When things hurt us most, we often trick ourselves into believing that feeling anything is feeling well. It's almost a survival instinct - we feel that something that provides the sense of being alive, regardless of how it hurts us, is better than anything that doesn't. Because at least that which hurts us has an immediately identifiable corollary of reminding us, through pain, that we don't have to feel that way. I often think that when people wish for pain, they have a silent hope that if they take on as much pain as possible in one sitting, then perhaps they won't have to deal with it anymore. Whether they think that they may create a karmic shift that leaves them spared from any further episodes, or if they will build a tolerance to that level of pain - and subsequently be able to walk through those fires without blinking.
Yet, when we convince ourselves that we have a form of protection from a specific type of pain, we most likely leave ourselves susceptible to a completely different, perhaps more potentially damaging brand of pain.
It's a hard realization, that life's ratio of pain to pleasure is perhaps as wide as 80:20 - but the pride comes in holding onto the right experiences. When we wallow in misery, whether our own accumulated experiences or those impressed on us by someone or something else, we leave our minds on pause - while our bodies continue to age and be battered. So that when we finally return our focus to our present state, we have what seems to be only more damage to sift through.
As silly and cliched as it has become, carpe diem is still a worthy way to conduct one's life. If nothing else it gives us only that day's rises and drops to deal with, and no extraneous stresses - good or bad.
But don't take the statement as it is used in modern terminology, as a rallying cry. No, take it in the terms presented in its birth: Seu pluris hiemes seu tribuit luppiter ultimam quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicbus mare Tyrrhenum: sapias, vina liques et spatio brevi spem longam resces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
Whether Jupiter has allotted to you many more winters, or this final one which even now wears out the Tyrrhenian sea on the rocks placed opposite - be smart, drink your wine. Scale back your long hopes to a short period. While we speak, envious time will have already fled. Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow.
And if you really stop to think about it, those who have found themselves victims of real, scarring pain have no reason to trust tomorrow - because as history is always an indicator, there will most likely only be pain. Today is all that matters, steal it - make it yours, and trust nothing that anyone tells you about time or healing.
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
29.3.09
22.11.08
A Brief History of Social Networking.
Foreword
Unlike online Instant Messaging or Chat communities (such as AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, or ICQ), social networks (or "virtual communities") can be defined as groupings of people with similar intents, if not interests. Their purpose is relatively simple, to use the internet to allow people to interact with people they most likely would have little or no chance of coming into contact with otherwise, whether due to social cliches, geographical boundaries, or other obstacles. Consider it a veritable successor to or perhaps even "evolution" from having a "pen pal".
The approach of each individual website differs, depending on which type of person or "crowd" that website is trying to attract... And as with just about any type of business, there are often just as many if not more of that type of business that will fail, than succeed. Keeping that in mind, this is by no means intended to be a complete or encompassing report or listing as to every last social networking site ever to grace our beloved internet. That said, let us get to it.
Origins
One of the first notable websites to introduce online social networking would be HoTMaiL Personals, created sometime in 1995 (sometimes shortly following the induction of Hotmail, but before it's commercialization with Microsoft) which allowed users to link personals ads to their already existing Hotmail accounts. The popularity of the website lasted until approximately 2000, and since then the website has undergone several make-overs to the point that any sort of social networking is almost hidden within the mass of Hotmail, MSN and other Passport.net live links (and/or link rot).
An even more notable entry into the ring of social networking sites is the still-running Classmates.com, again, created sometime in 1995. While HoTMaiL Personals took an approach derived from the concept of personal ads (such as those in newspapers), Classmates.com focus of operation was to allow members to find, connect (or re-connect) with, and keep in touch with friends met throughout the various stages of their lives, via school - be it anywhere from Elementary to Graduate (extended to include places of employment and the various Armed Forces). This flexible form of exclusivity allowed for Classmates.com to attract a certain, albeit wide-based, type of user - something that would become more and more common in succeeding social networking sites.
Perhaps motivated by the success of the two aforementioned websites, HoTMaiL Personals and Classmates.com were quickly followed up an almost countless number of successors - from imitators (SixDegrees, Yahoo! Personals/Geocities) to abstract takes on the original form (Live/DeadJournal, Xanga) - which took turn to focus on literature, music, movies and their review(s/ing), as well as online journals (or "weblogging"/"blogs"). For the most part, all of the aforementioned sites have carried on in some form or another (with the exception of SixDegrees.com, which was sold to YouthStream Media Networks in 2000 for $120M USD) - but none would become a true social "meme" until the introduction of Friendster in 2002.
