What the hell? – Page 8 – Sure, Why Not?

Shut Up, Charlie Brown

December 18, 2012

I’ve never understood the complaint about Christmas being “too commercial”. Charlie Brown bitches about it when Snoopy puts up Christmas lights on his dog house to win a cash prize in a contest and when Sally wants tens and twenties from Santa Claus.

What the fuck does that even mean? Too commercial? Is that basically the dumbass complaint about materialism?

Well, it did finally occur to me what this common complaint is about. The whole “you should buy this because Christmas” stuff. The implicit negligence of what the holiday is really about (a loaded question itself, but I digress) and exploiting its importance for profit.

So I’m understanding some more why I wasn’t seeing what this “commercialism” of Christmas means. Everything from decorations to cookies to bad reindeer sweaters involves buying something. Even the things that are homemade still require the purchase of materials and ingredients, so someone is still profiting. Not to mention the air fares and toll roads for those traveling. One way or another, Christmas is hellbent on parting you from your cash. Because commercialism. Because consumerism. Because avarice and greed.

Oh noes, Christmas is so corrupted!

Just one thing about that…

If it weren’t for Christmas being so economically beneficial, we probably wouldn’t be celebrating it.

We’ve only been celebrating Christmas as it is for a century and a half. I mean, obviously, Jesus and Mithra and countless winter solstice observances are significantly older, yes, but Christmas was never the big deal it is now until mid to late 19th century. As in around the time Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” was written. As in around the time “Visit from Saint Nicholas” was written. As in… around the time Thanksgiving was invented.

Yeah. That’s what Thanksgiving is about, too. It’s only been a holiday since around the late 19th century and the specific reason for it was to officially “open” the Christmas season. The pilgrim story was tacked on (which makes the complaints about Thanksgiving “celebrating genocide” just that much stupider). With the day before it being the busiest travel day and the day after it the biggest shopping day, yeah, it’s pretty cha-ching! Because the getting together with family and giving thanks is so important!

These things didn’t spring up overnight, of course. A number of shifts within our cultures led to the establishment of this more modern holiday season. Industrial revolution, mainly. That was also around the time the institution of childhood was seen as worthy of protection (something with a lot of youth rights effects, for sure!), and as such, there were more toys. And then toys for children at Christmas. Leading, of course, to toy and other industries benefiting from the Christmas gift giving, leading to stimulated economy.

Well, something like that. 😛

In any case, for something like Christmas to survive and be the big deal it is in our society, in our world in fact, there needs to be some tangible benefit in it. And that benefit is, of course, all the money that gets spent for Christmas reasons.

And the thing is, it’s not without benefits coming right back. Don’t just mean gifts. We get Christmas movies and Christmas songs that we love (for the most part). We get Christmas plays and parties. We get the exchange of Christmas stories. We get awesome decorations and twinkling lights. And, of course, cards and cookies! 😀

Irony shouldn’t be lost, though, that this commercialism of Christmas is even the reason we get Christmas TV specials like, say, Charlie Brown’s special where he bitches about commercialism!

Response

December 14, 2012

Oh, no. Seems there was a school shooting in Connecticut this morning. An elementary school shooting. 🙁

Just so fucking senseless. Something like 18 children are dead as of this writing. Little kids. What the hell could they have ever done to anybody?!

*bunch of people start talking*

Wait. What’s going on here?

“A shooting!” one squeals. “I’ll tell you what this means. It’s time we banned guns!”

Um, alright. I suppose.

“No!” squeals another. “This means we need MORE guns. If the teachers had guns on them, this wouldn’t have happened.”

Uh… huh? What is all this?

“How old was the assailant?” screams another. “Was he a student? A teenager perhaps? I tell you, this is a sign of just how rotten today’s kids are!”

Actually I hear the shooter was 24.

“I’ll tell you why this happened,” comes another voice. “It’s the schools. Public schools are awful places for children. This is why kids need to be pulled out of there.”

Wait, what? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

“If these kids were unschooled, this would not have happened!”

Home with parents is significantly more dangerous statistically than being at school. Also, fuck you. You’re victim blaming.

“It’s all because our society treats the mentally ill so terribly!” says another. “If this man had had the care he needed, this would not have happened.”

Um, yes, mentally handicapped should be treated well and have access to care. No argument there. It’s just rather offensive toward those with mental disabilities to imply they’re always on the verge of severe violence as this.

