about and, second, because it seems much more inviting to the reading audience of this fine discussion board, as I think you’ll agree.
In the past, I’ve been accused of being an asshole. I think the most public case of that was RAD. He actually left the board partly because he thought I was rude to him. Since then I’ve met him, and we’re good pals…and he realized that the way I write is often very different from how I relate to real people. That doesn’t change the fact that, it’s true, I am often an asshole when I write things on here.
But, to answer the question of why I am an asshole, it is simple: I deal all day with peoples’ opinions. I am a writing and literature teacher by trade, and my daily routine requires me to read, respond to, help improve, and even at times evaluate others’ opinions. That poopie leaves scars, and I get to bleed some of the pus/steam off when I write here where the consequences of being an asshole are minimal.
Now, some might think that this would make me more sympathetic to the wide swath of varying opinions that any random human can hold. And that is certainly true. I’ve grown a strange respect for variety and difference of opinion that goes far beyond what I used to hold, and I always thought of myself as a pretty open-minded dude. But actually seeing how vastly people really do disagree about even the most apparently obvious phenomena is awe-inspiring. I have colleagues who became even more entrenched with their own preconceptions when they encountered such huge difference, probably as a kind of self-preservation reflex that prevented them from sinking into pure nihilistic relativism about any and every topic.
However, I have acquired a certain…grumpiness. It’s not directed at the opinions themselves that others hold, not even those that bother me. Rather, it is the WAY in which so many people hold their opinions.
To put it bluntly, most people are perfectly stupid about their own opinions. And that stupidity takes many forms. I’ve actually ended up codifying me opinions about opinions into a few useful mottos:
1) “Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. But that doesn’t mean I have to smell it.”
I really like the old phrase “Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one.” But it needs to be updated. Because, like assholes, there is a smell that comes from the way many people hold onto and communicate their opinions. It’s not the quality of the opinions themselves…rather, it’s the total lack of care with which people usually handle their own opinions that causes them to smell like ass. An anus itself is a good and necessary thing. But an unwashed anus deserves scorn. So HOW do people fail to care for their opinions? That leads to the next maxim…
2) “Everyone is entitled their opinion – but they can still suck.”
Some people seem to think that because opinions are subjective, you can think or believe whatever you want. But that’s bullpoopie. Maybe if your opinion is something as innocuous as “I like cheese,” sure, that’s totally subjective. But most of our opinions are hardly simple subjective things. We form opinions based on all kinds of things like experiences, desires, reasoning, etc. All of those are ultimately “reasons” why we have the opinions we have. That means that our opinions are things that can be both defended and criticized. And it may actually turn out that you have BAD reasons to hold your opinion. In other words, just because you have a right to your opinion doesn’t mean that you’re free to hold whatever opinion you want, ESPECIALLY not if the reasons you really hold your opinion are crap.
Furthermore, it’s complete bullpoopie to suggest that your opinions are simply your own feelings about something. Again, maybe that’s the case with “I like cheese.” But most of our opinions are hardly that innocuous. Political opinions ultimately lead you to talk and vote in ways that has consequences for everyone else. Opinions about other people affect how you relate to them. Opinions about entertainment cause you to buy, support, and, thus, encourage more of that kind of thing. Opinions have effects way beyond just your own feelings.
Ultimately, I have no patience with people who can’t defend their opinions. That’s especially true if they also like to share their opinions. Other people can and should ask you for the reasons for your opinions. But if people get all pissy and try to hide behind the “that’s just what I think” pose, that’s cheating and cowardly. If you really feel the way you do, figure out a way to defend it. Come up with reasons to throw back at those assholes, like me, who challenge you. Take control of your own opinions rather than just accepting whatever sad little “feeling” about something your experiences happen to throw at you. Don’t be a slave to your own opinions, ESPECIALLY the ones that you don’t really understand or don’t know why you have them.
3) “If that’s JUST YOUR OPINION, then flapjacksing KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!”
I absolutely loathe it when people start off some comment with “It’s just my opinion…BUT…” It’s a rhetorical cheat. What they’re basically saying is, “I’m now going to tell you what I think and imply that it’s RIGHT (or else, why bother thinking/believing it), but because I said it’s just my opinion, you can’t criticize it!” It’s a way to project your own judgments but supposedly keep them immune from criticism. I think that some people honestly believe that it’s a way to say something humbly or to try not to cause offense.
