http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
I like the part where he points out that it doesn't fucking matter "who you are inside", because people, rightly, judge you by what you actually DO. It's like all the people who claim that they're "really a nice guy and we would probably get along really well if you knew me in person".
BULL SHIT.
Also, man, his take on being "nice" is perfect. :lulz:
I do think that every person has an intrinsic human value. But above and beyond that, you are only as valuable as you make yourself.
Or people who want you to be best friends with THEIR friends, who you already know you have zero compatiblility with, because they have a "heart of gold".
Uhhhhh, NO. My decision. :x
It's David Wong, so it's automatically going to be good.
Also this:
QuoteI like the part where he points out that it doesn't fucking matter "who you are inside", because people, rightly, judge you by what you actually DO. It's like all the people who claim that they're "really a nice guy and we would probably get along really well if you knew me in person".
BULL SHIT.
is absolutely true. I don't know whether because of my interest in existentialism a while back, or it's just extremely fucking common sense, but the idea that someone can be wholly different inside from the acts and the state of mind which produced those acts seems entirely counterintuitive.
Zizek, in one of his books where he isn't entirely trolling, goes off on an entire tangent about this and the psychoanalytic response to it (which is essentially "stop talking bullshit"), which I may repost if I can remember where it is.
Also, the article in question not only has a totally badass speech from Alec Baldwin (hell, it made me wanna go sell the fuck out of something), it also linked to this great article (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html).
Can't wait to get home and read this.
good article. thanks for the link, Nigel!
Quote from: Cain on December 17, 2012, 06:29:18 PM
It's David Wong, so it's automatically going to be good.
Also this:
QuoteI like the part where he points out that it doesn't fucking matter "who you are inside", because people, rightly, judge you by what you actually DO. It's like all the people who claim that they're "really a nice guy and we would probably get along really well if you knew me in person".
BULL SHIT.
is absolutely true. I don't know whether because of my interest in existentialism a while back, or it's just extremely fucking common sense, but the idea that someone can be wholly different inside from the acts and the state of mind which produced those acts seems entirely counterintuitive.
Zizek, in one of his books where he isn't entirely trolling, goes off on an entire tangent about this and the psychoanalytic response to it (which is essentially "stop talking bullshit"), which I may repost if I can remember where it is.
Oh, please do!
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:45:17 PM
Oh, please do!
Here we go:
QuoteOn account of its all-pervasiveness, ideology appears as its own opposite, as non-ideology, as the core of our human identity underneath all the ideological labels. This is why Jonathan Littell's outstanding Les bienveillantes (The Kindly Ones) is so traumatic, especially for Germans: it provides a fictional first-person account of the Holocaust from the perspective of a German participant, SS Obersturmbannfohrer Maximilian Aue. The problem is the following: how to render the manner in which the Nazi executioners experienced and symbolized their predicament without engendering sympathy or even justifying them? What Littel offers, to put it in somewhat tasteless terms, is a fictionalized Nazi version of Primo Levi. As such, he has a key Freudian lesson to teach us: one should reject the idea that the proper way to fight the demonization of the Other is to subjectivize him, to listen to his story; to understand how he perceives the situation (or, as a partisan of Middle East dialogue puts it: ''An enemy is someone whose story you have not yet heard"). There is, however, a clear limit to this procedure: can one imagine inviting a brutal Nazi thug-like Littell's Maximilian Aue, who rather invites himself - to tell us his story? Is one then also ready to affirm that Hitler was an enemy only because his story had not been heard? Do the details of his personal life "redeem" the horrors that resulted from his reign, do they make him "more human"? To cite one of my favorite examples, Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the Holocaust, liked to play Beethoven's late string quartets with friends during his evenings of leisure. Our most elementary experience of subjectivity is that of the "richness of my inner life" : this is what I "really am;" in contrast to the symbolic determinations and responsibilities I assume in public life (as father, professor, etc.). The first lesson of psychoanalysis here is that this "richness of inner life" is fundamentally fake: it is a screen, a false distance, whose function is, as it were, to save my appearance, to render palpable (accessible to my imaginary narcissism) my true social-symbolic identity. One of the ways to practise the critique of ideology is therefore to invent strategies for unmasking this hypocrisy of the "inner life" and its "sincere" emotions. The experience we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves in order to account for what we are doing, is thus a lie - the truth lies rather outside, in what we do. Therein resides the difficult lesson of Littell's book: in it, we meet someone whose story we do fully hear but who should nonetheless remain our enemy. What is truly unbearable about the Nazi executioners is not so much the terrifying things they did, as how "human, al too human" they remained while doing those things. "Stories we tell ourselves about ourselves" serve to obfuscate the true ethical dimension of our acts.