“We’re in such a violent society!” screams still another. “With all the violent TV and video games! I’m sure that’s what messed this guy up.”

Or is it that YOU hate violent TV and video games and just feel like acting like something you just happen to hate was responsible here?

“This all happened because people need a healthy dose of JESUS!” declares another. “If everyone would just remember the LORD, this would never happen.”

I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.

…

God forbid we blame the shooter. 🙄

No, instead let’s just use this as proof positive for whatever personal cause of ours and hope that people will finally “get it”. Just like they finally “got it” after Columbine. And 9/11. And the Amish school shooting. And the Dark Knight movie shooting. But maybe THIS time! You can always hope!

The Need to Learn

December 6, 2012

If you’ve seen some of my recent posts, you know I’m all about school reform and questioning the idea of compulsory schooling in general. There are people doing the same in all corners, including the unschooling community, doing so for their own different reasons. My reason is simply the rights of the student.

However, with many voices on this subject, you get many talking points. And as with any collection of talking points, you get some that are just plain stupid.

For the moment, I’ll focus on one.

“Why do I need to learn X? When am I ever going to use it?”

I admit it. That drives me up the damn wall. Well, truth be told, there are some times it’s a valid question. My brother is in third grade, and just like I had to in third grade, they’re making him learn cursive handwriting. He told me this and I was like “WTF? Why?” Come on, have you seen anyone write in cursive? There are some. And it is annoying as shit, because you can’t fucking read it. Not as quickly and easily as printed letters anyway. That seems to be one of those things they only continue to teach and require because adults just like the idea of children learning it, probably out of some ridiculous nostalgia.

But that is an exception, and there are a few others. The anti-school crowd, however, has a way of taking the “need to learn” idea to strange new levels. As in, they question the “need” to learn things like math, history, and science! Or at least certain portions of them.

“Why would I need to know algebra?!”
“Who needs to know the structure of the cell?!”
“How could I need to know about the French Revolution?!”

This goes beyond being anti-school. This is anti-intellectualism. This makes the subject matter itself out to be some sort of enemy, when what’s supposed to be the problem is the coercive mandatory nature of how it is being taught. Not to mention that some reasons I’ve seen from these people as to why certain (all?) subjects are “useless” are really fucking stupid.

I could go into why these subjects are in fact important, that even if they aren’t mandatory school subjects one should still learn them some way or another. History is important because to move forward as a society and human race, it helps to know where we’ve been. Developing good math skills has advantages just about anywhere. And scientific literacy may save your life some day, as that is what governs things like health and nutrition, among much more. And I’ll throw in language skills, so that people will actually be able to understand you, saving you and others much frustration.

Should someone stand over you and force you to memorize and practice these subjects under penalty of jail? Hell no. But that doesn’t mean learning these things isn’t still a good fucking idea anyway!

And even if it being a good idea is questionable, why exactly is extra knowledge being treated like a bad thing?

Snape

December 5, 2012

I hereby decree…

Snape was an asshole.

Alright, if a warning is still needed five years later, the following contains Harry Potter spoilers.

Okay then…

Severus Snape was an asshole and deserved what was obviously an awful death by Nagini the snake.

Oh, what’s that? He was a selfless hero?

Maybe. He might have actively tried to save Harry’s life a couple of times and was integral in Voldemort’s downfall. But it doesn’t change the fact that he was an asshole.

It doesn’t change the fact that, having saved him or not, he still treated Harry like shit for several years. Ron and Hermione, too.

Okay, Snape was butthurt that James Potter bullied him at school and married the girl he was in love with. I can see how that sucks. But treating their son like crap about it, their son who never did a thing to him except be James Potter’s son, is inexcusable.

And yet, at the end, we find Harry has given his second son the middle name “Severus” and was telling him that the man his middle name comes from was the bravest man he had ever known. Snape hands Harry a memory strand as his last action, and suddenly Harry forgets everything else and decides Snape should be ordained as a saint or something.

It’s an interesting philosophical thought, though. Recognizing someone for having done something heroic despite that person having in general been a total vindictive asshole. One might call it forgiveness. But this goes beyond forgiveness. This is reverence. Reverence by the main person to whom this otherwise hero was decidedly awful. And it wasn’t even for-his-own-good awfulness. None of the other Hogwarts professors were anywhere near as disrespectful and downright cruel to Harry as Snape was (well, except for Umbridge, of course!). And that’s even considering the two who turned out to be active Death Eaters. There was no reason for it. I mean, sure, he was helpful and heroic and brave and all that when it came to taking down Voldemort. But why be a jerk to Harry? Because he was sad and heartbroken about Lily?

