It's been a year since I graduated from university, and I haven't had a full-time job since. I don't think the problem lies with my credentials, but rather my approach to securing a career. I haven't really been applying diligently. I'm unmotivated, lazy, depressing, you name it. Anyway, this post isn't about my many character flaws, but specifically on time-wasting.
I've been wasting my time this past year, learning nothing new academically officially, which means I have less creds than I would have if I enrolled in courses, which then means I'll have a harder time finding a job. Without a job, I'll have more difficulties with my finances, which will in turn affect my quality of life, and perhaps the span of my life. In which case, I will have less work days ahead of me. Oh no.
I know, life isn't about work, but it does dominate it. However, what more is there? Relatively temporary relationships? Accumulation of wealth that cannot be kept beyond the grave? Memories that will never be recollected when you're rotting in the ground? What are we living for exactly? If nothing is to be gained in the very long run, nothing can be wasted.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Holiday
This is another upper. Funny incidents must be noted.
So a few weeks ago a friend from high school invited me to a party. He was invited by the co-host of the night, but he didn't know anyone else there. By bringing me along he figured it wouldn't feel as awkward for him. Of course, this was in itself pretty awkward, especially for me because I was the tag-along of a stranger to the group whom nobody knew. But me being me, I actually didn't care about the oddness of the whole situation. I wouldn't have went otherwise.
Now my friend likes to be presentable, especially in the presence of females he's never met. Pretty common thing to stress over, I'm sure. He asked me for my advice on mixing and matching upper and lower garments, though I'm not sure why he would trust my tastes. As mentioned in previous posts, I'm not much of a role model when it comes to fashion. But he earnestly wanted my opinions, so I gladly obliged.
Even though I'm not the type to be all fancy and extravagant just because I'll be meeting strangers, I did at least take the time to pick out clothes appropriate both for the weather and occasion, and I ironed enough to appear neat. I wore a dark green shirt with faded beige print design with khaki shorts. I originally planned to wear jeans with a dress shirt with sleeves rolled up, but it was around 28 degrees celcius during the day, so screw that.
So few hours later I was chilling in his study, bumming around on the Internet while he pulled out various tops and bottoms for me to scrutinize. We settled with near-white shorts and two potential tops. One was a black collared T with an argyle pattern on the front and back, the other was a light green top with a white print design. I opted for the black and he wanted the green, because it was more comfortable. I told him we would be dressed too similarly, and since we were both unknowns to the majority of the group, we'd look like a gay couple. After a few minutes of debating, he settled on the black top.
Fast-forward several more hours and we're at the host's crib, chilling in the spacious basement playing Apples to Apples. I was going to tell my newbie friend that I had a knack for this game, but decided to keep my boasting and victory-affirmation to myself because of the crowd. I didn't want to draw too much attention to myself. We actually started out slow, with my friend and his co-host friend on our team. We were down quite a bit, but eventually came back to clinch the victory. It was actually unexpected at the point. The last round was especially memorable to me.
The word in the middle was "pathetic". One team threw out "glacier" and argued that the bergs sit in the ocean doing nothing other than sinking ships. The other team said socks were pathetic because... I don't even know what they said. Didn't make much sense to me, no offense to them. We dropped "crystal balls" and our response was relatively epic, if that's even possible to classify.
The following is a paraphrase. "If you need a fortune teller to tell you what you should do with your life, that's pretty pathetic. But here's the most important point. A person with courage, strength, and confidence is said to have balls of steel. Steel is strong, solid, heavy. Crystal, on the other hand, is fragile, delicate, exposed. If you have crystal balls, that's just pathetic."
But the funniest part of the night was not this mere victory of wits and words. The father of the host came downstairs to inform the party that dinner was ready. He had the same black collared argyle shirt.
So a few weeks ago a friend from high school invited me to a party. He was invited by the co-host of the night, but he didn't know anyone else there. By bringing me along he figured it wouldn't feel as awkward for him. Of course, this was in itself pretty awkward, especially for me because I was the tag-along of a stranger to the group whom nobody knew. But me being me, I actually didn't care about the oddness of the whole situation. I wouldn't have went otherwise.
Now my friend likes to be presentable, especially in the presence of females he's never met. Pretty common thing to stress over, I'm sure. He asked me for my advice on mixing and matching upper and lower garments, though I'm not sure why he would trust my tastes. As mentioned in previous posts, I'm not much of a role model when it comes to fashion. But he earnestly wanted my opinions, so I gladly obliged.
Even though I'm not the type to be all fancy and extravagant just because I'll be meeting strangers, I did at least take the time to pick out clothes appropriate both for the weather and occasion, and I ironed enough to appear neat. I wore a dark green shirt with faded beige print design with khaki shorts. I originally planned to wear jeans with a dress shirt with sleeves rolled up, but it was around 28 degrees celcius during the day, so screw that.
So few hours later I was chilling in his study, bumming around on the Internet while he pulled out various tops and bottoms for me to scrutinize. We settled with near-white shorts and two potential tops. One was a black collared T with an argyle pattern on the front and back, the other was a light green top with a white print design. I opted for the black and he wanted the green, because it was more comfortable. I told him we would be dressed too similarly, and since we were both unknowns to the majority of the group, we'd look like a gay couple. After a few minutes of debating, he settled on the black top.
Fast-forward several more hours and we're at the host's crib, chilling in the spacious basement playing Apples to Apples. I was going to tell my newbie friend that I had a knack for this game, but decided to keep my boasting and victory-affirmation to myself because of the crowd. I didn't want to draw too much attention to myself. We actually started out slow, with my friend and his co-host friend on our team. We were down quite a bit, but eventually came back to clinch the victory. It was actually unexpected at the point. The last round was especially memorable to me.
The word in the middle was "pathetic". One team threw out "glacier" and argued that the bergs sit in the ocean doing nothing other than sinking ships. The other team said socks were pathetic because... I don't even know what they said. Didn't make much sense to me, no offense to them. We dropped "crystal balls" and our response was relatively epic, if that's even possible to classify.
The following is a paraphrase. "If you need a fortune teller to tell you what you should do with your life, that's pretty pathetic. But here's the most important point. A person with courage, strength, and confidence is said to have balls of steel. Steel is strong, solid, heavy. Crystal, on the other hand, is fragile, delicate, exposed. If you have crystal balls, that's just pathetic."
But the funniest part of the night was not this mere victory of wits and words. The father of the host came downstairs to inform the party that dinner was ready. He had the same black collared argyle shirt.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sometimes it's fun to kill
Okay, this post is a little less gloomy. A friend suggested I write a book on this topic, but I figured there's no market for this sort of thing, so I've decided to give my readers some potentially valuable information for free.