Quote from: Cain on December 17, 2012, 07:13:05 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:45:17 PM
Oh, please do!
Here we go:
QuoteOn account of its all-pervasiveness, ideology appears as its own opposite, as non-ideology, as the core of our human identity underneath all the ideological labels. This is why Jonathan Littell's outstanding Les bienveillantes (The Kindly Ones) is so traumatic, especially for Germans: it provides a fictional first-person account of the Holocaust from the perspective of a German participant, SS Obersturmbannfohrer Maximilian Aue. The problem is the following: how to render the manner in which the Nazi executioners experienced and symbolized their predicament without engendering sympathy or even justifying them? What Littel offers, to put it in somewhat tasteless terms, is a fictionalized Nazi version of Primo Levi. As such, he has a key Freudian lesson to teach us: one should reject the idea that the proper way to fight the demonization of the Other is to subjectivize him, to listen to his story; to understand how he perceives the situation (or, as a partisan of Middle East dialogue puts it: ''An enemy is someone whose story you have not yet heard"). There is, however, a clear limit to this procedure: can one imagine inviting a brutal Nazi thug-like Littell's Maximilian Aue, who rather invites himself - to tell us his story? Is one then also ready to affirm that Hitler was an enemy only because his story had not been heard? Do the details of his personal life "redeem" the horrors that resulted from his reign, do they make him "more human"? To cite one of my favorite examples, Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the Holocaust, liked to play Beethoven's late string quartets with friends during his evenings of leisure. Our most elementary experience of subjectivity is that of the "richness of my inner life" : this is what I "really am;" in contrast to the symbolic determinations and responsibilities I assume in public life (as father, professor, etc.). The first lesson of psychoanalysis here is that this "richness of inner life" is fundamentally fake: it is a screen, a false distance, whose function is, as it were, to save my appearance, to render palpable (accessible to my imaginary narcissism) my true social-symbolic identity. One of the ways to practise the critique of ideology is therefore to invent strategies for unmasking this hypocrisy of the "inner life" and its "sincere" emotions. The experience we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves in order to account for what we are doing, is thus a lie - the truth lies rather outside, in what we do. Therein resides the difficult lesson of Littell's book: in it, we meet someone whose story we do fully hear but who should nonetheless remain our enemy. What is truly unbearable about the Nazi executioners is not so much the terrifying things they did, as how "human, al too human" they remained while doing those things. "Stories we tell ourselves about ourselves" serve to obfuscate the true ethical dimension of our acts.
I love this!
It reminds me a lot of The Man Who Fell In Love With The Moon... everyone has a story they tell in their head about themselves, but what really matters, who we really are to others, is in what we DO.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
I love this!
It reminds me a lot of The Man Who Fell In Love With The Moon... everyone has a story they tell about themselves, but what really matters, who we really are to others, is in what we DO.
Yep. It falls in with my definition of a Bad Person. Which is, of course, a person who does bad things.
I can see why Cracked writers, and Wong in particular, are magnets for the "poor me I'm just trying to do my thing how come it never works out" type. What those people don't get, and what this article points out beautifully, is that in spite of all their self deprecating humor, the writers for the site are considered good enough at what they do to get paid to do it, if not make a living from it entirely.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
I love this!
It reminds me a lot of The Man Who Fell In Love With The Moon... everyone has a story they tell about themselves, but what really matters, who we really are to others, is in what we DO.
Yep. It falls in with my definition of a Bad Person. Which is, of course, a person who does bad things.
Yes.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
I love this!
It reminds me a lot of The Man Who Fell In Love With The Moon... everyone has a story they tell about themselves, but what really matters, who we really are to others, is in what we DO.
Yep. It falls in with my definition of a Bad Person. Which is, of course, a person who does bad things.
Yes.
I cannot judge people on what's inside; I am not a surgeon.
I can and do judge them first by their actions, then by the company they keep.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 17, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
I can see why Cracked writers, and Wong in particular, are magnets for the "poor me I'm just trying to do my thing how come it never works out" type. What those people don't get, and what this article points out beautifully, is that in spite of all their self deprecating humor, the writers for the site are considered good enough at what they do to get paid to do it, if not make a living from it entirely.