And even then, that didn’t explain why he was nasty to Ron, Hermione, and Neville. And to anyone who wasn’t in Slytherin for that matter.

Come on, Harry, should have named him Albus Remus instead.

Somethingmas

December 4, 2012

So I’m checking out some Christmas songs on YouTube. As a general habit, I click the Show More on the video description, not to read more of it but to hide the top comments. But sometimes I still see them. And my brain cells suffer for it.

Without fail, for a number of Christmas songs, the top most-liked comment will be something along the lines of “What a beautiful song! Let’s keep the CHRIST in CHRISTmas!” It might elaborate more than that, perhaps going into the commenter’s deep deep faith and how happy they are that the artist performing the song chose to step away from their usual music to honor Jesus at Christmas or something (even though many singers and bands who do Christmas songs, even the nativity ones, aren’t necessarily Christian).

*sigh* *hangs head* *removes glasses* *pinches bridge of nose*

Are these people for real? Yeah, yeah, I know. YouTube commenters. I should be glad they weren’t plugging Ron Paul or calling the uploader or singer any number of homophobic slurs. But it of course goes well beyond YouTube. It’s old fashioned Christian self-righteousness, with extra insecurity!

It’s really obnoxious. It’s a seemingly innocent comment that’s obviously meant to say “fuck you, non-Christians! don’t get your filth all over our holiday!” Though it’s not meant necessarily for the non-Christians (who tear apart that sentiment handily). It’s said to score points with their fellow Christians with the same obsessive clinging. And it works.

Let’s proselytize by telling people they aren’t celebrating this holiday exactly the way we want them to, because we think we own it, and that means they are wrong wrong wrong!

And then I realize how sad it is. Because most of the people who express sentiment like this are so cloistered within their congregation or community. They’ve probably never actually met a non-Christian (outside of online flame wars, that is). Now, to be sure, this is NOT an “all Christians” thing. Not by a long shot. Plenty of Christians are perfectly intelligent. And they aren’t the ones I’m talking about here.

No, these are people who, when they express sentiment like this, are probably hoping this makes Grandma proud. Or would if she hadn’t died 60 years ago. In any case, it’s pride in that they’re pushing that they’re doing Christmas “correctly” (somehow). They’re probably waiting for a gold star and a cookie. Or, being Christmas, a star-shaped sugar cookie with yellow crystals. Or is that somehow not Jesus-enough?

Because what exactly entails “keeping the Christ in Christmas”, no one really knows, not even the people saying it. What would they have anyone do? Do nothing at Christmas except go to church and maybe have a nice meal? Boring. Are they worried that the nativity story might be forgotten? Yeah, not happening. It’s already in there pretty solidly. Hell, the story of Rudolph was invented by Montgomery Ward less than a century ago, and even that I would doubt anyone would forget anytime soon, so why on earth do they think anyone would forget the story of Jesus’s birth?

Well, the answer to that is paranoia. They have been conditioned to believe everyone is out to take away their crosses or something. There are countries where this would be a realistic fear, but chances are these people are in the United States, where this is not a realistic fear, being a country where a politician who states proudly that he is a creationist remains viable while an atheist barely stands a chance.

Or maybe they really aren’t even thinking that deeply about it. It might just be nothing more than, well, wanting that star-shaped cookie. Because they remembered Jesus and that makes them better than you. And that’s what Christmas is all about! 😛

Your Head Is a Stone Tablet

December 1, 2012

Now for an ancient predictive edition of…

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!

Will you idiots shut up about the Mayans already? Seriously, this is actually worse than the Y2K bullshit. Or that crap from last year with the May 21 apocalypse because some fundamentalist radio show asshole said so. Or 11/11/11 of course.

I mean, I’m not sure what there is to even say. Yet people keep bringing it up. Not usually with much seriousness, but still. Why is this ridiculous stone tablet nonsense even getting an ounce of attention? Why are any doomsday predictions getting an ounce of attention? The jokes and memes that this December 21 thing must be true because of some random other occurrence (Snooki having a baby, Twinkies being gone, etc.) aren’t even remotely funny. Just mind-numbing.