First off, I'm talking about the game Mafia. For those who don't know what it is, I'll explain the rules in the next four paragraphs. If you know how it works, skip them.
So basically it's a game for large groups of people, who are each assigned 1 of 4 characters, usually with playing cards. "Mafia" players try to kill as many other people as they can, "doctors" have the chance to prevent the death of a player, and "detectives" can find out through the game facilitator whether a player is mafia or not, and the rest are "civilians" with no special abilities.
The facilitator may weave an intriguing tale about secret mafia members living in a town who whack usually unsuspecting people in their sleep every night. So when it's "nighttime", everyone closes their eyes. The facilitator will then instructs mafia members to awake to do their deed. The killers then agree amongst themselves to pluck off one unlucky person, usually performed silently without alerting their neighbours of their dirty deeds. Once the facilitator is notified of the target, he or she orders them to return to sleep. Then the doctors' eyes are opened when called upon. They select one person to be saved the same way one player is offed by the mafia. Next, the detectives will wake to finger one player (nothing sexual). They then look to the facilitator to see whether their suspect is mafia or not. If they're lucky, the facilitator will nod. If the player is not mafia, he or she will shake her head. They all go back to sleep.
Next, everyone awakes, and the facilitator announces who has died in their sleep. If somehow the doctors chose to save that lucky guy or girl, the potential victim instead lives on to the next round and the mafia's attempt that night is futile. Some versions of the game allow the fresh corpse final words to the crowd, which may be crucial in some cases. I don't play like that though. I should also mention that mafia members may kill themselves off at night, and doctors may heal themselves as well. Detectives are allowed suspect themselves as well, though the answer would be pretty clear that they're not mafia members.
After the morbid announcement, the town's survivors debate amongst themselves, trying to identify the mafia members. Then two people are elected, each with a nomination and finalized with a second, and must each give a statement of defense to prove their innocence. Afterwards the survivors minus the two suspects vote on whom to execute. The one with the majority vote is killed and his or her role is revealed (nighttime deaths do not result in corpses' role revelations). Nighttime then follows, and the entire process is repeated until either all the mafia members are slain or if surviving mafia members are equal to non-mafia players, whichever comes first.
Now, my reasons for loving this game. The rules are few and simple, and there's a lot of flexibility with the rules as long as you don't outright break them. For example, paying close attention to sounds when your eyes are closed to pinpoint mafia members, announcing your role to everyone without revealing your identity card, or committing suicide when you're in the mafia. Knowing the tricks without actually cheating makes one a very powerful player, and recognition of your wits can affect your chances in the game as well. So for those who are power-hungry and have the smarts to back it, this game is for you. But personally I enjoy it mostly for the people-reading aspect.
I'm a bit of an introvert. I like to be alone, I like to be left alone, and I can even be alone when I'm in a crowd. Selective attention is something I've learned to master over the years. However, I'm still a very socially alert individual. I'm often able to put myself in other peoples' shoes, to understand their behaviour when I have all the facts. In real life, I clearly don't have all the facts, but in Mafia, everyone has roughly the same facts. Chances are there are no ulterior motives; you play to win, and you work with those on your team to make that happen. Personal grudges may come into play, but that usually doesn't throw the game off too much. So once you have a good sense of how people behave in a game, you can identify their roles, and act accordingly to get the results you need.
All this talk is hard to relate to if you haven't tried it, so I'll give a snippet of one game I played just yesterday at 3 in the morning.
So we were down to 7 players total, up to 2 mafia members remaining, possibly 1 detective remaining, 3-5 civilians alive depending on the unknowns, and the doctor was around because I kept saving myself. Now I take full advantage of the nighttime regardless of my role. If I'm mafia, I kill strategically, or I might even have an entire silent conversation with my teammates. But if I'm not, I like to communicate blindly with people on my side without knowing who they are. I move around, I gesture, I make noises to throw people off, all kinds of things. In this particular case, I pointed at myself vigourously when the detective was up.
Morning came. A civilian was killed off. I don't remember whom, because my attention was held by a set of unwavering eyes, staring at me intently. It took me a few seconds to understand what's going on. At first I thought he was mafia, but there was no reason why he'd stare me down. To mark his next victim? To instill fear? No way. He was smarter than that. Which means my reasoning wasn't smart enough. I was signaling to the detective before, so this must mean that he was the guy I was communicating with. I nodded with a smile and he turned away. I now have a teammate. I might've been assuming things of course, but my assumptions were soon confirmed. He had tried unsuccessfully to have me executed one round earlier, but had ceased completely this time. He even supported me when others accused me. This leaves the remaining 4 players as unknowns to me.
Then one guy, whom I'll call A for now, accused his own girlfriend of being a mafia member. His reasoning wasn't all that logical, more like a random shot really. I didn't think too much of it, since couples quibbling isn't that uncommon. What did get my attention, however, was the subtle support given by another girl (B), who isn't a close friend of A. There was no valid reason for the two to accuse her, especially one after the other, and so I tentatively linked the two as teammates. Since civilians don't open their eyes at all during nighttime, and the only other team out there must be mafia, I assumed they were so. I announced my suspicions.
Of course, people don't take turns to talk in this game, so during this time, or sometime before or after, I was nominated once by a third guy in the group. I figured he was a civilian because it seemed like he didn't know whom to trust and he was genuinely asking for logical reasons whenever someone fires an accusation. My detective friend persuaded him to take back the accusation, but to no avail.
However, the detective and I did manage to put A on the chopping block because I accused and the other guy trusted my instinct, or at least my identity. To further drive home my point, I raised my hand and told them I was the detective. The civilian dude asked me how they could trust me on that, which was a valid question. I explained to them that if I was lying, the real detective would call me out on that and rightfully accuse me of lying. This didn't happen. But then the civilian suggested the detective could have died in his or her sleep, which was possible since the role is not revealed in this case. I countered that I knew better than to make such a claim if there was even a possibility that the real detective, if it wasn't me, would contradict me. Even if I really wasn't a mafia member, lying to them and being proven so would destroy my credibility completely.
There was no reason for the true detective to contradict me, of course, and that was one reason why I did what I did. I didn't claim to be a doctor either because that role would have less weight on such claims; I would know as much as the other players, technically. Another reason is that if I claimed to have the power to identify the mafia, there would be a chance that the bad guys would try to silence me at night, but I would just save myself and we would all survive to the next round. If I claimed to be the doctor, they might hesitate to kill me because I would foresee that and I wouldn't need to trust someone else to save me, which was not so in the case of me being the detective. It was better that the real detective remained hidden.