Yeah. And, as he points out, not because they're somehow magically just "gifted" with writing skills. People may have a higher level of aptitude for some things, but skills aren't gifted, they're learned. Through work and practice.
I often point out to new glassworkers that I did not start out particularly good at beadmaking. I didn't have a natural aptitude at all. I took to it like a duck to water, assuming the duck has no legs. But I really loved doing it, so I worked and worked and worked and practiced so much that I got really, really good at it. And I'm STILL not as good at certain aspects of it as others who have been doing it for a fraction of the time, but I'm good enough. And I have an encyclopedic knowledge of glass chemistry and reactions, and can 99% of the time tell by looking exactly how something was made... that's from studying.
People don't like to hear that. People want to think that skills just get handed out, and one day maybe they'll wake up and find out that they're just naturally really good at something.
Doesn't happen.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
I love this!
It reminds me a lot of The Man Who Fell In Love With The Moon... everyone has a story they tell about themselves, but what really matters, who we really are to others, is in what we DO.
Yep. It falls in with my definition of a Bad Person. Which is, of course, a person who does bad things.
Yes.
I cannot judge people on what's inside; I am not a surgeon.
I can and do judge them first by their actions, then by the company they keep.
That's what I tell my kids about turning in their homework... sure, THEY may know they have achieved a skill, but since the teachers can't read minds the homework is all they have to go on.
Applies to everything in life. What you actually show people is all they have to go on.
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
:?
What?
Like I said, I judge people on their actions and so far as I've seen, Sita, you've never done anyone any wrong.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:49:49 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
:?
What?
The article pretty much says as much about me.
I knew I shouldn't have read it. These type of things always make me depressed (or even more so than I usually am).
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:49:49 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
:?
What?
The article pretty much says as much about me.
I knew I shouldn't have read it. These type of things always make me depressed (or even more so than I usually am).
Who are you gonna believe? Some article, or your Holy Man™ and spiritual advisor?
I'm pretty sure most people here could list off five things they DO, rather than ARE.
Musician
Music Engineer (two different skill sets -- it counts)
Cook
Writer
Attentive Husband
If you notice, none of these actually make me money. It's about the mindset, really.
:) Thanks.
But there has to be something to it. I've run across the same thing too many times in my life.
Then again if I were to believe everything I've run across I would have to believe myself to be a manic depressive, unfeeling, anti-social, ADD riddled sociopath....so there's that
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:08:55 PM
:) Thanks.
But there has to be something to it. I've run across the same thing too many times in my life.
Then again if I were to believe everything I've run across I would have to believe myself to be a manic depressive, unfeeling, anti-social, ADD riddled sociopath....so there's that
I can't see the article, so it's hard to tell what's bothering you...But the thing is, there's only a few values I judge people on:
1. Do they treat people the way they want to be treated?
2. Do they put effort into what it is that they do, or they just mailing it in? Note that this doesn't mean you have to be the next DaVinci or run off and win a Nobel Prize, or even be the BEST at what you do, it just means that you give a fuck about whatever it is you DO (not necessarily what you do for a living).
3. Do they make the same allowances for others that they'd ask for themselves?
And most importantly:
4. Do they view people as PEOPLE, not as part of the furniture? This doesn't mean you have to LIKE them (God knows I don't), but that you view them as real people.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:16:18 PM
2. Do they put effort into what it is that they do, or they just mailing it in? Note that this doesn't mean you have to be the next DaVinci or run off and win a Nobel Prize, or even be the BEST at what you do, it just means that you give a fuck about whatever it is you DO (not necessarily what you do for a living)
This is probably my worst thing. There is very little that I actually put more than the minimum effort into these days. Just doesn't seem worth it.
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Oh, yeah? What happens if nobody does those things?
Being a homemaker is a full time job. It's fucking hard work. I count myself lucky that all *I* have to do is work in a chemical plant, instead of picking up after a bunch of people that I'm not allowed to kill.
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:16:18 PM
2. Do they put effort into what it is that they do, or they just mailing it in? Note that this doesn't mean you have to be the next DaVinci or run off and win a Nobel Prize, or even be the BEST at what you do, it just means that you give a fuck about whatever it is you DO (not necessarily what you do for a living)
This is probably my worst thing. There is very little that I actually put more than the minimum effort into these days. Just doesn't seem worth it.
