It is so weird how, in the course of 10 years, you can go from wondering how this elusive, distant news media works with no real way to go behind the scenes and really figure it out to actually having the ability to be news media yourself, and learning it all on the fly. So not only did you not know how they were doing it, but now you do: but you also have the ability now to do the same thing. Because of modern technology. Fucking incredible. Even, say, in the past 20 years, it is unbelievable how much easier it has gotten to be news. 20 years is such a small period of time in the scope of human history. For so long, humans never had the opportunities we have today of delivering information on such a widespread scale. Of course, some religious conservatives may argue that life was better when we were only concerned with scrapping by on bare sustenance while we toiled away in the fields, slaves to the land we were born onto, only caring about our next meal, fighting against religious governments every so often. Those were “the good ol’ days“. “Back when ‘God-fearin” wutn’t just a phrase.” But, for some reason, it is always so easy for many people to overlook the good that is right in front of their face. Even pointing out this relative goodness, as compared to the past, isn’t enough to convince them that it is, in fact, good. Capitalism is aware of this fact more so than anything else.
Setting aside all of the previous technological advances of the past that completely changed humanity, I’m just going to focus on the internet here (and only for a little bit).
The fucking internet has changed everything.
It’s pulled back all of the curtains. It is basically like reading in a newspaper that something called “cars” have been invented in another country, and then, suddenly, you’re learning how to drive on roads yourself. Everyone knows how crazy the internet is, and how revolutionary it is, but damn. I don’t have any words to express just how unique the internet is in human history. Just thinking about papyrus, and parchment, and feathers, and ink (however it was made centuries ago (see? I can even look that up (if I wasn’t so lazy))), to the printing press, and how revolutionary that was in the scheme of human history. The mass printing of paper completely changed the world forever, for the better. I cannot imagine the extent of literature that exists in the world. It’s all because of that fucking Gutenberg Press. That one event just literally changed the world forever. Why in the fuck did it take as long as it did for it to show up?
And now, we have the internet. The new Gutenberg Press. The cat of electronic communication is out of the bag. It feels so surreal to be living through such a significant part of human history. To be one of the first. To be one of the relatively young, and to have, basically, my entire life with this medium. So many are catching it on the tail-end of their lives. I’ll have my whole life with it. There could, of course, be another dark age (something I should really do more research on now that (I can because of the internet) I don’t have my fingers in my ears chanting “God is in control, God is in control”). But it is hard for me to imagine that something as revolutionary as electronic social media could just disappear. One can’t help but be in awe of what we are all experiencing. Sure, the internet may be known for “cat videos“. “How can something so dumb and trivial be so important in the context of human history?” Of course, the internet is much more than cat videos. Much, much more. It is communication on a scale never before available on this planet. Ever. For as long as this planet has been here, there has never been communication as simple to access and as wide-reaching as the communication that exists today. Think of that. Think of all of the ancient texts that didn’t have this. How they were written, distributed. Think of the ones that have been around for centuries, if not a millennium at this point. Hell, even longer than that. How remarkable is it that written ideas could last that long? Now, we have electronic storage. Previously, it was paper. And even then, the words lasted for centuries, if not longer. Think of how hard it would’ve been to make the paper, and then distribute it. By a miracle, they made it to today. Of course, maybe we don’t have an original copy. But the words keep being printed, generation after generation. It truly makes you wonder about the work that editors do, but I digress.
The words keep getting older, but now they’re more easily available than ever before. Reminds me of evolution: survival of the fittest. Perhaps if the words have survived this long, they’re worth a read. Not only is it remarkable in the sense of how old the texts are, but it is easier than ever before to read them. That is truly incredible. We have something here that no one else has ever had. Human history is misery after misery after misery. One has to compare “the old days” to today, because the old days were just horrific. Medicine has changed the world. Production has changed the world. It truly is weird that I am here, on this planet, at this time, and not some time in the past. I could’ve been living with a dirt floor, in a dirt hut, eating and growing potatoes my entire life, using a rock to dig the dirt. No books to read, no meat to eat. Just eat potatoes and then die at 30 (if I’m lucky) from some disease. And that just happens again, and again, and again. But the fact that we are where we are today speaks to human ingenuity. It speaks to the humans of the past, who just wanted easier ways of doing things, or just happened upon them by means only God can understand. All of the stepping stones have led us to where we are today. They had it rough, and made it so much easier on us. We truly are blessed to have a life force, and to have it be alive today. We’re the luckiest people in history. In. History. That’s a pretty long damn time. How can that not instill awe?