The smart thing for the mafia at this point would be to claim to be the detective. In their perspective, it would appear that I was truly the detective since no one else spoke out. Of course, this would have to be thought out on the spot and communicated between the members somehow secretly. If both of them announced that they were detectives, both would likely be lying, or at least one of them would be, but their unity would once again cast doubt on their roles. Maybe if one was persuasive enough and both knew enough to argue it through, the rest, except for me and the real detective, would buy the lie and the loser of the argument would definitely be proven to be a liar.
If only one person spoke out to contradict me, assuming I was indeed the detective, I would have no support but my own words, in which case it may be a free for all. However, in this case I was not the true detective, and if someone tried to contradict me, the detective and I would know for a fact that the arguer is mafia. There's no other reason to contradict me otherwise.
But this did not happen, and the civilians were not entirely convinced. So the real detective revealed himself to the public, which damaged my credibility even though the he told them I was checked. Since there were two seemingly anonymous killers in the open, for us to be unified publicly would appear suspicious, especially when the detective and the doctor are never awake at the same time. Of course, he didn't know I was the doctor, and conceded that he had no idea what I was doing, so I reasoned with them and told them exactly what I was doing.
At this point, I suspected either A or B to second me. Assuming I'm correct in my suspicions, the mafia team cannot afford to have both members put on the chopping block. That would be a definite loss to them. And seeing as I was an influential townsman, it would only be a matter of time before I convinced them to turn against B. To try and accuse another townie would require logical evidence to back up their claims, and doing so without a solid reason would make it look like they're just trying to pull someone else down or to pass the blame. So the wise thing to do at this point would be to second my nomination. Just one more vote and I'm on the chopping block with A. And it happened as I expected.
First, A said I was probably not mafia after he himself was chosen, and almost immediately after B seconded me. I kept quiet about this particular suspicion until afterwards, just to prove to the rest that I was right. If I had said anything, they wouldn't second me and my claim would not be confirmed. But they made two crucial mistakes on their own anyway.
A's claim that I was probably not mafia puts himself in a bad position, especially after I accused both A and B. Saying I wasn't mafia suggests that I shouldn't be nominated. If he wasn't suspected of being a mafia, people might go with the suggestion. If he was, it would appear to be a poor attempt at hiding my identity as a mafia member. He had hoped that the townsfolk would pick up on this poor attempt at reverse psychology, but I saw through it and added it to my reasoning later.
Second mistake. A should have seconded the nomination, not B. If he had done it instead, the identity of the second mafia member would remain relatively unknown. I would certainly have some doubts myself. But since B came to his defense in securing me on the chopping block, I was convinced that she was also a mafia member, which I then divulged to the rest. After A was executed by our vote, he still maintained that I was not mafia, which further supports my suspicion that he's using terrible reverse psychology to have me voted off. So I don't know if he's a smart player or not, but I'm not going to call him dumb based on that. I can be respectful when I want to.
So the rest of the game progressed as expected. 4 against 1 and the mafia team killed off A's girlfriend during the night. She was mostly inactive throughout, and this kill would seem to contradict my earlier statements to the less experienced players. Clearly the more practical move would be to kill off me or the detective, since we were obviously unified against the mafia. This would either be a very amateur move or a very intelligent one. Killing one of us would likely support the theory, since its supporters are being targeted. The counter-argument for this move would be grounded on the same reasoning, that it was the same as admitting that the theory's correct. So the safe move would be to kill off an innocent bystander. But it all proved futile. The detective checked B at night, and the three of us nominated her as the prime suspect, and we were proven correct in our speculations.
I suppose even this detailed account might not do the game justice. The participants definitely affect game play; one of my friends stated that when he played with a different circle of friends, they were less creative and it wasn't fun because they always stuck to the same methods. So another key factor is cleverness and creativity. I find playing mafia akin to writing a suspenseful mystery. You see things through the reader's eyes, and you try to take in every detail, manipulating these facts to get at the ending you desire. Of course, not everything happens to your liking, but that's all part of the excitement.
First off, I'm talking about the game Mafia. For those who don't know what it is, I'll explain the rules in the next four paragraphs. If you know how it works, skip them.
So basically it's a game for large groups of people, who are each assigned 1 of 4 characters, usually with playing cards. "Mafia" players try to kill as many other people as they can, "doctors" have the chance to prevent the death of a player, and "detectives" can find out through the game facilitator whether a player is mafia or not, and the rest are "civilians" with no special abilities.
The facilitator may weave an intriguing tale about secret mafia members living in a town who whack usually unsuspecting people in their sleep every night. So when it's "nighttime", everyone closes their eyes. The facilitator will then instructs mafia members to awake to do their deed. The killers then agree amongst themselves to pluck off one unlucky person, usually performed silently without alerting their neighbours of their dirty deeds. Once the facilitator is notified of the target, he or she orders them to return to sleep. Then the doctors' eyes are opened when called upon. They select one person to be saved the same way one player is offed by the mafia. Next, the detectives will wake to finger one player (nothing sexual). They then look to the facilitator to see whether their suspect is mafia or not. If they're lucky, the facilitator will nod. If the player is not mafia, he or she will shake her head. They all go back to sleep.
Next, everyone awakes, and the facilitator announces who has died in their sleep. If somehow the doctors chose to save that lucky guy or girl, the potential victim instead lives on to the next round and the mafia's attempt that night is futile. Some versions of the game allow the fresh corpse final words to the crowd, which may be crucial in some cases. I don't play like that though. I should also mention that mafia members may kill themselves off at night, and doctors may heal themselves as well. Detectives are allowed suspect themselves as well, though the answer would be pretty clear that they're not mafia members.
After the morbid announcement, the town's survivors debate amongst themselves, trying to identify the mafia members. Then two people are elected, each with a nomination and finalized with a second, and must each give a statement of defense to prove their innocence. Afterwards the survivors minus the two suspects vote on whom to execute. The one with the majority vote is killed and his or her role is revealed (nighttime deaths do not result in corpses' role revelations). Nighttime then follows, and the entire process is repeated until either all the mafia members are slain or if surviving mafia members are equal to non-mafia players, whichever comes first.
Now, my reasons for loving this game. The rules are few and simple, and there's a lot of flexibility with the rules as long as you don't outright break them. For example, paying close attention to sounds when your eyes are closed to pinpoint mafia members, announcing your role to everyone without revealing your identity card, or committing suicide when you're in the mafia. Knowing the tricks without actually cheating makes one a very powerful player, and recognition of your wits can affect your chances in the game as well. So for those who are power-hungry and have the smarts to back it, this game is for you. But personally I enjoy it mostly for the people-reading aspect.