Nothing is worth it. YOU have to assign the worth. If nothing you're doing seems worthwhile, then find something that is. You still have to do the rest of the shit, of course, but everyone should have something they do that makes them feel good. CPD has her knitting/crochet stuff, Nigel shoots UFOs down with small caliber rifles, LMNO has his music, I write poison pen letters to random politicians and sometimes even to actual people, etc.
Life's too short to suffer through, if you know what I mean. It's there to be enjoyed, at least part of the time.
Tip: Rage and hate are great ways to keep depression away. At least it works for me.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 17, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
I can see why Cracked writers, and Wong in particular, are magnets for the "poor me I'm just trying to do my thing how come it never works out" type. What those people don't get, and what this article points out beautifully, is that in spite of all their self deprecating humor, the writers for the site are considered good enough at what they do to get paid to do it, if not make a living from it entirely.
Yeah. And, as he points out, not because they're somehow magically just "gifted" with writing skills. People may have a higher level of aptitude for some things, but skills aren't gifted, they're learned. Through work and practice.
I often point out to new glassworkers that I did not start out particularly good at beadmaking. I didn't have a natural aptitude at all. I took to it like a duck to water, assuming the duck has no legs. But I really loved doing it, so I worked and worked and worked and practiced so much that I got really, really good at it. And I'm STILL not as good at certain aspects of it as others who have been doing it for a fraction of the time, but I'm good enough. And I have an encyclopedic knowledge of glass chemistry and reactions, and can 99% of the time tell by looking exactly how something was made... that's from studying.
People don't like to hear that. People want to think that skills just get handed out, and one day maybe they'll wake up and find out that they're just naturally really good at something.
Doesn't happen.
That's been the biggest, slowest, most frustrating part of my growth from "precocious youth" into "adult."
When I was little, I was praised for being
smart. And, I still think, for my age, I was smart as
fuck (the result of the upbringing and solid genes of two well-educated parents). Tons of things that were considered difficult for my age presented little challenge to me, and the praise was heaped on for my natural aptitude.
This is tangenting off-topic, but you all remember that study (studies?) which demonstrate that kids perform better when they are praised for working hard rather than for "being smart"? I find that study rings true, because I fell on the other end of that outcome. Things which I very much wanted to be good at, but which didn't come naturally to me, turned me off almost immediately. When I had to work my ass off to accomplish something, I didn't (and usually still don't) feel a sense of achievement; I feel like a dumbass for not being better at it ('If I was just
smarter, that would have been easy!').
It's a stupid and counterproductive mentality, but it's the programming that is wired up to my dopamine valves.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Oh, yeah? What happens if nobody does those things?
Being a homemaker is a full time job. It's fucking hard work. I count myself lucky that all *I* have to do is work in a chemical plant, instead of picking up after a bunch of people that I'm not allowed to kill.
This x1000. The notion that all the work involved in homekeeping is "baseline," that it "doesn't count as work" probably has its roots in our culture's neverending efforts to keep women constantly fighting for their sense of self-worth.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Oh, yeah? What happens if nobody does those things?
Being a homemaker is a full time job. It's fucking hard work. I count myself lucky that all *I* have to do is work in a chemical plant, instead of picking up after a bunch of people that I'm not allowed to kill.
Laundry is the only thing that isn't slacked on. But no one but me seems to care about the floors (expect the bathroom, and that's only because of the cat litter that gets on the floor) and dishes will just be moved around when space is needed. If someone really needs to use something it'll get washed. All the while gently reminding me that they need to get done.
I think my longest off period was a month. Spent an entire day getting caught up with just the dishes once I finally snapped out of it and found mold growing in some containers.
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Oh, yeah? What happens if nobody does those things?
Being a homemaker is a full time job. It's fucking hard work. I count myself lucky that all *I* have to do is work in a chemical plant, instead of picking up after a bunch of people that I'm not allowed to kill.
Laundry is the only thing that isn't slacked on. But no one but me seems to care about the floors (expect the bathroom, and that's only because of the cat litter that gets on the floor) and dishes will just be moved around when space is needed. If someone really needs to use something it'll get washed. All the while gently reminding me that they need to get done.
I think my longest off period was a month. Spent an entire day getting caught up with just the dishes once I finally snapped out of it and found mold growing in some containers.
Why are you stuck doing it?