But if your opinion really is something incredibly delicate and personal to you, don’t flapjacksing share it! As soon as you give voice to your opinion in some space where people can hear it, you are ESSENTIALLY INVITING PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO YOU. And when you do that, you’re leaving yourself open to criticism. Other people will offer their opinion in an honest attempt to show someone else just that there might be a difference of opinion. And that’s well and good, but it’s, again, an argumentative stance. You’re asking someone to change their opinion by realizing that it isn’t the only possible opinion. Essentially, you’re saying, “You have to admit that you aren’t RIGHT because I think something different.” But, again, that’s not just subjective.
It’s exactly the same as people who say “I’m just saying…” and then make some terribly mean or cruel remark. Of course that person isn’t “just saying”…they’re blatantly accusing someone of something. Announcing your own opinion is just the same: it’s implicitly challenging someone who might disagree with you. If you then back off and don’t try to defend your opinion, you’re a smarmy coward. (See, I’m an asshole.)
4) “We can agree to disagree…when I flapjacksing kill you.”
No one agrees to disagree. You agree to stop talking about something, but “agreeing to disagree” doesn’t happen. When you disagree with someone, you think that you are right, and they are wrong. As long as that difference exists, you think you have a better grasp on the issue than they do. You imply that you are more right (and, at least in some tiny way) better than they are. Agreeing to disagree does not mean that you’re fine with what they think and that you can accept a “difference of opinion.” All you’re really doing is postponing confrontation until later, or even perhaps indefinitely.
But different opinions don’t happily coexist. They are always competing. Opinions are mutually exclusive and there’s an implicit war always going on between opinions, even if you walk away from a debate. Even people who have vastly different opinions but love each other do not “agree to disagree”…what is usually happening is that they love arguing and find a bond there.
Or you have people who are ultimately more interested in the truth of something than their own opinions. (I have many friends in academic with whom I often violently disagree, but we show each other so many ways that our own opinions are wrong that we make each other better. I truly value those often frustrating relationships.)
The point is that “agreeing to disagree” doesn’t do your opinions any good. It just makes them weaker. It may keep you from killing someone, but it doesn’t make you any smarter.
So...
I now imagine someone reading this (if you read this far) thinking, jeez, you really are an asshole. I would hate you as a teacher. Maybe. Remember how I said I actually appreciate the variety of my students’ opinions? I do. But I also tell (in a more pleasant way) that I am a helpful asshole. My job, especially as a writing instructor, is to make them better defenders of their opinions. I want them to think of me a sparring partner. I’m going to show them problems with HOW they’re defending their opinions so that they can ultimately be more persuasive. If I disagree with their opinions, I want them to be as powerful as possible so that, ultimately, they can convince me that I’m wrong.
Because, honestly, I could give a poopie about my own opinions. I want to be right, or at least as close to it as I can be. And if I hold on to my opinions just because they happen to be mine, then I might be blind to the truth. I’d rather be a skeptical asshole toward any and every opinion, even the ones I hold most dear, so that better, more reasonable, and ultimately more productive opinions can always replace them.
That’s why I often come across as an argumentative bastard. It’s not because I think you’re wrong. It’s because I’m really hoping that you’ll come back with something so good that it’ll fix whatever’s wrong with what I think. (And, sure, I also enjoy showing what’s wrong with other peoples’ opinions…and there’s usually a lot because we’re all idiots in the end.) Being nice and respectful of someone’s opinion just lets us all wallow in a sad little world of “nice” people who are friendly and sweet but who hold really sad and shallow opinions and are too worried about avoiding confrontation rather than just making a point.
So I’m an asshole. I obviously think I’m a principled asshole. You may disagree. But don’t keep that opinion to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Feb 2, 2011 0:40:50 GMT -5
Mums, reading this, it sounds like you make conversation a battlefield. I don't think it has to be that way
To me some debate and discussion is fun, it’s what we are here for. The Inception talk at Rifftrax, for example, was respectful and interesting and I felt good about the back and forth exchanges.
But sometimes Mummy, to be honest, you come off like the bully at the schoolyard, and that’s not fun. I don’t like being pushed in the chest. And if I feel a debate (with you or others) is getting too heated, I’ll raise the white flag and offer a, "we’ll have to agree to disagree".
After I read that blog I felt battered and bruised. You state that you have no patience for this or that... you post absolutes for why people say such or such a thing... when maybe it's simply that people don’t want to feel like they being bullied and are trying to back out gracefully? And maybe when I write "It’s just my opinion", it really is because I’m trying to let the other person know that I’m not trying to be a dick and invalidate their viewpoint. Maybe when people reply with a, "It's just me, it's what I like" they are saying.... "Back off, stop pushing me and afford me the courtesy of simply enjoying something, and to make a declaration of enjoyment, without going to war over it"
Why the hell do forum memebers have to defend themslelves to you?