I'm a bit of an introvert. I like to be alone, I like to be left alone, and I can even be alone when I'm in a crowd. Selective attention is something I've learned to master over the years. However, I'm still a very socially alert individual. I'm often able to put myself in other peoples' shoes, to understand their behaviour when I have all the facts. In real life, I clearly don't have all the facts, but in Mafia, everyone has roughly the same facts. Chances are there are no ulterior motives; you play to win, and you work with those on your team to make that happen. Personal grudges may come into play, but that usually doesn't throw the game off too much. So once you have a good sense of how people behave in a game, you can identify their roles, and act accordingly to get the results you need.
All this talk is hard to relate to if you haven't tried it, so I'll give a snippet of one game I played just yesterday at 3 in the morning.
So we were down to 7 players total, up to 2 mafia members remaining, possibly 1 detective remaining, 3-5 civilians alive depending on the unknowns, and the doctor was around because I kept saving myself. Now I take full advantage of the nighttime regardless of my role. If I'm mafia, I kill strategically, or I might even have an entire silent conversation with my teammates. But if I'm not, I like to communicate blindly with people on my side without knowing who they are. I move around, I gesture, I make noises to throw people off, all kinds of things. In this particular case, I pointed at myself vigourously when the detective was up.
Morning came. A civilian was killed off. I don't remember whom, because my attention was held by a set of unwavering eyes, staring at me intently. It took me a few seconds to understand what's going on. At first I thought he was mafia, but there was no reason why he'd stare me down. To mark his next victim? To instill fear? No way. He was smarter than that. Which means my reasoning wasn't smart enough. I was signaling to the detective before, so this must mean that he was the guy I was communicating with. I nodded with a smile and he turned away. I now have a teammate. I might've been assuming things of course, but my assumptions were soon confirmed. He had tried unsuccessfully to have me executed one round earlier, but had ceased completely this time. He even supported me when others accused me. This leaves the remaining 4 players as unknowns to me.
Then one guy, whom I'll call A for now, accused his own girlfriend of being a mafia member. His reasoning wasn't all that logical, more like a random shot really. I didn't think too much of it, since couples quibbling isn't that uncommon. What did get my attention, however, was the subtle support given by another girl (B), who isn't a close friend of A. There was no valid reason for the two to accuse her, especially one after the other, and so I tentatively linked the two as teammates. Since civilians don't open their eyes at all during nighttime, and the only other team out there must be mafia, I assumed they were so. I announced my suspicions.
Of course, people don't take turns to talk in this game, so during this time, or sometime before or after, I was nominated once by a third guy in the group. I figured he was a civilian because it seemed like he didn't know whom to trust and he was genuinely asking for logical reasons whenever someone fires an accusation. My detective friend persuaded him to take back the accusation, but to no avail.
However, the detective and I did manage to put A on the chopping block because I accused and the other guy trusted my instinct, or at least my identity. To further drive home my point, I raised my hand and told them I was the detective. The civilian dude asked me how they could trust me on that, which was a valid question. I explained to them that if I was lying, the real detective would call me out on that and rightfully accuse me of lying. This didn't happen. But then the civilian suggested the detective could have died in his or her sleep, which was possible since the role is not revealed in this case. I countered that I knew better than to make such a claim if there was even a possibility that the real detective, if it wasn't me, would contradict me. Even if I really wasn't a mafia member, lying to them and being proven so would destroy my credibility completely.
There was no reason for the true detective to contradict me, of course, and that was one reason why I did what I did. I didn't claim to be a doctor either because that role would have less weight on such claims; I would know as much as the other players, technically. Another reason is that if I claimed to have the power to identify the mafia, there would be a chance that the bad guys would try to silence me at night, but I would just save myself and we would all survive to the next round. If I claimed to be the doctor, they might hesitate to kill me because I would foresee that and I wouldn't need to trust someone else to save me, which was not so in the case of me being the detective. It was better that the real detective remained hidden.
The smart thing for the mafia at this point would be to claim to be the detective. In their perspective, it would appear that I was truly the detective since no one else spoke out. Of course, this would have to be thought out on the spot and communicated between the members somehow secretly. If both of them announced that they were detectives, both would likely be lying, or at least one of them would be, but their unity would once again cast doubt on their roles. Maybe if one was persuasive enough and both knew enough to argue it through, the rest, except for me and the real detective, would buy the lie and the loser of the argument would definitely be proven to be a liar.
If only one person spoke out to contradict me, assuming I was indeed the detective, I would have no support but my own words, in which case it may be a free for all. However, in this case I was not the true detective, and if someone tried to contradict me, the detective and I would know for a fact that the arguer is mafia. There's no other reason to contradict me otherwise.
But this did not happen, and the civilians were not entirely convinced. So the real detective revealed himself to the public, which damaged my credibility even though the he told them I was checked. Since there were two seemingly anonymous killers in the open, for us to be unified publicly would appear suspicious, especially when the detective and the doctor are never awake at the same time. Of course, he didn't know I was the doctor, and conceded that he had no idea what I was doing, so I reasoned with them and told them exactly what I was doing.
At this point, I suspected either A or B to second me. Assuming I'm correct in my suspicions, the mafia team cannot afford to have both members put on the chopping block. That would be a definite loss to them. And seeing as I was an influential townsman, it would only be a matter of time before I convinced them to turn against B. To try and accuse another townie would require logical evidence to back up their claims, and doing so without a solid reason would make it look like they're just trying to pull someone else down or to pass the blame. So the wise thing to do at this point would be to second my nomination. Just one more vote and I'm on the chopping block with A. And it happened as I expected.
First, A said I was probably not mafia after he himself was chosen, and almost immediately after B seconded me. I kept quiet about this particular suspicion until afterwards, just to prove to the rest that I was right. If I had said anything, they wouldn't second me and my claim would not be confirmed. But they made two crucial mistakes on their own anyway.
A's claim that I was probably not mafia puts himself in a bad position, especially after I accused both A and B. Saying I wasn't mafia suggests that I shouldn't be nominated. If he wasn't suspected of being a mafia, people might go with the suggestion. If he was, it would appear to be a poor attempt at hiding my identity as a mafia member. He had hoped that the townsfolk would pick up on this poor attempt at reverse psychology, but I saw through it and added it to my reasoning later.
Second mistake. A should have seconded the nomination, not B. If he had done it instead, the identity of the second mafia member would remain relatively unknown. I would certainly have some doubts myself. But since B came to his defense in securing me on the chopping block, I was convinced that she was also a mafia member, which I then divulged to the rest. After A was executed by our vote, he still maintained that I was not mafia, which further supports my suspicion that he's using terrible reverse psychology to have me voted off. So I don't know if he's a smart player or not, but I'm not going to call him dumb based on that. I can be respectful when I want to.