Or maybe the mentions are for the purpose of making fun of it. Well, no reason to make fun of the Mayans really. And it wasn’t even really a prediction. It was more like the stone tablet ran out of space. And people interpreting the tablets freaked out. Or they didn’t, but plenty of others picked up on it and decided to freak. Something like that. And now we have to hear all these annoying allusions to it. To something that isn’t even anything!

If you people want the world to end so much, well, there are plenty of cliffs and bridges around. Try diving off them.

Parental Instincts

September 30, 2012

All parents love their children, right? All parents want what’s best for their children, right? All parents would do anything to protect and help their children, correct?

You really believe that?

I mean, I’m sure that truly does describe a lot of parents. It’s certainly a cute sentiment. But when you look hard enough, it’s far from universal, and assuming it is leads to a lot of ridiculous assumptions.

If unconditional parental love were truly so universal, why are so many children killed because they did not meet some standard?

Why are infants in some societies killed or left for dead because they happened to be female, an act to be found anywhere from the ancient Greek myth of Atalanta to some modern-day Asian societies, and plenty of times and places in between?

Why are many children and teenagers throughout the world killed by their parents or other relatives because they “dishonored” their families in some way, such as having sex out of wedlock, being gay, disavowing the family’s religion, or some other stupid reason?

Even in modern-day USA, you find this behavior. When Nebraska had a loophole in their safe-haven law (which allows for newborn babies to be left at hospitals or other places to be put into foster care) in that it did not specify an upper age limit, parents were traveling in droves to Nebraska to abandon their children, some of them in their upper teens!

You get the accidental deaths of small children that one might wonder just how “accidental” it truly was. I mean, these theoretically could have been accidental. Hanlon’s razor and all. But if it were intentional, would it look any different?

Look at all the kids and teens in foster care because their parents were abusive or negligent. Look at all the homeless teens, a disproportionate number of whom are LGBT, left without a home or family because that family shunned them.

Look at the teens sent off to behavior modification facilities to be tortured. While many parents who do so do it without knowing the place is abusive, well, bullshit. What, you don’t learn what you can about a place before sending your kid there? Many places with plain as day allegations of severe abuse are still getting kids sent there. The parents either are stupid and didn’t bother to properly research the place. Or… the torture is exactly what they sought. They not only wanted their child sent away; they wanted their child to suffer.

With all this and so so so much more, how is it possible for anyone to continue to entertain any notion that unconditional parental love is a natural universal thing? Clearly it isn’t, because societal and cultural expectations keep taking priority. Or even just plain selfishness, instability, or whatever else. Or some bizarre sense of doing the kids a favor.

I’m not saying unconditional parental love doesn’t exist. Of course it does. It is widespread. But it is not universal or guaranteed. And requires a lot of rechecking the definitions of “unconditional” and “love”.

Education Policy

August 27, 2012

Education policy can go to hell.

Really.

You know what it is, when politicians and “experts” and whatever other adults get together and talk about education policy? Exploitation.

True, this is something I’ve talked about before. But even beyond what I wrote there, it goes so much deeper.

I just saw a Facebook posting by a nice organization called Our Time, sort of a youth rights org geared primarily at young adults. It was a little cartoon showing Chinese and Indian students studying hard (due to their countries supposedly investing more in education) while the American student is just listening to his iPod and chewing gum. They proceeded to ask whether education should be made a bigger priority here like in those countries, asking those who didn’t think so to explain in the comments.

So I did:

I’m wary of simply comparing ourselves to other countries without taking a good hard look at what the cultural and other differences actually are that result in the findings, or even whether the right aspects are being measured. Too often the political solution to wanting to compete with other nations not only fails to truly look for what’s being done differently (and when it’s a cultural thing, it’s not something any political decisions can do anything about anyway), but it usually translates to “work our students harder” which leads to third graders getting six hours of homework every night, and other egregious ways the lives of those under 18 are being made to have no other meaning or importance than their schooling. Behind the global comparisons and hand wringing over education policy (where only adults are discussing it) are the REAL individual lives of the students who are at their mercy.

It was while I was typing that I had a realization. Several realizations actually.
Continue reading “Education Policy”

Tanner Upstaged

August 13, 2012

Now for a feminine pubescent edition of…

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!