I do appreciate what you wrote and am glad to have that perspective. I feel I understand a little of your objective in regard to discussion on this forum. I admit, sometimes I didn’t get you. There would be times when I just wanted a little friendly conversation and it seemed you wanted to ball up your fist and bloody some noses.
But I have a different objective: Recently, I went back and read some of my old posts. There are times when I was flat out ashamed of myself; ashamed of my behavior and the way I spoke to people. I wanted to change that behavior. The people I looked to, my role models on this board are Shep and CH - because they can argue with you but still leave your dignity intact. They don't make you feel like utter crap for having a different view. It's a skill I wish I could acquire and it's a skill I respect.
So there is debate, and there's debate.
(Note: I've edited and re-edited this post all night. I hope I haven't caused too much hurt or crossed a line with this reply)
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Feb 3, 2011 10:06:01 GMT -5
Oh, you didn't cross any lines, don't worry. Seriously. Part of what I was getting at with the whole "I'm an asshole" thing was that too often I think people are too ready to have their feelings hurt, especially when their opinions are involved. I can think that your opinion sucks balls, but still have nothing but respect for you.
And, this is probably just something wrong with my psychological make-up, but I'm usually much happier when someone just tells me they think I'm an idiot AND tell me why than when they spend a lot of time trying to be nice and diplomatic before they disagree with me.
But to your point, which I appreciate you bothering to write (and worry about):
Exactly. Intentionally.
Here's my real "opinion" on that: conversation is more often a battlefield than it isn't. And it's actually more humane to recognize that than to pretend like it isn't. It's being dishonest about the way that we actually think about people who disagree with us, and pretending like we all really just want to be nice and listen to everyone's opinion without actually arguing leads to worse things like passive aggressiveness and manipulation.
For example, my wife and I used to be way too nice to each other. When we disagreed, we were too afraid of hurting each others' feelings, and we'd try to come with all kinds of indirect ways to talk to each other about our problems. But we realized that we ended up hurting each other more by not just being open and direct about things. So if she thought I was doing something wrong with one of the kids, she'd leave hints, talk in circles, and what not. I, of course, knew that she was upset with me, and then I'd get upset that she was trying to be very kindly manipulative. And little things would become big things.
It's so much easier to say, "I think you're doing this wrong. Here's why. Do you agree?" And then we hash it out. But a long time ago, we got over the notion that sounding direct about disagreements was being truly aggressive. We love each other, not each others' opinions about household chores, etc.
They don't. I was defending myself to them. ;D But, yeah, I was also trying to say things that would make you think, which I hope you did. (But no one's obligated to play my game. No one has to read the blog, bother to respond to it, etc... in fact, so far, you're the only one. Everyone else obviously just thinks I'm being an asshole, and I'm fine with that. ;D )
This also came up because I've been on a couple of internet lists (both for fun and for work) where a few people have gotten their panties seriously in a bunch over people disagreeing with them in a way that didn't express "niceness" over the disagreement. (I wasn't even involved, believe it or not, but I had to read it.) And, to me, that seems somewhat immature.
Let me put it this way: even if someone is a complete and total dick in an argument, particularly one that has no real consequences, like an internet discussion forum, why does anyone care? Why would I allow my feelings to get ruffled by someone else, particularly in an anonymous argument? Don't I have the option just to ignore them?
For example, on one of the internet discussions I'm in about teaching, there was a real argument between a few people over grading strategies. But one guy got so up in arms feeling like he was being personally attacked by the people who disagreed with him. But instead of arguing his case and coming up with good reasons to back up his own opinions, he started posting these long complaints about WHY the other people felt it was their obligation to disagree with him. In other words, he didn't address the issue itself, making his case stronger. Instead, he tried to become manipulative, suggesting that the others had ulterior motives.
Now, even if they did, it didn't matter. He sounded like he wasn't willing to defend his ideas and, instead, wanted to just say that it was unfair that he should be asked for reasons. But he could have perfectly easily just ignored people who he thought were treating him unfairly. That's the high road. If you TRULY think someone's an asshole, don't talk to them. But if you sink to their level and try to change who/how they are, you've already lost the argument.
Too often, people use their feelings as an indirect way to win an argument. For instance, being offended. I honestly and truly do not believe that there is an emotion of "being offended." Instead, it's completely rhetorical. One CLAIMS to be offended in order to gain the moral high ground in an argument. It makes you look like someone with principles and with standards that others have crossed with their bad taste or bad morals. In other words, claiming to be offended is actually being aggressive toward the person who offended you. But rather than saying, "I think what you just said/did is wrong," one claims to be offended, to have their feelings hurt, to put the other person on the defensive and implicitly say that they should apologize and realize that they are being an awful person.