So the rest of the game progressed as expected. 4 against 1 and the mafia team killed off A's girlfriend during the night. She was mostly inactive throughout, and this kill would seem to contradict my earlier statements to the less experienced players. Clearly the more practical move would be to kill off me or the detective, since we were obviously unified against the mafia. This would either be a very amateur move or a very intelligent one. Killing one of us would likely support the theory, since its supporters are being targeted. The counter-argument for this move would be grounded on the same reasoning, that it was the same as admitting that the theory's correct. So the safe move would be to kill off an innocent bystander. But it all proved futile. The detective checked B at night, and the three of us nominated her as the prime suspect, and we were proven correct in our speculations.
I suppose even this detailed account might not do the game justice. The participants definitely affect game play; one of my friends stated that when he played with a different circle of friends, they were less creative and it wasn't fun because they always stuck to the same methods. So another key factor is cleverness and creativity. I find playing mafia akin to writing a suspenseful mystery. You see things through the reader's eyes, and you try to take in every detail, manipulating these facts to get at the ending you desire. Of course, not everything happens to your liking, but that's all part of the excitement.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Homosexuality is just as bad as pedophilia
Recently a prominent member of the Catholic church announced that pedophilia committed by priests were not results of celibacy, but rather homosexuality. The gay community, of course, was outraged by these baseless accusations. But in my opinion, pedophilia and homosexuality are objectively equivalent in some aspects. In case you're thinking I'm suggesting that homosexuality is immoral and detestable just like pedophilia, I'm not saying that, nor am I lying through the title of this post.
Pedophilia, according to Wikipedia, is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. (Fun facts you may or may not know: Hebephilia and ephebophilia) Not too long ago, homosexuality was considered a disorder as well. But times change, and what's considered wrong and taboo at one point in history may not be true in the not so distant future. So am I saying it's okay to desire kids? Let's break this down a little further.
I'll be discussing pedophilia generally without all the technical definitions and requirements as detailed in psychological manuals, since the Catholics don't seem to be using that term in that context either, or at least that's my view on it. So once again, is it okay to want kids sexually? Well, what's wrong with it exactly? In my opinion, the issues that arise are few, but significant in the eyes of society.
"They are too young to be having sex." What's the determining factor, exactly? Is it the age difference? If so, it's not really consistent. It's all right if a 50-year-old has sex with a 40-year-old, but not okay socially if a 20-year-old sleeps with someone a decade his or her junior. If it's the age difference that's an issue, then that should apply for all age groups, so that can't be the reason.
So is it the actual age? Who decides what age is old enough? Isn't that an arbitrary number? If you're legally too young to be having sex one day before your birthday, why is it suddenly okay the day after? Does your body go through some miraculous changes once you hit a certain age that sex becomes acceptable? Perhaps this is about not being able to reproduce, and therefore sex is not productive and therefore should be prohibited. But we don't always use our bodies in ways they were designed to function, like eating meat for example, according to some researchers. That's not really outlawed. So this can't be the reason either.
Or maybe it's the maturity of the minor that comes to question. But no matter what age, people have immaturely and irresponsibly spawned. There's no law against consensual sex between people of legal age, I don't think. At least not in many developed countries. So maturity is probably not the main issue here, or the legal system is just too inconsistent.
So if not maturity, then mental and or intellectual capacity? If it's because the child wouldn't understand what is being done, one can always be educated. The maturity aspect in understanding the concepts and their impact might come into play here, in which case refer to the previous paragraph. If it's really about intelligence, is it also wrong to make love to the mentally handicapped? Why should the law, or anyone, dictate something so unfair? This also can't be right.
Perhaps it's the power relationship between an authority figure and an impressionable mind. Once again, age doesn't necessarily change the dynamics in such situations. A doctor is still forbidden from mating with patients, so perhaps pedophilia is grounded in the same reasoning. In which case, why the unnecessary outlawing of pedophilia when age is not the main issue?
But despite my reasoning thus far, people will still be outraged that I said homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia. I guess I shouldn't have talked for so long about pedophilia because that's not even my main point. My fault for organizing this post poorly. The point I'm making there is that both are preferences. Just like necrophilia, bestiality, and even heterosexuality. Sometimes they even overlap, and none of them should be wrong in and of themselves. If anything, the only thing wrong with these practices would be the lack of consent, which applies to the categories I've mentioned as well as others, excluding necrophilia, because inanimate objects can't allow or deny anything.
But back to the point of preferences. Preferring prepubescent individuals should be no different than desiring any other kinds of individuals. Everyone has their preferences; why is one acceptable and another not? If anything, the point that should be emphasized might be to love and desire equally, to treat everyone the same way. But it's not easy to sidestep personal preferences, so I wouldn't encourage that either, because there's no reason to do so.
So why is heterosexuality good, homosexuality borderline acceptable, and other preferences not so much? Because majority rules? Maybe other preferences that fall under hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality are the true majorities. Who knows if 98% of the earth's population is really into pedophilia? Not too many people will admit to these preferences simply because society as a majority has made these taboo. So perhaps setting our standards based on what's socially expressed is misguided.
Maybe God is the ultimate standard? Let's say the Christian God exists for the sake of argument. If this is so, He has expressed in Scripture that homosexuality is wrong, though debates have arisen about the validity of this conclusion. Let's say it's true for the sake of argument once more. If God has truly stated heterosexuality and sex between a man and his wife is the only way to go, I think this standard is arbitrary. God created everything, including sexes, so it is His idea that these two genders are created to connect emotionally, intimately, and at the nether regions. He could very well have designed the race to be divided into more than two sexes, or to create everyone to be homosexual by default. But He didn't, and so heterosexuality is deemed the correct way to live a sexual life, although perhaps He Himself doesn't care that much either.
I think God creates entities that fall short of His standards, not just to make it clear who's in charge and is more powerful, but for personal amusement. If everyone's up to standards, it's pretty boring. You need the deviants from the established guideline around to stir things up a bit.
According to this theory of mine, one should find that life is unfair, since deviations are divinely assigned to individuals, which also means that entry to Heaven is predetermined by the maker. If you complain about this, you probably don't want in to begin with. Likely this means you'd rather have your devious preferences over salvation, because otherwise you wouldn't complain but just change your behaviours accordingly. And if you resent God for not liking your qualities, why would you want to live with Him for eternity anyway? That's just masochistic. Go burn in hell with a smile instead.
This post was written over a long period of time, so the concepts might be a little jumbled and the delivery might be poor. If you need clarifications, drop a comment and I'll get back to you somehow.
Pedophilia, according to Wikipedia, is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. (Fun facts you may or may not know: Hebephilia and ephebophilia) Not too long ago, homosexuality was considered a disorder as well. But times change, and what's considered wrong and taboo at one point in history may not be true in the not so distant future. So am I saying it's okay to desire kids? Let's break this down a little further.