Friendster
Friendster targeted itself at the group which made it's precursors most popular - young adults from North America (most particularly the United States), Europe (most particularly England/United Kingdom) and Asia (most particularly Japan) aged about 18 to 29. Establishing a format that many succeeding sites would use as a template, each user created an online profile (or "identity") by filling out a questionnaire profile and uploading a user picture, then defining a gallery of friends - either by interacting with friends already using the site, seeking out people who use the site, or inviting friends to join. The service would then integrate these galleries, using the so-called "small world phenomenon" to allow people to always interact with a friend-of-a-friend(multiplied to whatever exponential value necessary), and not simply a random or unknown person (such as is often associated with spam eMails or Instant Messaging/Chat programs).
Friendster's approach, blending the successful aspects of its precurors and leaving out the less popular features, would set the standard for almost every subsequent social networking site that would be met with any sort of popularity. Friendster's focused targeting (aiming the site not only at the youth market, but targeting single youths) would also be heavily borrowed by following sites, most notably - MySpace.com.
MySpace.com
Currently the most popular website in the United States (accounting for approximately 4.7% of all website visits originating from the US)*, MySpace.com was born of the integration of "blogging" (as preceeded by LiveJournal or Xanga), user profiles (as preceeded by Friendster), grouping (mostly provided by the seperation of websites - i.e., Friendster for dating, SixDegrees.com for "underground" socializing, or even Ryze for business networking), and an internal eMail system (perhaps borrowing from the original concept of Hotmail Personals).
MySpace has gradually gained more popularity than similar sites (such as Friendster, LiveJournal, or Classmates.com) to get the highest hit count of all English-language social networking websites. It has become an increasingly influential part of contemporary pop culture, especially in the Anglosphere. MySpace currently has just over 95 million members (although the number of "unique" members is almost impossible to determine) and gets about 500,000 new members each week.
... But MySpace was not always the social networking giant it stands as today, nor was it always poised to become such. Before the creation of the current social networking website, the MySpace.com domain name was registered in 1998 to an online storage and file sharing firm. Registration was free and users were able to obtain a small disk quota which would gradually increase if they referred new members to the site. Due to slow service and a lack of revenue, the original site shut down sometime in late 2001.
The current MySpace service was founded in July 2003 by current president Tom Anderson (the popular "first friend" of each profile created), current CEO Chris DeWolfe, and a small team of programmers. It was partially owned by Intermix Media, which was bought in July 2005 for $580 million by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (the parent company of Fox Broadcasting and other media enterprises).
Borrowing from the now-popular (or even "standard", as will be addressed later) Friendster format, each profile contains several "blurbs" including "About Me" and "Who I'd Like to Meet", as well as sections detailing the users' musical, cinematic, literary, and other tastes. A standard questionnaire is used to determine details such as marital status, physical appearance, and income. Taking the Friendster format a bit further, each profile also allows for the user to post "blog" entries, further allowing MySpace to be a more "all-encompassing" type of social site.
Although MySpace is more oriented toward the youth market, there are many people who are making careers out of promotion on MySpace. From bands, to celebrities, to exotic car dealers, many people have found MySpace to be an invaluable tool for advocating their goods and services. Like Friendster before it, MySpace has now spawned many imitators (and thus, competitors) - such as Facebook and TagWorld, but the most notable product of the popularity of MySpace has to be the Friendster patent approval.
Friendster Patent
On June 27th, 2006 - Friendster received a patent (US Patent no. 7.069.308) that covers online social networks, one the company had applied for long before its decline and recent recapitalization.
The patent is extremely general in its terms, covering the basic steps involved in joining a social network: entering a personal description and relationships to other users, mapping relationships and degrees of separation, and connecting to others through these friends. In such, seemingly covering the activities of many other social networking sites, especially those such as LinkedIn, that allow people to connect within a certain number of "degrees of seperation", which would leave the proverbial door open for MySpace's "Top Friends" to become a talking point of the patent's details.