The sad thing for me is that I have, so often in my life, not been able to appreciate the reality that was in front of me. I grew up thinking the world was this evil, sinful place to avoid. And it has caused me to avoid a good perspective on humanity; a good perspective on history, on the sciences, and everything else that religion always fucks up. A good perspective on relationships, sexuality: it has tainted my vision for so long that I still cling to it. Even while learning, it still clings to me. I suppose that at least being aware of it is a good thing. But I can only imagine what my perspective of the world would’ve been if I would’ve never been introduced to religious conservatism. I can only imagine it would’ve been a whole lot holier and more fulfilling than the way it has been almost my entire life. When my perspective is not being tainted by a history of religious conservatism, I can only imagine what my perspectives are going to be regarding the life I am living at the time. I can’t wait to see how it’s all going to play out for me. Incredible.
The internet shows what men can accomplish through freedom. That, perhaps, is the biggest lesson of all of this. This truly speaks to the geniuses who created these things, regardless of how much of the future they could envision.
Sometimes, the most beautiful thing is the right perspective.
It is fascinating to think of all of the different artistic things created throughout human history. The number of writings, songs, etc. The fact that music almost 40 years old is still listened to; that writing 60, 100, 180 years old is still read.
I have this weird fear of things like the internet disappearing. When something is good, surely something bad is going to happen, and wipe it out, right? I fear that the internet is a fad: that things are eventually going to disappear as time goes along. All the good stuff just gone, and we’re left with destitution and misery. Much like the Dark Ages. (Don’t tell me that the world wouldn’t end just because the internet disappears. Please tell me you aren’t so stupid as to not understand my point).
But I desire to develop a new perspective about art and history. I hope that things put on the internet last forever. That the internet lasts forever. That it becomes a medium as resilient as the book. Radio. Television. That the songs put on it remain in people’s ears for 30, 50 years. That the comedy put on it leaves an impression like “Da Bears”. I think that with any new medium (don’t split hairs: the internet’s popularity is relatively “new” regardless of how long it has been around), there’s reservations. I’m sure that, throughout history, when a new technology came along, people thought it was a fad. That it would disappear. Even if they didn’t want it to. But the fact that they didn’t want it to helped keep it alive. Producers kept producing what the consumers wanted. That’s how capitalism works.
This gives me hope for the internet. A lot of the common thoughts about the internet that exist today will be gone tomorrow. Because it is still so relatively new, people are experiencing it differently than they will once it is established, in my opinion. Being able to read and write joke after joke, and share it with people, is a very interesting thing. Before the internet, how did you tell your jokes? Did you even have any? Did you even invest the time to think about them due to the fact that it was much harder to share them with anyone? How did you tell them if you did? Joke with friends? Stand-up if you were really serious about it? Being fortunate enough to enter television as a writer, actor, etc.? But the internet has completely changed the entertainment game. Much like the transition from live theatre performances to television. The internet is going to change all forms of media. Other forms of media, like terrestrial radio, and, especially, television, are having to compete with the internet. (And they are going to lose, unless they successfully lobby to censor the internet). There are new celebrities being created, new talents discovered and honed, and a wealth of comedy unlike the world has ever seen.