I'll be discussing pedophilia generally without all the technical definitions and requirements as detailed in psychological manuals, since the Catholics don't seem to be using that term in that context either, or at least that's my view on it. So once again, is it okay to want kids sexually? Well, what's wrong with it exactly? In my opinion, the issues that arise are few, but significant in the eyes of society.
"They are too young to be having sex." What's the determining factor, exactly? Is it the age difference? If so, it's not really consistent. It's all right if a 50-year-old has sex with a 40-year-old, but not okay socially if a 20-year-old sleeps with someone a decade his or her junior. If it's the age difference that's an issue, then that should apply for all age groups, so that can't be the reason.
So is it the actual age? Who decides what age is old enough? Isn't that an arbitrary number? If you're legally too young to be having sex one day before your birthday, why is it suddenly okay the day after? Does your body go through some miraculous changes once you hit a certain age that sex becomes acceptable? Perhaps this is about not being able to reproduce, and therefore sex is not productive and therefore should be prohibited. But we don't always use our bodies in ways they were designed to function, like eating meat for example, according to some researchers. That's not really outlawed. So this can't be the reason either.
Or maybe it's the maturity of the minor that comes to question. But no matter what age, people have immaturely and irresponsibly spawned. There's no law against consensual sex between people of legal age, I don't think. At least not in many developed countries. So maturity is probably not the main issue here, or the legal system is just too inconsistent.
So if not maturity, then mental and or intellectual capacity? If it's because the child wouldn't understand what is being done, one can always be educated. The maturity aspect in understanding the concepts and their impact might come into play here, in which case refer to the previous paragraph. If it's really about intelligence, is it also wrong to make love to the mentally handicapped? Why should the law, or anyone, dictate something so unfair? This also can't be right.
Perhaps it's the power relationship between an authority figure and an impressionable mind. Once again, age doesn't necessarily change the dynamics in such situations. A doctor is still forbidden from mating with patients, so perhaps pedophilia is grounded in the same reasoning. In which case, why the unnecessary outlawing of pedophilia when age is not the main issue?
But despite my reasoning thus far, people will still be outraged that I said homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia. I guess I shouldn't have talked for so long about pedophilia because that's not even my main point. My fault for organizing this post poorly. The point I'm making there is that both are preferences. Just like necrophilia, bestiality, and even heterosexuality. Sometimes they even overlap, and none of them should be wrong in and of themselves. If anything, the only thing wrong with these practices would be the lack of consent, which applies to the categories I've mentioned as well as others, excluding necrophilia, because inanimate objects can't allow or deny anything.
But back to the point of preferences. Preferring prepubescent individuals should be no different than desiring any other kinds of individuals. Everyone has their preferences; why is one acceptable and another not? If anything, the point that should be emphasized might be to love and desire equally, to treat everyone the same way. But it's not easy to sidestep personal preferences, so I wouldn't encourage that either, because there's no reason to do so.
So why is heterosexuality good, homosexuality borderline acceptable, and other preferences not so much? Because majority rules? Maybe other preferences that fall under hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality are the true majorities. Who knows if 98% of the earth's population is really into pedophilia? Not too many people will admit to these preferences simply because society as a majority has made these taboo. So perhaps setting our standards based on what's socially expressed is misguided.
Maybe God is the ultimate standard? Let's say the Christian God exists for the sake of argument. If this is so, He has expressed in Scripture that homosexuality is wrong, though debates have arisen about the validity of this conclusion. Let's say it's true for the sake of argument once more. If God has truly stated heterosexuality and sex between a man and his wife is the only way to go, I think this standard is arbitrary. God created everything, including sexes, so it is His idea that these two genders are created to connect emotionally, intimately, and at the nether regions. He could very well have designed the race to be divided into more than two sexes, or to create everyone to be homosexual by default. But He didn't, and so heterosexuality is deemed the correct way to live a sexual life, although perhaps He Himself doesn't care that much either.
I think God creates entities that fall short of His standards, not just to make it clear who's in charge and is more powerful, but for personal amusement. If everyone's up to standards, it's pretty boring. You need the deviants from the established guideline around to stir things up a bit.
According to this theory of mine, one should find that life is unfair, since deviations are divinely assigned to individuals, which also means that entry to Heaven is predetermined by the maker. If you complain about this, you probably don't want in to begin with. Likely this means you'd rather have your devious preferences over salvation, because otherwise you wouldn't complain but just change your behaviours accordingly. And if you resent God for not liking your qualities, why would you want to live with Him for eternity anyway? That's just masochistic. Go burn in hell with a smile instead.
This post was written over a long period of time, so the concepts might be a little jumbled and the delivery might be poor. If you need clarifications, drop a comment and I'll get back to you somehow.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Suicides, abortions, and other jolly topics
Looking at today's topic, you're probably thinking I'm going to depress the hell out of you. And why is that? Death is just another part of life. There's really nothing inherently gloomy about it. Some may even argue the end of anything justifies its beginning and everything in between. Why write a story without an ending, right?
Let's begin with the dark perspective on death. Why the gloom over doom? Perhaps it's the loss of potential, the end to the joys of life, and the separation of the departed from the living. But these ideas imply harmony with those around you, an abundance of joy over sorrows, and the possibility to progress or to do anything of importance. Herein lies the problem. The grievance of death hinges upon the satisfaction as well as the significance of life. Death can only be negative if life is positive in contrast, so one must view life positively for this to be true. Life, I would then argue, is not inherently positive.
But that is another topic altogether. For now I want to focus on abortions and suicides, and perhaps other ideas if they come to mind as I write this. Let us take from the two previous paragraphs that life must be good for death to be bad and that life is not inherently good, and we'll work from there. You might say it's a weak foundation for my next arguments, but bear with it. It'll make sense when I talk about the nature of life another time.
Abortions are good. Now before I continue, I should say that I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice. So hold your angry baby-loving flaming for now. There are legitimate reasons for a pregnant woman to abort her unborn child. Financial reasons, inadequate parenting skills, Pharaoh killing infants again, the list goes on. The counterargument then is that an unborn individual is robbed the right to live without even having a chance to protest.
Yet is it not better to experience death devoid of pain and awareness, than to die in a hostile environment? This is of course under the assumption that the reason to abort is for the sake of the child due to external factors beyond the parents' control. Naysayers would then shout out vehemently, "where do you draw the line?! Maybe they'll live to be the next Albert Einsteins or Ghandis or Kylie Minogues!" True. But what are the chances of that? And if they do, so what? Besides, there's also a chance they could become the next Hitlers or bin Ladens or Marilyn Mansons. Lot of good they've done in their lifetimes. Despite these arguments, however, what is perhaps more important is the welfare of the child in question. If the fetus is given the chance to develop fully in a relatively hostile surrounding, the kid will have to experience a rough childhood before reaching potentially awesome status, and that's not even guaranteed. If it was my choice, I'd abort that sucker right off the bat. And that leads to my next argument.