In its simplest terms, the patent is referred to as a “system, method, and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks." And although the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. “Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,” said attorney Bill Heinze in representation of Friendster.
The patent is more of a moral victory for the now-struggling Friendster, as even though it still counts 9-to-10 million users, the company has been consistently losing momentum in the global networking market, mostly to MySpace.com. Many users and former users cite heavy "lag" or "loading" times, as well as a lack of the diversity offered by MySpace as reasons for their leaving the site.
This sort of situation treads the fine line between property and intellectual property, which warrants a full-length discussion of its own. Another situation provided by the awarding of the Friendster patent, is the possible monopolization of the social networking class of websites - further pushing the ongoing internet properties debate into the political forum.
Failed Sites
As stated before, for each popularized website, there are quite literally tens of thousands that fail just as miserably as those which succeed (only in opposing terms), and while chronicling the popular websites may be a task of its own - finding all the ones that either haven't or haven't yet made it through the glass ceiling is ten times the effort. Here is a short overview of some of those that haven't:
43 Things
Adult FriendFinder
aSmallWorld
BlackPlanet.com
Babbello
The Black Stripe
Bebo
Bolt
Campusbug
Care2
Cyworld
Crostel
Connecct.ee
DowneLink
DoYouDo
Draugien.lv
Ecademy
eCrush
eSpin
Faceparty
Flickr
Frustuckstreff
Gaia Online
GayRomeo
Gayday
GolfBuzz
GreatestJournal
Grono.net
Hey! ASL?!
Hi5
Hyves
IMVU
Insider Pages
IRC-Galleria
iWiW
JDate
Joga Bonito
LinkedIn
LunarStorm
Miaplaza
MiGente.com
Mixi
MOBANGO
MSN Space
Multiply
Music Forte
MyGamma
MyNetSpot.org
myYearbook
Neurona
Nexopia
OkCupid
openBC
orkut
Passado
Piczo
ProfileHeaven
Rediff Connexions
Reunion.com
Ryze
Sconex
Spark Networks
Studybreakers
Sulekha
Tagged
TakingITGlobal
The Student Center
Thingbox
Tickle
Tribe
WAYN
Wireless World Forum
Xuqa
Yahoo! 360/Yahoo! Personals
... And while it can be argued that many of these sites are popular in a specific region or among a particular group of people - the overall popularity does not match that of the previously referenced sites.
Afterword/Commentary
... Glorifying MySpace, TagWorld, FaceBook, FaceParty - or any other "social networking" site for doing the same job as eMailing does, only with fancier interfaces and graphics - is like saying that not paying as much for water purification to the State, and in turn paying that money to say - Coca Cola or Pepsi, to buy water at a supermarket, is "better" or "Worse". Really, it's all the same.
* - Note that the site's traffic volume is based on incredibly intense usage by a more limited number of visitors. At least five English language sites have a higher "reach" measurement; that is, they are visited by more unique people each day.
The correction of any errors, whether in citation, punctuation, spelling or otherwise - as well as the addition of and new information, provided ample source information, is both appreciated and encouraged.
Unlike online Instant Messaging or Chat communities (such as AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, or ICQ), social networks (or "virtual communities") can be defined as groupings of people with similar intents, if not interests. Their purpose is relatively simple, to use the internet to allow people to interact with people they most likely would have little or no chance of coming into contact with otherwise, whether due to social cliches, geographical boundaries, or other obstacles. Consider it a veritable successor to or perhaps even "evolution" from having a "pen pal".
The approach of each individual website differs, depending on which type of person or "crowd" that website is trying to attract... And as with just about any type of business, there are often just as many if not more of that type of business that will fail, than succeed. Keeping that in mind, this is by no means intended to be a complete or encompassing report or listing as to every last social networking site ever to grace our beloved internet. That said, let us get to it.
Origins
One of the first notable websites to introduce online social networking would be HoTMaiL Personals, created sometime in 1995 (sometimes shortly following the induction of Hotmail, but before it's commercialization with Microsoft) which allowed users to link personals ads to their already existing Hotmail accounts. The popularity of the website lasted until approximately 2000, and since then the website has undergone several make-overs to the point that any sort of social networking is almost hidden within the mass of Hotmail, MSN and other Passport.net live links (and/or link rot).