There’s one thing that I’m quite fearful of regarding censorship on the internet. I have never talked about it because I have feared that I’d give “the elites” nefarious ideas, but the truth is that they already have them, so speaking out only informs the public that stands the best chance of combating that nefariability. Let’s use Youtube as an example. Let’s compare it to television and terrestrial radio. In television and radio, the FCC limits certain words from being transmitted over the airwaves. I’m no expert in this field, but, apparently, if you broadcast certain words over the radio, or television at certain times of day, you can lose your license. Am I wrong about this? If I’m not, what is the license for, exactly? I think it is to broadcast at a certain wavelength without interference. I’m not too sure. I have often thought the government was somehow trying to impose its own moralistic sensibilities upon free speech with regards to the FCC. But maybe there’s more to the story than that. Regardless, the internet is different. It’s quite weird to me. Certain cusswords are always censored over the radio. On television, they are censored most of the time, but it depends on the channel, and, sometimes, even on the time of day. But the internet is completely different. People cuss constantly on the internet. And it’s great. People are free to produce and consume what they want. There will never be a time more free in the internet’s history than right now. As time goes along, more and more government restrictions will be placed on it. That’s simply how “progress” works, even if it’s horrible. The libertarianism on the internet is fantastic. It should be cherished. Want to watch Youtube videos where there is no cussing? Just type in “no cussing” with whatever else it is you are looking for. There’s always a supply to meet the demand. There will never be a time of greater free expression on the internet than today. This makes me very sad, but I appreciate today. I hope we keep forced censorship off of the internet forever. Its impact cannot be measured enough.
I am very interested to see how it all goes, and I hope to contribute a little bit to this “internet world”.
I hope it never goes away.
I feel like the internet is very easily dismissed by people, say, 40 and older. At least, it just feels that way. Of course, there are elderly people that understand the power of the internet. Maybe they were some of the ones that contributed to the infrastructure. But, as is always the case, the elderly are the slowest to adopt to the new technologies.
It is interesting to think that people in their 40s today will, if they live to be 80, have spent 40 years on the internet. What changes will be made to the internet by then? It’s also interesting to think of the 50 year olds that will be on the internet then. What will the children who have spent their entire lives on the internet be like? For some reason, old people like to condemn kids that spend too much time in front of “screens”. It doesn’t matter that television has been around since the 40s, movies before that, and that children ever since then have been glued to “screens”. “Oh, but the screen wasn’t that close to their face,” you may say. You’re overreacting. It always is the case that older generations worry about the “younger generations”. That’s just how it is. I do, and will do, the same thing. It’s part of the natural flow.
But it is interesting to think about. I have often heard about how technology has changed people’s lives, but I’ve never really sat and thought about it. Not just “technology” by today’s common vernacular, but things like cars, sewing machines, etc. Technology is here to stay, and it always will be. Barring a complete one world government takeover that lasts for generations or natural disaster where all prior knowledge is completely destroyed, and we must start human development from scratch, like Adam and Eve, technology is here to stay. And that gives me immense comfort.
There’s also always an envy of the younger generations by the older generations. “Back in my day, we had to walk uphill both ways.” That isn’t completely untrue. Older generations always have had it harder. And it is understandable why they would be resentful of younger generations that really do have it easier in many ways. It really does make you feel pity for those that were raised during times when “modern” conveniences didn’t even exist. At least some of them are content anyway. That’s all we can ever really ask for, isn’t it? Contentment. It’s also sad to think of all of those who are missing out not only on the internet, but a warm meal. There just always has to be someone getting fucked over by life. It has always been that way, and it always will be. There is no perfect solution to make everyone happy all of the time. But there certainly remains something to be said for those that lend a helping hand in the moment.
I can’t wait to continue to be moulded by “modern technology” (currently, the internet, in particular) and see how it affects me as the years go on. I can’t wait to see the advancements, and the forms of art created through various technological means.
This is a much healthier perspective to have about technology than condemning it because of “kids these days” (this is a very good video, by the way). I’m going to continue contributing various things to servers, and I hope that everyone else continues to do the same.
I can’t wait to see where all of this goes, and how it affects me.
Also, I’m not going to go into detail about it here, but I’m interested to see how copyright and the internet play out over time. What happens to “fair use”, torrenting, etc. Very interested in seeing how all of this plays out.
What a time to be alive.
(I have also failed to mention the political implications of advancements in technology, such as the NSA. I’ll have to go into detail about that at a future time, however).
