Thursday, April 20, 2017

Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
                                           H    L    Mencken
Essentially, taking offense or being offensive is really not that much of a big deal.
Everything can't be to the liking of any one person, nor can the actions of everyone around us be to our liking.

The problem I have is that the world deems it such an immoral act to "offend another".  It's like the ultimate "sacred cow" to "never offend anyone".
As for those who would ever "butcher the sacred cow", they deserve nothing less than whatever revenge their society deems fit as retaliation for such a grave infraction.
The other guy is always more important than you are.   Their lives matter and yours don't.  Those in authority will always stand behind those who make even the slightest complaint against you (like the "good little 'community hatchet men'" they are).
Why those who file complaints against you also have so much authority and prestige of their own as well, who knows.....
Do they suddenly become "deputized" the minute someone does or says anything they find "offensive"?

Seriously, "being offended" is purely subjective.   It just means someone or something "rubbed you the wrong way" somehow.
It's just a personal reaction to words or deeds that either made you uncomfortable or that you think are inappropriate or destructive to the context in which said words are uttered or said deeds are done.
It's strictly a matter of one's personal perspective, priorities and prejudices more than anything.
It's not the kind of thing that should ever be subject to rule-of-law.

I actually think when a lot of people say something "offended" them, whatever they're talking about probably didn't really bother them that much.  They're simply tyrannical "power-and-control" junkies, exploiting social mores and popular prejudices for the purpose of damaging or destroying someone they feel some sort of animosity toward.
Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
                                                                                                             H  L  Mencken
Just what is this fixation the world seems to have with "changing things" constantly?

Even if things are running smoothly and on cue and everything's working out just fine somebody will get the notion to change the rules, or rearrange the system, or tag on more procedures or more requirements.

Is the idea simply to throw off the personal ecosystem of another, to throw them into a state of total confusion and psycho-disarray?

Is it just another "power trip" on the part of whoever's in charge?
                           The demise of the "private citizen"
These days everyone is committed to some "cause", or have some personal affiliation with a select ideological or political group.

They're "a part of something" and identify themselves with whatever political belief, social causes, or idealistic demographic elements that comprise their "belief system" which they have committed themselves to.
There are so many folks running marathons, marching in the streets, or pitching another "cause", trying to be saviors or crusaders.

I hardly see people ever actually represent themselves.  There doesn't seem anything really intimate about most people.  They seem to be whatever their ancestry, social class, gender or domestic and social background "requires" their persona to be.  And it seems to be what they're "all about" as well.

It's like the average person is more of an "artificial intelligence" than a living, breathing, and FEELING individual.

Would the world be better off if each person minded their own business, just took care of their own life and issues, and stayed within their own boundaries?  Quit having to be "so involved with" society and problems that don't directly concern them?
Just stay home and enjoy their own interests and bobies and tend to their own responsibilities?

Saturday, April 15, 2017

is a two-way street.

If you're transmitting, even at full power, and the receivers can't tune in to the frequency you're broadcasting on, your message is still not going to reach anyone.

If the other person doesn't want to understand what you're trying to say you can shout it in their face at the top of your lungs, every word-for-word explicitly, and all that other person will do is simply "take offense" at your shouting in their face so loud, or accuse you of being hostile and "threatening".

When others misunderstand you it's not always your fault, or because of any lack of effort on your part to get your message across to them.

The problem with it always being "up to you" to get a message across to someone else is that you become too dependent on the other guy's willingness to hear you out and accurately interpret whatever it is you tell them.
                                          The Pop Music Divide
You know how obsessed societies are about the concept of "multiculturalism"?
Wanting to bring together the most irrelevant elements into the same space?

Isn't it ironic that, in contrast, popular music, which at one time used to routinely comprise various elements from diverse sources, would wind up being one area to become so divisive within itself by forming numerous subcategories within each genre?

I grew up in the '60s, when rock n'roll and pop music was still normal, when it was the "catchiest" songs that got promoted on the radio, regardless of style or ethnic origins.

In the '70s is when it started to divide itself: at first into the "progressive/album rock" and "soft rock/singer-songwriter" subgenres.
Less than a decade later there would also be disco, punk rock, and "new wave".

I've since long gotten used to this "divide".
And, also, a lot of the performers in these subgenres had a few "token top-40 singles" of their own, making it easy to merge their signature songs alongside those of the more "mainstream" style performers.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Any great words of wisdom ever spoken by the likes of Ronald Reagan or Art Bell can most likely be attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rogers, or the legendary writer/editor Henry Louis Mencken.

That said, let me ask you a question:
If a medical clinic makes an appointment for you with a designated provider months in advance, does it make any sense for their office to call you on the eve of the appointment date and leave a message on your VoiceMail telling you that you need to call their office back to let them know whether or not you want to confirm the appointment or cancel it?

I mean, what happens if you don't call them back?  Do they just take it upon themselves to up and cancel your appointment?

Why should they be putting that onus on you, instead of simply reminding you of your upcoming appointment?

As someone who relies on VoiceMail religiously, one thing I really detest to the hilt are the "Call me back!" messages.
It's recording whatever you say already!  You can say what you need to say while it's recording and I'll be able to hear it later on when I play it back!
That's why God created VoiceMail!  
So that the recipient doesn't have to be present when the call is made because he/she can STILL get the message later!

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Heaven forbid any society should ever allow itself to fall into any kind of anarchy.

With "no-one in charge" we'd have only the most aggressive/predatory along with all the "pretty people" taking over everything.

Therefore, we need a "rule of law" environment to ensure a more even social climate.  A certain degree of "necessary tyranny" is paramount to creating a reasonably structured social climate.

What's tragic is when the "rule of law" becomes corrupt and starts leaning towards the most favored, popular dogmas, and common prejudices.
When that happens then even the "rule of law" becomes indistinguishable from anarchy.

                            The above is my Musing For Today