An even more notable entry into the ring of social networking sites is the still-running Classmates.com, again, created sometime in 1995. While HoTMaiL Personals took an approach derived from the concept of personal ads (such as those in newspapers), Classmates.com focus of operation was to allow members to find, connect (or re-connect) with, and keep in touch with friends met throughout the various stages of their lives, via school - be it anywhere from Elementary to Graduate (extended to include places of employment and the various Armed Forces). This flexible form of exclusivity allowed for Classmates.com to attract a certain, albeit wide-based, type of user - something that would become more and more common in succeeding social networking sites.
Perhaps motivated by the success of the two aforementioned websites, HoTMaiL Personals and Classmates.com were quickly followed up an almost countless number of successors - from imitators (SixDegrees, Yahoo! Personals/Geocities) to abstract takes on the original form (Live/DeadJournal, Xanga) - which took turn to focus on literature, music, movies and their review(s/ing), as well as online journals (or "weblogging"/"blogs"). For the most part, all of the aforementioned sites have carried on in some form or another (with the exception of SixDegrees.com, which was sold to YouthStream Media Networks in 2000 for $120M USD) - but none would become a true social "meme" until the introduction of Friendster in 2002.
Friendster
Friendster targeted itself at the group which made it's precursors most popular - young adults from North America (most particularly the United States), Europe (most particularly England/United Kingdom) and Asia (most particularly Japan) aged about 18 to 29. Establishing a format that many succeeding sites would use as a template, each user created an online profile (or "identity") by filling out a questionnaire profile and uploading a user picture, then defining a gallery of friends - either by interacting with friends already using the site, seeking out people who use the site, or inviting friends to join. The service would then integrate these galleries, using the so-called "small world phenomenon" to allow people to always interact with a friend-of-a-friend(multiplied to whatever exponential value necessary), and not simply a random or unknown person (such as is often associated with spam eMails or Instant Messaging/Chat programs).
Friendster's approach, blending the successful aspects of its precurors and leaving out the less popular features, would set the standard for almost every subsequent social networking site that would be met with any sort of popularity. Friendster's focused targeting (aiming the site not only at the youth market, but targeting single youths) would also be heavily borrowed by following sites, most notably - MySpace.com.
MySpace.com
Currently the most popular website in the United States (accounting for approximately 4.7% of all website visits originating from the US)*, MySpace.com was born of the integration of "blogging" (as preceeded by LiveJournal or Xanga), user profiles (as preceeded by Friendster), grouping (mostly provided by the seperation of websites - i.e., Friendster for dating, SixDegrees.com for "underground" socializing, or even Ryze for business networking), and an internal eMail system (perhaps borrowing from the original concept of Hotmail Personals).
MySpace has gradually gained more popularity than similar sites (such as Friendster, LiveJournal, or Classmates.com) to get the highest hit count of all English-language social networking websites. It has become an increasingly influential part of contemporary pop culture, especially in the Anglosphere. MySpace currently has just over 95 million members (although the number of "unique" members is almost impossible to determine) and gets about 500,000 new members each week.
... But MySpace was not always the social networking giant it stands as today, nor was it always poised to become such. Before the creation of the current social networking website, the MySpace.com domain name was registered in 1998 to an online storage and file sharing firm. Registration was free and users were able to obtain a small disk quota which would gradually increase if they referred new members to the site. Due to slow service and a lack of revenue, the original site shut down sometime in late 2001.
The current MySpace service was founded in July 2003 by current president Tom Anderson (the popular "first friend" of each profile created), current CEO Chris DeWolfe, and a small team of programmers. It was partially owned by Intermix Media, which was bought in July 2005 for $580 million by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (the parent company of Fox Broadcasting and other media enterprises).
Borrowing from the now-popular (or even "standard", as will be addressed later) Friendster format, each profile contains several "blurbs" including "About Me" and "Who I'd Like to Meet", as well as sections detailing the users' musical, cinematic, literary, and other tastes. A standard questionnaire is used to determine details such as marital status, physical appearance, and income. Taking the Friendster format a bit further, each profile also allows for the user to post "blog" entries, further allowing MySpace to be a more "all-encompassing" type of social site.