There’s one more thing I want to mention about the internet, and that is advertising. Along with copyright issues, and the ever-present threat of government tyranny, advertising (or, specifically, adblocking) present the greatest possibility for changes to the internet. Older people do not know about adblocking like the younger generations do. Tech-savvy people know more about it than “the average person”. But as time goes along, more and more people will be using adblockers. Of course, the coders who get paid through advertisements are going to develop new ways around the adblockers. But, the adblockers will continue developing new ways around the adblocker blockers. Will it some day be illegal to install an adblocker? Is it already illegal in some countries? How will they ultimately affect the internet? Youtube is already attempting to respond. That’s why they are offering “Youtube Red”. They’re missing out on a lot of money. What are they going to do when, inevitably, no one uses Youtube Red? All they can do, it seems, is code around the adblockers. Find out how they work, and get around them. And, of course, the adblockers will do the same thing. Back and forth, back and forth. It has been reported that Youtube is unprofitable, and it’s understandable why. It’s because of the adblockers, and because of the operating costs of the number of servers that they must have to keep Youtube what it is, etc. There are costs involved in creating a free platform where anyone can upload pretty much anything. Google bought Youtube, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they sell it. To Yahoo, maybe? Wouldn’t that be a shit video platform. How are they ultimately going to recoup money lost by adblockers? No doubt, they will attempt to keep coding around the coders attempting to code around them.
Clearly, the advertisers are paying for the “free and open” internet.
Once again, the fate of the internet is a very interesting thing indeed.
As the saying goes: “First the Artist. Then, the Critic.”
Oh God…what have you done???!!!
Okay, that may not be exactly how the saying goes (and I probably butchered that line from Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part 1) but I’m pretty sure you understand the sentiment. As long as there has been art, there has always been some debbie-downer to come and criticize it.
After being prompted by the absurdity that is the debate between audiences and critics over something as trivial as Suicide Squad, I figured I would make post about this issue. I have noticed a recent trend going on within the entertain industries, particularly the movies industry.
And that is: Audiences really, REALLY hate critics. They hate them so much that there are some people that going to the lengths of wanting shut down review websites just because film critics didn’t like a…
View original post 1,411 more words
The problem that I always have with saying something is “What am I trying to say?” Well, in this piece, I want to discuss “other people” (“other” simply meaning people that aren’t myself). What do I want to discuss about them? And why do I want to discuss “other people”? What types of “other people” am I talking about? For surely there are a great number of varieties of “other people”. Let me try to elaborate further on what I want to say without addressing the questions that I just proposed that I know will follow as a result of what I’ve written thus far.
I like to write about topics that I think about. And I think about other people; namely, how to avoid them. Why they anger me, deject me, etc. I know I’m not alone in thinking that there are, compared to the total number of people that exist or have existed, a small number of people that have a positive influence on me. We all just “exist”. And we all do a great variety of things. It is impossible for me to begin to categorize “human action”. But it is evident that there exist people whom are more “influential” than others, with “influential”, in depth, meaning a variety of things.
I suppose at some point I will discuss those people whom have had a great influence in my life. But, for the moment, I’d rather discuss people that I don’t particularly care for: people that I wish I could avoid, or that I wish I never knew existed. There are a great many of these people around. I know there will be foolish readers, ready to pounce on me for saying this, who will say that I’m some sort of monster, and that I plan on killing these people to rid them from the Earth. Those type of hyperbolic idiots are some of the people that I’m referring to hating and wanting to ignore. People who put words in my mouth, and motivations in my heart. People who are ignorant in areas that I feel less ignorant in. People who feel very proud in pointing out the flaws in others.
…Wait a second. Am I not talking about myself?
Yes, I am.
Just because I do something that I despise in others does not mean I need to like the others who do these things. I am perfectly content with people not liking me for the same reason. There are a lot of problems that I have with other people: one of them being not being able to see the logic of hating someone who does what you do. The common line goes something like “Well you do what you hate in them, so aren’t you a hypocrite?” Yes, I am. Just because I do something, does that, ipso facto, mean that I need to like that in others? For example, what if I am a competitive athlete? Clearly, I want to win. If I want to win, I have to prevent you from winning. So if I want to win, I have to want you to lose. Clearly that’s hypocritical on my part. But is that a problem?