Cainad, i had pretty much the same bad wiring hooked up. trying to correct that with my kiddos is very gratifying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:49:53 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Oh, yeah? What happens if nobody does those things?
Being a homemaker is a full time job. It's fucking hard work. I count myself lucky that all *I* have to do is work in a chemical plant, instead of picking up after a bunch of people that I'm not allowed to kill.
Laundry is the only thing that isn't slacked on. But no one but me seems to care about the floors (expect the bathroom, and that's only because of the cat litter that gets on the floor) and dishes will just be moved around when space is needed. If someone really needs to use something it'll get washed. All the while gently reminding me that they need to get done.
I think my longest off period was a month. Spent an entire day getting caught up with just the dishes once I finally snapped out of it and found mold growing in some containers.
Why are you stuck doing it?
Because I'm home all day
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:56:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:49:53 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Sita, do you really feel that you don't do anything, or do you just not feel that you're recognized for being who you are?
Unless chores around the house count? Because washing dishes, doing laundry, mopping and vacuuming don't seem to get done by anyone else (which makes the place look worse than a bachelor pad when I'm having an 'off' period). But in my mind that's not really doing anything.
Oh, yeah? What happens if nobody does those things?
Being a homemaker is a full time job. It's fucking hard work. I count myself lucky that all *I* have to do is work in a chemical plant, instead of picking up after a bunch of people that I'm not allowed to kill.
Laundry is the only thing that isn't slacked on. But no one but me seems to care about the floors (expect the bathroom, and that's only because of the cat litter that gets on the floor) and dishes will just be moved around when space is needed. If someone really needs to use something it'll get washed. All the while gently reminding me that they need to get done.
I think my longest off period was a month. Spent an entire day getting caught up with just the dishes once I finally snapped out of it and found mold growing in some containers.
Why are you stuck doing it?
Because I'm home all day
Doesn't make you a slave. Lay the law down.
WHAT IS THE LAW?
THE LAW IS THAT WE RINSE OUR DISHES.
WHAT IS THE LAW?
THE LAW IS THAT WE DON'T DROP A BOMB IN THE TOILET AND JUST WALK AWAY.
WHAT IS THE LAW?
THE LAW IS THAT WE CLEAN UP OUR OWN MESS.
Yeah, sure, someone's got to do the basics, but that doesn't give everyone else license to be fucking slobs.
House work is a fucking battle. That shit is BURTAL. Which is kind of like BRUTAL, but worse, because BURT is involved.
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
Why do you feel so helpless over your own life? You can't ever have total control, but you can change yourself.
BTW, one of the things on my "five impressive things about me" list is "Raised three relatively well-adjusted children" and another is "Amazing cook".
If someone isn't impressed by that, fuck 'em!
Quote from: Cainad on December 17, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 17, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
I can see why Cracked writers, and Wong in particular, are magnets for the "poor me I'm just trying to do my thing how come it never works out" type. What those people don't get, and what this article points out beautifully, is that in spite of all their self deprecating humor, the writers for the site are considered good enough at what they do to get paid to do it, if not make a living from it entirely.
Yeah. And, as he points out, not because they're somehow magically just "gifted" with writing skills. People may have a higher level of aptitude for some things, but skills aren't gifted, they're learned. Through work and practice.
I often point out to new glassworkers that I did not start out particularly good at beadmaking. I didn't have a natural aptitude at all. I took to it like a duck to water, assuming the duck has no legs. But I really loved doing it, so I worked and worked and worked and practiced so much that I got really, really good at it. And I'm STILL not as good at certain aspects of it as others who have been doing it for a fraction of the time, but I'm good enough. And I have an encyclopedic knowledge of glass chemistry and reactions, and can 99% of the time tell by looking exactly how something was made... that's from studying.
People don't like to hear that. People want to think that skills just get handed out, and one day maybe they'll wake up and find out that they're just naturally really good at something.
Doesn't happen.
That's been the biggest, slowest, most frustrating part of my growth from "precocious youth" into "adult."
When I was little, I was praised for being smart. And, I still think, for my age, I was smart as fuck (the result of the upbringing and solid genes of two well-educated parents). Tons of things that were considered difficult for my age presented little challenge to me, and the praise was heaped on for my natural aptitude.