Although MySpace is more oriented toward the youth market, there are many people who are making careers out of promotion on MySpace. From bands, to celebrities, to exotic car dealers, many people have found MySpace to be an invaluable tool for advocating their goods and services. Like Friendster before it, MySpace has now spawned many imitators (and thus, competitors) - such as Facebook and TagWorld, but the most notable product of the popularity of MySpace has to be the Friendster patent approval.
Friendster Patent
On June 27th, 2006 - Friendster received a patent (US Patent no. 7.069.308) that covers online social networks, one the company had applied for long before its decline and recent recapitalization.
The patent is extremely general in its terms, covering the basic steps involved in joining a social network: entering a personal description and relationships to other users, mapping relationships and degrees of separation, and connecting to others through these friends. In such, seemingly covering the activities of many other social networking sites, especially those such as LinkedIn, that allow people to connect within a certain number of "degrees of seperation", which would leave the proverbial door open for MySpace's "Top Friends" to become a talking point of the patent's details.
In its simplest terms, the patent is referred to as a “system, method, and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks." And although the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. “Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,” said attorney Bill Heinze in representation of Friendster.
The patent is more of a moral victory for the now-struggling Friendster, as even though it still counts 9-to-10 million users, the company has been consistently losing momentum in the global networking market, mostly to MySpace.com. Many users and former users cite heavy "lag" or "loading" times, as well as a lack of the diversity offered by MySpace as reasons for their leaving the site.
This sort of situation treads the fine line between property and intellectual property, which warrants a full-length discussion of its own. Another situation provided by the awarding of the Friendster patent, is the possible monopolization of the social networking class of websites - further pushing the ongoing internet properties debate into the political forum.
Failed Sites
As stated before, for each popularized website, there are quite literally tens of thousands that fail just as miserably as those which succeed (only in opposing terms), and while chronicling the popular websites may be a task of its own - finding all the ones that either haven't or haven't yet made it through the glass ceiling is ten times the effort. Here is a short overview of some of those that haven't:
43 Things
Adult FriendFinder
aSmallWorld
BlackPlanet.com
Babbello
The Black Stripe
Bebo
Bolt
Campusbug
Care2
Cyworld
Crostel
Connecct.ee
DowneLink
DoYouDo
Draugien.lv
Ecademy
eCrush
eSpin
Faceparty
Flickr
Frustuckstreff
Gaia Online
GayRomeo
Gayday
GolfBuzz
GreatestJournal
Grono.net
Hey! ASL?!
Hi5
Hyves
IMVU
Insider Pages
IRC-Galleria
iWiW
JDate
Joga Bonito
LunarStorm
Miaplaza
MiGente.com
Mixi
MOBANGO
MSN Space
Multiply
Music Forte
MyGamma
MyNetSpot.org
myYearbook
Neurona
Nexopia
OkCupid
openBC
orkut
Passado
Piczo
ProfileHeaven
Rediff Connexions
Reunion.com
Ryze
Sconex
Spark Networks
Studybreakers
Sulekha
Tagged
TakingITGlobal
The Student Center
Thingbox
Tickle
Tribe
WAYN
Wireless World Forum
Xuqa
Yahoo! 360/Yahoo! Personals
... And while it can be argued that many of these sites are popular in a specific region or among a particular group of people - the overall popularity does not match that of the previously referenced sites.
Afterword/Commentary
... Glorifying MySpace, TagWorld, FaceBook, FaceParty - or any other "social networking" site for doing the same job as eMailing does, only with fancier interfaces and graphics - is like saying that not paying as much for water purification to the State, and in turn paying that money to say - Coca Cola or Pepsi, to buy water at a supermarket, is "better" or "Worse". Really, it's all the same.
* - Note that the site's traffic volume is based on incredibly intense usage by a more limited number of visitors. At least five English language sites have a higher "reach" measurement; that is, they are visited by more unique people each day.
The correction of any errors, whether in citation, punctuation, spelling or otherwise - as well as the addition of and new information, provided ample source information, is both appreciated and encouraged.
18.11.08
Divine Nonsense, the
You know, I'm pretty sure if my father could have been responsible for scripting November 4th, 2008, he would have not only had John McCain winning the Presidency - but also had every last person in the State of California vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.
Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.
Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.
It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.
The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.
I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.
The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.
Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?
I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?
This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.
Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.
Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.
It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.
The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.
I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.
The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.
Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?
I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?
This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.
6.6.08
"There appears to be an event happening..."