Also, I would argue that if I do something you hate, and you do that very thing and hate the fact that I do it, then that is “socially acceptable” from this standpoint: I have a problem with “peace and love” philosophies. My problem with them is their unrealistic nature. I don’t have a problem with desiring for people to all get along in peace and harmony. But I have a problem with attempts to make this a perfect absolute that doesn’t accept natural humanity: a humanity which includes the fact that everyone just has certain personality traits that they just dislike in others. There’s nothing wrong with disliking certain personality traits in others. That’s part of being human; or, to be more exact, it’s not an unacceptable part of being human. It is an immutable reality that should be accepted, instead of attempting to make it disappear with attempts at “perfect peace and harmony” by saying things like “Just change how you are”, “Just turn that frown upside down”, and other vague shit that no sane person can actually do as intended when they are stated. To suggest that I should like an introvert and extrovert equally just because they are both expressing their natural selves (or just because they are “human”, or because of my own personal flaws) is preposterous. Clearly, there are ethical lines that need to be drawn. I should be punished if I act upon individuals in certain ways for certain reasons. If I kill an extrovert simply for being an extrovert, surely I should be punished. But expecting a “happy” attitude from me on “humanitarian” grounds is extremely inhuman. To be human is to experience emotions, and these emotions are not simply “happiness”. Now, I’m not saying that everything “human” is humane. The desire to kill is human insofar as the desire actually exists within at least some humans. But I’m merely saying that an expectation of perfect happiness is inhumane: humans will experience anger, sadness, and a litany of other emotions that render any attempts at “perfect happiness” absolutely futile and destructive to one’s well-being. There’s nothing wrong with the human emotions of anger, sadness, etc. There are extremes, but this “happiness philosophy” that seems prevalent, whereby some type of “perfect happiness” is achievable, or at least should be worked towards, is, quite simply, naive. Not only that, but it is actually destructive. For when you attempt to achieve the impossible, you can only ruin your sense of happiness. So the more you strive for perfect peace and harmony in the name of happiness, the more unhappy you become.
Now, I will say that a desire towards happiness is reasonable. In fact, I think a desire towards happiness motivates all of our actions. I’ll write about that subject in full detail in another piece, however. But the point is that even though I believe that all action is an attempt towards achieving happiness, the idea of absolute or perfect happiness is what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the idea that any “negative” emotions should not be experienced, and one just needs to, somehow (“willpower”, or something) “put a smile on one’s face”. The moralistic phrases are incredibly vain, as they always are. There’s a reason that it seems as if there’s more depressed smart people than depressed dumb people (or, at least, why the stereotype seems to exist (and stereotypes exist for a reason: they typically aren’t created completely unjustified)). Perhaps there’s not really any “evidence” for that observation, but it seems true, nonetheless.
I don’t understand why things like this never seem to be discussed (perhaps I’m just not looking hard enough in the right places. But the opposing view of “avoiding being critical” seems so loud as to almost be unavoidable). Once again, I accept the fact that peace and harmony are socially desirable. I appreciate attempts to bring them about. But what is missing from these perspectives? In my opinion, in addition to what I’ve already said up to this point, it also comes down to an ignorance of individualism within said humans. What am I getting at here? What exactly is it that I’m wanting? I suppose that, for one, I’m saying that a critique against critique is often unjustified, in my opinion. When someone is critical of something, it seems as if many people will say “Why are you so critical? Why can’t you just be happy?” For one, they never consider that the critique actually makes the critiquing individual happy. It is just assumed that critique should be avoided, for some type of “social acceptance” and “peace and harmony” and whatnot. That’s simply ignorant. Peace and harmony and social acceptance can only exist when individual wills are exercised. There’s no social peace among individuals if the individuals cannot express their individuality.