Everyone exists solely based on his or her parents' or at least mother's choice. The poor soul never had a say in it. If we have the right to decide whether a child should come into existence or not, would it not only be fair to have the right to decide whether it dies? Some would argue that aborting a fetus effectively kills an individual's potential to live, to grow, to inspire, to change the world, and whatever. Then it may as well be argued that those with flat tummies need to start making babies, because choosing not to have a child has the same effect as aborting. Either way, we are still not respecting the child's opinion. But how can we if the child doesn't exist? Wouldn't there be a lack of opinion if there's a lack of consciousness, and especially a lack of existence? I agree fully on that point. But once you conceive and a baby grows in you, it is irrefutable that the choice is founded on selfishness, and morality comes into play. I'm aware that rape would be a different scenario, but that only supports the idea that abortions are good. Who wants surprise pregnancies?
A lot of things have been said so far and I'm sure many readers are already offended at this point. But let's summarize what we have so far:
A few lines up I said selfishness breeds babies; the parents are the only ones who decide whether to have children or not, with accidental pregnancies being possibly the most common exception. But even then the transference of sperm to womb, or at least sperm through the vagina wrapped or otherwise, is often intentional. If you take that risk of putting it in, since no contraceptive is fail-proof, you are aware that the female may become pregnant. So once again, who consulted the child-to-be? No one had the choice to be unborn or aborted. If we had no freedom in our creation, is it not only fair to have the freedom to choose when we are mentally able to make such a decision? People always talk about the freedom to live, but too often neglect the freedom to die.
Honestly, a death only affects those around the deceased. A person's life can cause more damage to society than a person's death. Even if the person was a suicide bomber, it's a one-time thing and the dude or dudette can't repeat his or her crimes. But as long as the person lives, there's no telling how much more damage can be done.
The general perception of suicide is that it's the coward's way out. I beg to differ. It is said that if life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. So if I threw you in prison, do you just make the best of it in your little cell and consider yourself courageous for resisting to rot away until the very end? Ef that! You break out of prison! That's the brave thing to do, not remaining in an incarcerated state without resisting. If life sucks, you break away from it. What's the shame in that?
I think I've exhausted my points. Hope you've enjoyed reading. Once again, I'm not responsible for your thoughts and or actions as results of reading my blog.
Let's begin with the dark perspective on death. Why the gloom over doom? Perhaps it's the loss of potential, the end to the joys of life, and the separation of the departed from the living. But these ideas imply harmony with those around you, an abundance of joy over sorrows, and the possibility to progress or to do anything of importance. Herein lies the problem. The grievance of death hinges upon the satisfaction as well as the significance of life. Death can only be negative if life is positive in contrast, so one must view life positively for this to be true. Life, I would then argue, is not inherently positive.
But that is another topic altogether. For now I want to focus on abortions and suicides, and perhaps other ideas if they come to mind as I write this. Let us take from the two previous paragraphs that life must be good for death to be bad and that life is not inherently good, and we'll work from there. You might say it's a weak foundation for my next arguments, but bear with it. It'll make sense when I talk about the nature of life another time.
Abortions are good. Now before I continue, I should say that I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice. So hold your angry baby-loving flaming for now. There are legitimate reasons for a pregnant woman to abort her unborn child. Financial reasons, inadequate parenting skills, Pharaoh killing infants again, the list goes on. The counterargument then is that an unborn individual is robbed the right to live without even having a chance to protest.
Yet is it not better to experience death devoid of pain and awareness, than to die in a hostile environment? This is of course under the assumption that the reason to abort is for the sake of the child due to external factors beyond the parents' control. Naysayers would then shout out vehemently, "where do you draw the line?! Maybe they'll live to be the next Albert Einsteins or Ghandis or Kylie Minogues!" True. But what are the chances of that? And if they do, so what? Besides, there's also a chance they could become the next Hitlers or bin Ladens or Marilyn Mansons. Lot of good they've done in their lifetimes. Despite these arguments, however, what is perhaps more important is the welfare of the child in question. If the fetus is given the chance to develop fully in a relatively hostile surrounding, the kid will have to experience a rough childhood before reaching potentially awesome status, and that's not even guaranteed. If it was my choice, I'd abort that sucker right off the bat. And that leads to my next argument.
Everyone exists solely based on his or her parents' or at least mother's choice. The poor soul never had a say in it. If we have the right to decide whether a child should come into existence or not, would it not only be fair to have the right to decide whether it dies? Some would argue that aborting a fetus effectively kills an individual's potential to live, to grow, to inspire, to change the world, and whatever. Then it may as well be argued that those with flat tummies need to start making babies, because choosing not to have a child has the same effect as aborting. Either way, we are still not respecting the child's opinion. But how can we if the child doesn't exist? Wouldn't there be a lack of opinion if there's a lack of consciousness, and especially a lack of existence? I agree fully on that point. But once you conceive and a baby grows in you, it is irrefutable that the choice is founded on selfishness, and morality comes into play. I'm aware that rape would be a different scenario, but that only supports the idea that abortions are good. Who wants surprise pregnancies?
A lot of things have been said so far and I'm sure many readers are already offended at this point. But let's summarize what we have so far:
- Death isn't inherently bad
- Life isn't inherently good
- Abortions are good
- Chances are life will suck
- Abortions eliminate life potential, but so does not getting pregnant
- Having kids is selfish on the parents' part
A few lines up I said selfishness breeds babies; the parents are the only ones who decide whether to have children or not, with accidental pregnancies being possibly the most common exception. But even then the transference of sperm to womb, or at least sperm through the vagina wrapped or otherwise, is often intentional. If you take that risk of putting it in, since no contraceptive is fail-proof, you are aware that the female may become pregnant. So once again, who consulted the child-to-be? No one had the choice to be unborn or aborted. If we had no freedom in our creation, is it not only fair to have the freedom to choose when we are mentally able to make such a decision? People always talk about the freedom to live, but too often neglect the freedom to die.
Honestly, a death only affects those around the deceased. A person's life can cause more damage to society than a person's death. Even if the person was a suicide bomber, it's a one-time thing and the dude or dudette can't repeat his or her crimes. But as long as the person lives, there's no telling how much more damage can be done.
The general perception of suicide is that it's the coward's way out. I beg to differ. It is said that if life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. So if I threw you in prison, do you just make the best of it in your little cell and consider yourself courageous for resisting to rot away until the very end? Ef that! You break out of prison! That's the brave thing to do, not remaining in an incarcerated state without resisting. If life sucks, you break away from it. What's the shame in that?