The working thesis for this particular entry is as follows: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Derrick Comedy: Spelling Bee [NSFW]
Following that clip, and before any discussion takes place, it should first be stated that very rarely is racial humour of any fashion appreciated on a universal level, and that it is the responsibility of the joke-teller to point out the comical nature of the joke, and not the responsibility of those hearing the joke to stop, analyze and then determine whether to be offended or entertained.
That said, holding something up to the light is not the same as making light of it.
The language of hate has many different faces and dialects, and regardless of how easily any given individual can picture a perfect world - the reality within which we live is far from those dreams of utopia. Derogatory terms rarely have a shelf life, and to take on such a subject without first understanding both the history and modern application of such terms is just as, if not more ignorant than simply applying such words in everyday conversation. For as weak of an argument as it is, at least one can make a case of accidental ignorance - if they were raised around such words, and never were introduced to detestable history of their use as a blanket term for people who share only an ethnic background or similar skin tone.
Armed with that knowledge, even the casual use of such words as 'nigger' or 'faggot' can only be defined as direct and conscious ignorance of the fact that all people are born as equals, and that only in our actions can we then separate 'good' from 'bad'. And if the intent is to utilize such terms to get a laugh, then that person or group of people are guilty of satire in it's poorest and least effective form.
But if the joke simply 'must' be made, it should make light of things that even those within the race of focus can appreciate as either ludicrous stereotypes or otherwise harmless observations - and not simply make sweeping generalizations in and of itself.
There is often a sense of entitlement, especially among the black community, to their right to the casual usage of terms that they would never tolerate a non-member of their race to use even comically. It is referred to as 'taking the power away' from the terms, but in reality such actions only serve to grant more power to those who use it 'without permission'. Quite honestly, the level of idiocy exhibited from many musicians and entertainers who could otherwise be considered very capable thinkers is troubling - namely, those who speak out against racism only to cater to the many tenets that make up the stereotypes that they are unfairly held against.
Such behaviour is detestable, yes - but it does allow us to see that in this modern world, we have grown into a global society still filled with two types of people: hunters and gatherers.
In the past, hunters were directly responsible for the survival of not only themselves, but their families - all by spending their life out tracking, stalking and finally killing their prey. And that carcass would serve not just as food, but as tools, clothing and shelter to get that family through a winter that most cannot even begin to fathom - tucked into their warm safe beds, with thermostats just a few steps away to drive off any sneaking discomfort that manages to find its way through their insulated walls.
And while there have been significant developments since that time, particularly in the terms of medical science, architecture and the development of a monetary system - modern hunters still have an important tie to their predecessors. Their lives are dedicated to the search - often forging out on a path less chosen, in order to track and eventually come across their goal: to dominate something much larger than themselves, and use it to provide for those they hold dear.
Meanwhile, gatherers supplemented the time between kills by harvesting nuts, roots and berries from the wild. And while they didn't provide the impressive bulk and diverse functionality that the hunters did with their contributions, they oftentimes represented the only source of food that a family would have during periods of drought and especially trying hunting seasons.
The most important thing about early gatherers was that they worked in conjunction with the hunters to provide, and never saw their jobs as unimportant or not as prestigious as that of the hunters' - they had neither time nor need for such internal debate. Their only concern was that of keeping their family alive and on course, focused only on making it to the next round of provisions from their hunting partners.
And that is the point on which modern gatherers diverge from their historical forebears. Most modern gatherers can only be found following the trails blazed by their hunting counterparts, gathering only enough to support their own needs - and most often spending any time that remains attempting to bring down other gatherers, or defame the accomplishments of the hunters who allowed them to live with comfort in a world they often feel does not meet some mythic standard that is owed to them.
They use every possible means available to enrich only themselves, and curse anyone who questions their motives or methods. They stand as icons of bitterness, upset that they were not solely responsible for creating or developing the ideas and standards they have used to provide a life for themselves, and never truly appreciative of the fortunes they are afforded.
This is the world in which we live today, and this is the world that those of you with children will be leaving to them as inheritance, unless we can agree to take a stand against the benchmarks currently held in regard to such topics. Otherwise, the already bleak future we have as our forecast will only become more dismal and disjointed as time goes on - until we are left in a world of irrationality within which the ignorance of today will only be met by the blindness of tomorrow.