But being offended is not REALLY about your feelings. It's really about making the other person look bad. That's manipulative, passive aggressive, shady, slimy, smarmy, cheating, and trying to make yourself look good while making someone else looks bad. It's a "cheerleader mom" emotion, all about using appearance for underhanded ways of dealing with disagreements.
Of course we all have feelings, and being offended may often be based on really getting angry or feeling hurt. But actually "taking offense"? ... it's a tactic, and one that used coldly and calculatedly.
But that's why I'd prefer to leave feelings out of conversation, especially conversation about ideas. It turns the interesting thing, the ideas, into a game of peoples' feelings, which is boring and usually pretty selfish.
And here I'll go on the attack again, because, hey, it's who I am:
Why? Do my opinions matter to you that much? Why can't you just dismiss me as an asshole? I mean that seriously. When you disagree with someone, you can engage them (as you did, eloquently) or you can ignore them. But wasn't it obvious that the way I was writing that post was meant to be aggressive and potentially insulting? Part of the rhetorical stance of sounding like a "bully at the schoolyard" is to put out a challenge to see who is going to step up and play the game with you. It's a challenge to put your feelings aside and just start throwing punches/arguments. It specifically says, "I want to talk in a way that isn't worried about nice and that just cuts to the heart of the issue." If you don't want to play that game, walk away. That's what's nice about the internet.
The worst part about being an asshole isn't hurting other peoples' feelings. It's that it turns off your audience. It potentially just makes people ignore you. And that's fine. I'm not always an asshole. But that's an issue of not being effective, not an issue of other peoples' feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Feb 4, 2011 2:58:34 GMT -5
On being offended You've never been offended? Doesn't Ben Rothlesberger offend you? If someone argued the "pro rapist QB" defense, might you not be offended? Isn't it possible then that someone could take genuine offense with something said without the ulterior motives you listed? After reading what you had to say on the subject I thought - "Well, that's rather absolute. It offers no leeway, it puts you in the position of mind reader, knower of all motivation."
And I wonder, have people lied to you a lot, or were manupulative/two faced? Are you naturally suspicious - Or is it that the academic mind is simply drawn to digging under the surface? (I ask this because this reminds me of someone I knew. Always thought people had an angle. That they were saying one thing but actually meant another.)
On feelings? I guess it would be nice to be Mr. Spock, but can you really divorce yourself from feelings, even in discussion? If I look at a great painting, both the intellectual admiration for technique is present, but there’s also the rush of feeling that the picture evokes. If I discuss the painting, both aspects are going to be present. When I watch MST I’m feeling something, when I hear the President give a speech, I feel something. It’s part of being human. I think it’s unavoidable.
You asked me about the Beatles in another thread. And with them I feel it, and I examine it. The feeling is still every bit as important, in listening and discussion.
On why I felt battered and bruised Because everything you listed are things I do. I should be able to say, F-it, it's just his opinion. But I either couldn't or wouldn't do this. I got emotionally tied up in it. I got embarrassed. Why? Maybe it's that sensitivity thing; maybe it's a lack of confidence. I respect your opinion and place it higher than my own. I take it personally and then scramble to validate myself. That's my baggage, not yours. I took it on when I didn't have to.
On why I'm working on being nice I’m inching towards 50. If I’m anything like my father, grandfather and great grandfather, I might have 10, 15 more years left on this Earth, and I’m looking back and wondering what it all meant.
In my life I have fought and argued and sometimes acted like an a-hole, and for what? It was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. So I got into a heated debate about or religion or politics or a movie and maybe with enough huffing and puffing and smarts I managed to win the argument… then what? It’s pointless. Maybe I’m reaching that Thomas Aquinas point in life - when he said, “All of my writings are as straw” - and stopped his exhaustive life’s work right then and there.
That’s not to say I want to live a cold, passionless life. And I love discussing and posting in threads where I tell everyone what my favorite song is or what not, even though, “who really gives a sh---“. But I want to strike that balance where I can express myself without the wholesale slaughter. And yes, there was a time in my young, college life, when I used my words like a sword. I got a kick out of it. I don’t get so much of a kick out of it now.
In the end, whether I was kind or cruel wont mean much. But I’d rather leave this world knowing I left some light and kindness behind. Even on a silly forum filled with people I’ve never met.
|
|