Anyone who says anything along the lines of “Girls today are starting puberty at younger ages!” And goes on to treat it like some utter catastrophe. A serious problem for today’s kids. Something we must absolutely do something about to protect little girl innocence! Eeeek!

*facepalm* *sigh*

Oh, concern trolling, such a frequent opponent to youth rights feminism!

Okay, time for some unpacking of bullshit.

1. Not only is the claim that the age of female puberty is steadily getting younger questionable, but those shrieking about this “problem” often either don’t specify ages or the ages they do specify, usually around 10 or 11, are still within the normal range of puberty (ages 8 to 16). And even so, they’re usually talking about onset, which is the development of breasts (which doesn’t exactly happen overnight), as opposed to first period, which is often a couple years later. Breasts budding at 10 or 11 means the period shows up around 12 or 13, which is totally fucking normal! And even the ones who get their periods at 10 or 11 might be earlier than average but it’s not abnormal, and for every one of them, there are girls who start it at 14 or 15.
Continue reading “Tanner Upstaged”

Protect the Squeamish Ageist Adults!

June 21, 2012

Nothing like sitting through an R-rated movie being played on basic cable, with half the dialogue either changed or silenced because of “offensive language”. When I think about it, it’s really offensive to me that it’s censored at all. How stupid do you think I am, that I can’t handle the word fuck? That you need to protect my gentle ears from hearing it.

Oh, what’s that? I’m 29 so I’m not one of the people being protected by this? Well, I must be, because it’s still censored. I’d have to either watch this movie on a premium movie channel (which I don’t get) or rent or buy it. Hmm. Maybe it’s a marketing move in that way. Even though I have no real interest in buying the movie anyway.

Ah, but the official reason is that the censorship is to “protect the children” from hearing these naughty words.

First of all, as I say frequently, so what if they hear (or say) these words?

Second of all, it’s interesting what words are and aren’t okay. Watch Forrest Gump on TNT. They have to blur out the “Shit Happens” bumper sticker, yet in a few scenes the N-word is said and is visibly written in the background, totally uncensored. An almost meaningless word for feces is unacceptable, yet they greenlight a racial slur? Um, racial slurs are the ACTUAL bad offensive words! Should they be censored? No. But if censoring offensive things is the idea, you’d think that’d be the first thing!

Third of all, my 8-year-old brother and I were watching Family Guy recently, and there was one line where a word was bleeped. He promptly turned to me and said “I know what he said! He said fuck!” Yeah, even the people you’re hiding the words from totally know what words go there. So… fail.

And… how many children do you know who have been contacting the FCC complaining that something on the TV was too mature for their fragile little minds? Oh, there are children who buy into the “bad words are bad for kids” thing. Hell, I grudgingly admit that when I was 11 I was sort of one of them. The reason wasn’t that I actually believed that, though. I only held the idea because I knew such a belief was pleasing to the adults around me. It was prior to my realization that my age kept the adults from respecting me no matter what I did, that beliefs like this just made them happy I was being their lap dog. And so many kids buy into that at their peers’ expense. But that’s what it comes down to. The desire to please adults is why some kids are against “swear words”, not that they have some personal conviction (well, some might).

No, the people who scream back and forth over appropriateness of media content is entirely adults. It is the supposedly mature adults who can’t handle the idea of kids hearing someone say “bullshit” or seeing an accidental half-time show nipple slip. You know who can handle it just fine? The kids themselves!

Seriously, that nipple thing. Everybody has nipples! Half of them have the dreaded baby-feeding female nipples! They need only look down to see nipples. Children are only a few years past being the ones feeding from those nipples, and I hope somebody told the little girls they’ll be growing those things before too long. Censoring body parts? Do these complaining people not shower, because they might realize they have these evil parts? And the ones who are parents, how did that happen, as that happens through having sex which involves – gasp! – being naked!

Conveniently, it seems it’s only adult nudity they’re (usually) all that pissy about. Interesting.

Let’s be honest. There is no censorship that protects children. It only protects adults. Or, no, not really. It protects no one.

And the “protect the children” thing is just an excuse anyway. They only say that because “hide words and things that make squeamish adults cry” sounds less noble. Maybe we should stick to calling it what it is.

In other news, a Michigan legislator just recently got in trouble for saying “vagina” on the House floor. And people think teens aren’t mature enough to vote?!

This has been Day 29 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 12. Summertime!