This is tangenting off-topic, but you all remember that study (studies?) which demonstrate that kids perform better when they are praised for working hard rather than for "being smart"? I find that study rings true, because I fell on the other end of that outcome. Things which I very much wanted to be good at, but which didn't come naturally to me, turned me off almost immediately. When I had to work my ass off to accomplish something, I didn't (and usually still don't) feel a sense of achievement; I feel like a dumbass for not being better at it ('If I was just smarter, that would have been easy!').
It's a stupid and counterproductive mentality, but it's the programming that is wired up to my dopamine valves.
Yep, it's a killer. I've known a lot of smart kids, and I WAS a smart kid, but when you're an adult being smart and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee. I've seen a ton of those smart kids grow up and find themselves functionally stranded in mediocrity, because being smart did absolutely nothing to prepare them for life or for doing things they want to do.
You know what's the craziest thing? My son has had terrible grades since second grade. Everyone always tells him how incredibly smart he is and how he just needs to try. I told him two things a couple of months ago: that being smart wasn't going to make anything easier for him and it might make things harder, and that it's totally OK to half-ass schoolwork he's not into as long as he works really hard on the schoolwork he is into. I said "Son, it's better to half-ass it and turn SOMETHING in than to not turn anything in at all". :lol: (Sorry, I know it's probably not cool to tell your kids to just go ahead and half-ass things, but I know me and I know my son, and I know that performance anxiety is a real bitch). Since then his math and science grades have shot up and he's gone from failing EVERYTHING to getting A's in science, math, and applied science, and C's in everything else.
I think that being told that being SMART won't make things EASY is absolutely essential for kids. And it might, indeed, make many things harder.
Just finally got a look at it.
I like the Glengarry Ross touch. I forgot how fucked up that clip is.
I also think he slightly overstates the case, but he's dead nuts on, on the last item.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:57:10 AM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
Why do you feel so helpless over your own life? You can't ever have total control, but you can change yourself.
BTW, one of the things on my "five impressive things about me" list is "Raised three relatively well-adjusted children" and another is "Amazing cook".
If someone isn't impressed by that, fuck 'em!
Because every time I try to change, something comes along and says that's not going to happen. Every. Single. Time.
Quote from: Sita on December 18, 2012, 02:33:33 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:57:10 AM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
Why do you feel so helpless over your own life? You can't ever have total control, but you can change yourself.
BTW, one of the things on my "five impressive things about me" list is "Raised three relatively well-adjusted children" and another is "Amazing cook".
If someone isn't impressed by that, fuck 'em!
Because every time I try to change, something comes along and says that's not going to happen. Every. Single. Time.
And what's that something?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 02:34:58 AM
Quote from: Sita on December 18, 2012, 02:33:33 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:57:10 AM
Quote from: Sita on December 17, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Great, now I'm crying and depressed.
Always nice to be reminded how worthless I am.
Why do you feel so helpless over your own life? You can't ever have total control, but you can change yourself.
BTW, one of the things on my "five impressive things about me" list is "Raised three relatively well-adjusted children" and another is "Amazing cook".
If someone isn't impressed by that, fuck 'em!
Because every time I try to change, something comes along and says that's not going to happen. Every. Single. Time.
And what's that something?
Depends on what I'm trying to change.
Eating habits? Something happens and we are forced eating junk food for a month
Losing weight? Some physical ailment always happens, whether it's leg cramps preventing me from swimming or now the pains I get from walking. I've even had happen that I sprained my ankle almost immediately after I said that I was gonna start something the next day.
Improve my mood? Something happens that makes the stress level rise (can't think of specifics right now, getting a bit tired)
And every single instance makes me say forget about it all. Because I just don't have the fight in me anymore.
Predictably, I am going to disagree.
I think that contempt and anger are worthwhile, even necessary places to visit every now and then, but compassion, conviviality and, above all, playful curiosity are better places to live. I think the closer I am to someone, the more valuable a relationship is, the more I know someone, the more leeway I am willing to give them. (This is actually demonstrated very clearly ITT, in the responses to Sita.) But when I am judging a stranger or a mere acquaintance purely on what they DO, I try to keep in mind that this modus operandi is my choice, for my convenience: I could also choose to understand them better, and if I chose to do that, their reprehensible actions would acquire a background that, in all likelihood, will make those very actions less reprehensible.