Now, aren’t those who I am critiquing doing just what I said: expressing their individuality? Yes, they are. But so are rapists. The point is that certain individualistic expressions are deserving of critique, whether or not they have a right to express their individualistic nature without punishment. Critique should not be vilified simply because it is critique. Critique exists for reasons. Clearly, it is up to the critic to present these reasons. But vilifying critique simply because it is critique is awfully fucking stupid. But it has seemed to be prevalent to me for quite some time now. And, obviously, I do not desire for stupid things to be popular (well…I suppose that I’d like to be popular, but I digress).
I can accept the fact that there exist people whom have much less of a propensity for critiquing than others. There are many people much more willing to uncritically accept what is in front of them. That’s fine. But, in my opinion, there does not seem to be enough people willing to defend criticism and critical people. There’s an attempt towards homogenization that is undesirable. There are some very popular exceptions to the rule, such as I Hate Everything. I admire people such as himself who are willing to be highly critical in the face of so much “negative Nancy” talk. I think he handles himself quite well. Interestingly enough, I think there are currently types of critiques that are, quite frankly, just stupid. Without getting into much detail, I’ll merely say that they are typically of the feminist or racial varieties, and leave it at that. Topics for future pieces.
I’m not saying that every critique should be accepted. I’m not saying that all critiques are justified. But I’m merely stating that I see a trend where anytime someone is critical, that person is jumped on by others for being a “negative Nancy”, or some other stupid shit phrase like that. I interpret that to be ignorance from blind people willing to accept whatever is given to them, although I know there are exceptions to that within those who, too often, in my opinion, decry “negative Nancy”.
What about criticisms levied against me? I’m not oblivious to the fact that certain criticisms against me are justified. There’s always justified and unjustified criticisms against everyone. But what is the point of me saying that? The point is that individual wills will be exercised, and that’s the way it should be, regardless of who gets along and who doesn’t; who is more critical than others; who is criticized more than others, etc. I’m not saying that all actions from human will are good. But the point is that humans exercise wills, and that’s how it should be; this includes people who are critical, and people who are critical of those who are critical (which is hypocritical). Criticism is not an aspect of humanity that needs “fixing” to a point where “tolerance” or “acceptance” completely take its place. That’s ludicrous. Criticism is a very important, beneficial social mechanism, and I’m merely trying to defend its existence.
But wait a second: I’m critiquing those who are critical of those who are too critical? Does that mean that I’m one of the very people I’m critiquing for being too critical of the critical? In other words, let’s say B is widely accepted as being a “very critical” person. A critiques B for being too critical. Then I come along and critique A for being too critical of B. Aren’t A and myself the same? Are we not both “critics”, just as much as B is, with the only difference being who is criticized for what reason? Yes. The phrase “everyone’s a critic” comes to mind. A critic is criticized for being critical, then the 2nd critic is criticized by a 3rd for being critical of the 1st critic. It’s all quite silly in the long run. But yet, I don’t think there should be some massive attempt to get rid of it all; particularly, if that’s some “peace and harmony” nonsense in which individual wills are to be subjected to some false ideas about humanity. Acceptance of imperfection is a much healthier perspective to have than to somehow mold everyone into perfect moral beings; especially when you compare different types of “immorality” (such as critical hypocrisy and murder). The point being that, clearly, there are differences between “human imperfections” and what retaliations should occur as results of these various “human imperfections”. However, regardless of the scale of the imperfection, attempts at perfection will always fail. There are realistic, humanitarian ways to handle imperfections (imperfections that exist on a scale). There are simply countless flaws within us that cannot be “fixed”; they simply must be accepted as undesirable realities.
I personally have an affinity for critical people. I enjoy them. They are very rare, it seems. I admire their honesty and bravery in speaking out when they know of the shitstorm they are going to receive because of what they say. Once again, I understand “the shitstorm” is a part of speaking out. But many people alter their words from what they truly believe when a lot of people are listening to them. It appears to me that many critics do not give in to this social pressure, and I greatly admire and respect that from them.
What other types of people would I like to be critical of? I suppose there’s not really any other “group” I would like to criticize, but, rather, I wish to, as I said earlier, just avoid people in general. There are obviously exceptions to this rule. There are obviously people that I enjoy reading, listening to, etc. But the rate of “people that I desire to listen to” compared to “people I desire to ignore” sways heavily towards the ignore side. I know there are many people out there who are like me in that regard, but I’m tempted to say that a majority exists where the “desire to listen to” outweighs the “desire to ignore”, if only to maintain my “me vs. the world” mentality.