Derrick Comedy: Spelling Bee [NSFW]
Following that clip, and before any discussion takes place, it should first be stated that very rarely is racial humour of any fashion appreciated on a universal level, and that it is the responsibility of the joke-teller to point out the comical nature of the joke, and not the responsibility of those hearing the joke to stop, analyze and then determine whether to be offended or entertained.
That said, holding something up to the light is not the same as making light of it.
The language of hate has many different faces and dialects, and regardless of how easily any given individual can picture a perfect world - the reality within which we live is far from those dreams of utopia. Derogatory terms rarely have a shelf life, and to take on such a subject without first understanding both the history and modern application of such terms is just as, if not more ignorant than simply applying such words in everyday conversation. For as weak of an argument as it is, at least one can make a case of accidental ignorance - if they were raised around such words, and never were introduced to detestable history of their use as a blanket term for people who share only an ethnic background or similar skin tone.
Armed with that knowledge, even the casual use of such words as 'nigger' or 'faggot' can only be defined as direct and conscious ignorance of the fact that all people are born as equals, and that only in our actions can we then separate 'good' from 'bad'. And if the intent is to utilize such terms to get a laugh, then that person or group of people are guilty of satire in it's poorest and least effective form.
But if the joke simply 'must' be made, it should make light of things that even those within the race of focus can appreciate as either ludicrous stereotypes or otherwise harmless observations - and not simply make sweeping generalizations in and of itself.
There is often a sense of entitlement, especially among the black community, to their right to the casual usage of terms that they would never tolerate a non-member of their race to use even comically. It is referred to as 'taking the power away' from the terms, but in reality such actions only serve to grant more power to those who use it 'without permission'. Quite honestly, the level of idiocy exhibited from many musicians and entertainers who could otherwise be considered very capable thinkers is troubling - namely, those who speak out against racism only to cater to the many tenets that make up the stereotypes that they are unfairly held against.
Such behaviour is detestable, yes - but it does allow us to see that in this modern world, we have grown into a global society still filled with two types of people: hunters and gatherers.
In the past, hunters were directly responsible for the survival of not only themselves, but their families - all by spending their life out tracking, stalking and finally killing their prey. And that carcass would serve not just as food, but as tools, clothing and shelter to get that family through a winter that most cannot even begin to fathom - tucked into their warm safe beds, with thermostats just a few steps away to drive off any sneaking discomfort that manages to find its way through their insulated walls.
And while there have been significant developments since that time, particularly in the terms of medical science, architecture and the development of a monetary system - modern hunters still have an important tie to their predecessors. Their lives are dedicated to the search - often forging out on a path less chosen, in order to track and eventually come across their goal: to dominate something much larger than themselves, and use it to provide for those they hold dear.
Meanwhile, gatherers supplemented the time between kills by harvesting nuts, roots and berries from the wild. And while they didn't provide the impressive bulk and diverse functionality that the hunters did with their contributions, they oftentimes represented the only source of food that a family would have during periods of drought and especially trying hunting seasons.
The most important thing about early gatherers was that they worked in conjunction with the hunters to provide, and never saw their jobs as unimportant or not as prestigious as that of the hunters' - they had neither time nor need for such internal debate. Their only concern was that of keeping their family alive and on course, focused only on making it to the next round of provisions from their hunting partners.
And that is the point on which modern gatherers diverge from their historical forebears. Most modern gatherers can only be found following the trails blazed by their hunting counterparts, gathering only enough to support their own needs - and most often spending any time that remains attempting to bring down other gatherers, or defame the accomplishments of the hunters who allowed them to live with comfort in a world they often feel does not meet some mythic standard that is owed to them.
They use every possible means available to enrich only themselves, and curse anyone who questions their motives or methods. They stand as icons of bitterness, upset that they were not solely responsible for creating or developing the ideas and standards they have used to provide a life for themselves, and never truly appreciative of the fortunes they are afforded.
This is the world in which we live today, and this is the world that those of you with children will be leaving to them as inheritance, unless we can agree to take a stand against the benchmarks currently held in regard to such topics. Otherwise, the already bleak future we have as our forecast will only become more dismal and disjointed as time goes on - until we are left in a world of irrationality within which the ignorance of today will only be met by the blindness of tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)