I think I've exhausted my points. Hope you've enjoyed reading. Once again, I'm not responsible for your thoughts and or actions as results of reading my blog.
Monday, September 28, 2009
In black sheep's clothing
Being an offspring of a fashion-oriented flock, I am definitely a black sheep. Lacking a fashion sense to which the majority of society can relate, I've grown up with and grown tired of criticisms about the way I dress.
I don't think my style is blatantly repulsive; I look more drab than anything. Over the years I tried to memorize the various combinations of clothing picked out from my closet that were considered presentable in public. And it was definitely a memory test each time because the matches seemed arbitrary to me. Actually to this day I think the outfits are arbitrary.
Before I go further, I should briefly describe the way I dress. Actually, I'll go with friends' descriptions:
"...Simple, casual and comfortable clothes..."
"...Gangsta, homeless, not so fat person wearing fat person's clothes..."
"...A unique blend of comfortable clothes that fit your personality so well that they don't even need to match to look good on you...or, in a way that makes everyone around you look better..."
I tried to ease myself into their destructive criticism when I copied and pasted those. Dang. Anyway. Pretty clear that I don't dress to impress, and I'm rather frumpy at times to be honest. Obviously I'll dress appropriately if the occasion calls for formal attire. But at other times, I like to be comfortable wearing what I wear.
And why should that be such a social taboo? Why is it necessary to hurt for fashion? Why can't I rock sweatpants and a t-shirt without giving the impression that I just pulled out the top layers from my drawers, even though that's most likely what I did?
Growing up it's so ingrained in us that we need to dress appropriately in public, and to some degrees, in private as well. And the standard for appropriateness is set by people. But even if I don't have a "good" sense of fashion I still know that this standard changes approximately every season. What that means then is that this distinction between good and bad tastes is subjective and pretty much arbitrary, as we can look back at trends past and be disgusted.
So what am I saying really? I won't sugarcoat it. Society excludes those who do not fit in, and membership is based on arbitrary standards. Maybe I'm exaggerating here, but you can't argue that a person's appearance is the first thing one notices. If you don't look good enough, you lose out on many social opportunities, like jobs, dates, entries to clubs, etc.
While one might argue that a person's appearance is directly linked to his or her tidiness, organization skills, perfectionism, and whatever other valued trait you can think of, these are really imposed by society. If we stop stressing over how we look as a whole you wouldn't connect these things to appearances.
Society also encourages the idea of originality being valued while undermining it at the same time. Look at major malls. All dominated by big brand names, chains that sell the same clothes in every store across the country. Sure, it makes perfect sense from a business perspective, but to buy into it, to make that the norm of how one should dress, I find it boring and painful to see.
Yes, I buy clothes from these stores myself, but only out of convenience and for comfort. I'll pick up whatever feels good, often regardless of how it looks. Well, not exactly. More like the plainer the better; I'm not one to draw attention with the way I dress. I also try to make it a point that I don't find clothes more appealing based on their brands, so the more hidden the brand is on the article the better. I suppose that's an unfortunate side effect of growing up in this society. I want to avoid attention because I'm aware that my style is different, and it's not a uniqueness that others will embrace.
It's tough trying to find that balance between being myself and being what society wants me to be. At what point do I conform, and when do I tell everyone to piss off, and be comfortable in my own skin? Is it even worth the effort to be socially accepted?
I don't think my style is blatantly repulsive; I look more drab than anything. Over the years I tried to memorize the various combinations of clothing picked out from my closet that were considered presentable in public. And it was definitely a memory test each time because the matches seemed arbitrary to me. Actually to this day I think the outfits are arbitrary.
Before I go further, I should briefly describe the way I dress. Actually, I'll go with friends' descriptions:
"...Simple, casual and comfortable clothes..."
"...Gangsta, homeless, not so fat person wearing fat person's clothes..."
"...A unique blend of comfortable clothes that fit your personality so well that they don't even need to match to look good on you...or, in a way that makes everyone around you look better..."
I tried to ease myself into their destructive criticism when I copied and pasted those. Dang. Anyway. Pretty clear that I don't dress to impress, and I'm rather frumpy at times to be honest. Obviously I'll dress appropriately if the occasion calls for formal attire. But at other times, I like to be comfortable wearing what I wear.
And why should that be such a social taboo? Why is it necessary to hurt for fashion? Why can't I rock sweatpants and a t-shirt without giving the impression that I just pulled out the top layers from my drawers, even though that's most likely what I did?
Growing up it's so ingrained in us that we need to dress appropriately in public, and to some degrees, in private as well. And the standard for appropriateness is set by people. But even if I don't have a "good" sense of fashion I still know that this standard changes approximately every season. What that means then is that this distinction between good and bad tastes is subjective and pretty much arbitrary, as we can look back at trends past and be disgusted.
So what am I saying really? I won't sugarcoat it. Society excludes those who do not fit in, and membership is based on arbitrary standards. Maybe I'm exaggerating here, but you can't argue that a person's appearance is the first thing one notices. If you don't look good enough, you lose out on many social opportunities, like jobs, dates, entries to clubs, etc.
While one might argue that a person's appearance is directly linked to his or her tidiness, organization skills, perfectionism, and whatever other valued trait you can think of, these are really imposed by society. If we stop stressing over how we look as a whole you wouldn't connect these things to appearances.
Society also encourages the idea of originality being valued while undermining it at the same time. Look at major malls. All dominated by big brand names, chains that sell the same clothes in every store across the country. Sure, it makes perfect sense from a business perspective, but to buy into it, to make that the norm of how one should dress, I find it boring and painful to see.
Yes, I buy clothes from these stores myself, but only out of convenience and for comfort. I'll pick up whatever feels good, often regardless of how it looks. Well, not exactly. More like the plainer the better; I'm not one to draw attention with the way I dress. I also try to make it a point that I don't find clothes more appealing based on their brands, so the more hidden the brand is on the article the better. I suppose that's an unfortunate side effect of growing up in this society. I want to avoid attention because I'm aware that my style is different, and it's not a uniqueness that others will embrace.
It's tough trying to find that balance between being myself and being what society wants me to be. At what point do I conform, and when do I tell everyone to piss off, and be comfortable in my own skin? Is it even worth the effort to be socially accepted?
Monday, September 14, 2009
A new chapter
What up, readers. This is a new blog about life and stuff. It'll blow your mind and piss you off at the same time. Sit tight for a good laugh or a complete paradigm shift when I start cranking out awesome posts.
...If I get motivated enough to start writing, that is. Which I will, so no worries. Just wait and be patient.
...If I get motivated enough to start writing, that is. Which I will, so no worries. Just wait and be patient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)