I believe that it would be too difficult for me to specify which types of people that I wish to ignore. Obviously, I wish to ignore politicians and media members that lie. I wish to ignore people stuck in never-ending debates about race. I wish to ignore Statist economists. I wish to ignore a great many people, if not the majority of them.
I am perfectly content in being alone. As I said, of course there will be people that I enjoy listening to, reading, etc. But, for the most part, I desire to be alone as much as possible. I can never have enough alone time. I hope to remedy that some point in the future by finally figuring out how to achieve the appropriate amount of “alone” time. I think a successful internet career would do the trick (as long as I was never recognized in public). The only exception to my “alone time” rule is entertainment from others, such as music. Even the introvert needs some form of social stimulation.
What is my point of writing this? Am I looking for people to say “I agree with you”? Am I looking for critique? I’m merely looking to express myself. I don’t know what I’m looking for from you, the reader. I don’t know if I’ll ever understand that at this point (except for, of course, money). We all desire to express ourselves, whether we are accepted or rejected for what we express.
All I can conclude for sure is that I desire to be alone more so than I desire to be around others, I reject the seemingly-common “anti-critic” society in which I live, and I wish to express this as I did in this piece.
Simply, I suppose that’s all this piece meagerly achieved.
(There may be a critique levied against me that I’m unfairly grouping “people” into one homogenous unit. However, from experience, I have found that my feelings around many people are so similar that, for the purposes of this piece, it works).
Above all else, I simply desire to be alone. My dream is to make a living through the internet, with that being my only source of human interaction. My desire is to ignore the mundane conversations that occur in the workplace. The best way I can think of to avoid these is to make a living online. Easier said than done, of course. But this is my lofty goal. I don’t want anything to supersede this goal. At what point will I have “failed” in this goal? Either when I give up or when I die. That’s my timeline. Obviously, I’d rather succeed sooner rather than later. Today rather than tomorrow. But I’m not going to stop writing or doing comedy just because I don’t make a certain amount of money this year or the next. It may influence how much I do these things, depending on what time requirements there are from my job. But I don’t think that my desires to write and be funny are going to disappear just because of a lack of financial success. And if my desires to write and be funny aren’t going to disappear, I don’t see why my desire to make a living from them should disappear, either, regardless of how unrealistic that desire may be.
I do not wish to listen to those who tell me how difficult it will be, that I’m wasting my time, etc.
As I said, I greatly desire to be by myself, away from “other people”. I find most conversations insufferable. Petty, trivial, and stupid. Or I find that the listener doesn’t understand what I’m saying, and I don’t wish to explain, for example, a paper like this in casual conversation when someone asks “What do you mean?” I’d rather ignore the person and write the paper. Or the person actually does understand what I’m saying, but I don’t want to be involved in the conversation. That’s happened plenty of times as well. Writing helps you say what you want to say without people interrupting you. It helps you flesh out all of your thoughts, if you put in the time and effort to do so. And I don’t particularly care if people don’t understand my work. It’s frustrating, but I’m not willing to speak it instead to have people able to interrupt me and ask me questions. I do not desire to elaborate simply for the sake of understanding on the part of the listener. It bores the shit out of me, and does nothing for me. At least for the most part, based on past experience. At least understand what the fuck I’m saying. That’s basically all that I ask of you. And to leave me alone.
Maybe I’ll be able to elaborate more on “other people” at a later date.
Let me attempt to coherently tack on one more string of thoughts here. What is it that our wills should do? How do we know what our wills should do? Are there some courses of action that we “should” take above others? If so, by what criteria do we judge these actions in the hierarchy? I’m sure many responses will be of a religious variety, which I will have to write about at a later date.
There’s never a perfect course of action. Who to listen to, who to ignore, and what to do: all of these things and more I’ll have to figure out for myself in my own way. The choices are overwhelming. All the more reason to work to achieve my “alone” bubble that I so desperately long for……