Another way of making my point is this: I think the hard thing about accepting that Hitler was an evil human being, for instance, is not the part where I internalise that he was evil (that's really quite easy). It's accepting that he was also a human being. Not a monster from outer space, but a human being, born of a mother, once a fertilised egg resulting from sexual union, however perverted, once a wizened newborn, however damaged already. Having read Alice Miller's detailed investigation of Hitler's childhood in For Your Own Good has made this possible for me. It has also helped me to understand why he found such an eager and willing audience when he rose to power. I prefer this perspective.
Yet another way of making my point:
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:01:45 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
I like the part where he points out that it doesn't fucking matter "who you are inside", because people, rightly, judge you by what you actually DO.
This sentence has the logical form of "A because B". But A does not follow from B. It's like saying "People judge a car by whether it works or not, therefore it doesn't matter what's under the hood."
It is certainly true that apart from the couple of dozen people who know me really well, people don't judge me by what's inside me (essentially, by the way, what's inside is a history, and an always partial but hopefully improving reflexive understanding of that history): they indeed judge me by what I do. But that doesn't mean that it "doesn't fucking matter who I am on the inside". Quite the contrary. What I do, i.e. what people judge me by, depends almost exclusively on what there is inside me. This is called responsibility for my life, which I can choose to ignore, but that doesn't make it go away.
Nigel, you say this:
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:01:45 PM
I do think that every person has an intrinsic human value. But above and beyond that, you are only as valuable as you make yourself.
I understand and sort of agree with the second sentence. But I would be very interested to hear how you understand the first one. What is the intrinsic human value of every person? What sort of thing is it?
Finally, I would like to offer a tentative judgment of the article's author, Jason Pargin, based purely on what he did: i.e. the fact that he wrote this article as a response to the many contacts he gets from twenty-something males who are dissatisfied with their lives and are at a loss as to why that is.
He strikes me as a rather creative privileged white male who is strongly status-seeking, and for whom the 'certain knowledge' (self-forged conviction) that he is a superior human being to most of the people he writes for and makes a living out of is rather more important than I find... tasteful. This makes me dislike him.
But I'm sure we would get along just fine if I knew him in person. :)
Quote from: Sita on December 18, 2012, 02:48:28 AM
Because I just don't have the fight in me anymore.
As a certified bipolar person I suggest that replacing "anymore" with "right now" might be a good place to start. I know it's almost impossible, oh, how I know it... but it's true. Your current condition doesn't really predict your future condition. Even if you don't feel free right now, you are.
The article seems to be blowing up! I've seen it pop up in several unrelated circles and its views are through the roof.
I wonder if the challenge he laid down will be taken up. It'll be interesting to revisit this in a year and see what happens.
I think it's the Glengarry Ross thing that does it.
I disagree with the author in that this is how to best get results, or that the world necessarily acts that way, or that you should put up with ("man up") behavior like that. But that's the part people are going to pay attention to...Expect more libertarians, come soon.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 03:57:45 PM
I think it's the Glengarry Ross thing that does it.
I disagree with the author in that this is how to best get results, or that the world necessarily acts that way, or that you should put up with ("man up") behavior like that. But that's the part people are going to pay attention to...Expect more libertarians, come soon.
Yeah, I didn't get a lot out of that part. But I assumed the author included it for shock value. If the side effect is more Libertarians, well, that kind of sucks because I don't think that was at all the intended message.
As far as I can tell from his articles and, mostly, from This Book is Full of Spiders, Wong doesn't go so far as libertarianism, but does get on the preachy side when it comes to self reliance and personal responsibility. It's hard to tell at parts how much of that is his cynicism and how much of it is just his writing style.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 18, 2012, 06:46:48 PM
As far as I can tell from his articles and, mostly, from This Book is Full of Spiders, Wong doesn't go so far as libertarianism, but does get on the preachy side when it comes to self reliance and personal responsibility. It's hard to tell at parts how much of that is his cynicism and how much of it is just his writing style.
Probably understandable, if his main audience (and the communication he receives from them) are indeed what he describes. :lol: White male twentysomethings who feel the world owes them something, it's enough to drive a man insane.
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Given his demographic audience, I can just imagine the kind of shit that ends up in Wong's email folder...
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 07:11:06 PM
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Given his demographic audience, I can just imagine the kind of shit that ends up in Wong's email folder...
I think I might have a notion. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:11:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 07:11:06 PM
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Given his demographic audience, I can just imagine the kind of shit that ends up in Wong's email folder...
I think I might have a notion. :lulz:
Pretty sure that out of everyone here, you are in the best position to know. :lol: