I still have the aborted topic of Christianity's culture war to deal with but I think I am going to let that simmer for just one more day before I dive back into it. Part of the problem is that I wanted to do two things at the same time. Talk about Holy Ghost people as a movie and talk about Christianity's culture war. One can lead into the other and ultimately this is going to be part one and the culture war post is going to be part two. Or something like that. Anyway for those looking for a review go see Holy Ghost people it is pretty fucking fantastic.
Holy Ghost people takes place in an economically depressed area and up on the hill there is a group of people who make their own laws and it is a place were there police don't go. It is a set up we've seen before in Winter's Bone and Out of the Furnace. To a lesser degree Gummo shares the same setting but none of the same themes. These are movies are examine the developing 3rd world that is happening in our nation and that we are doing fuck all to stop it. These are people that are being relentlessly left behind. Some turn to lives of crime and others to religion. It is an interesting setting. These movies all feature the desperate and fucked. Holy Ghost People does so in particular. The main character explains that the easiest way to find help is to find someone worse off than you are. It didn't seem like she had to look that hard.
What's interesting is that the Church was a place of joy, laugture, and well it was an island of hope in a sea of utter disrepair. Down in the city everything was falling apart. The whole world looked like it was crubling but up on sugar mountain it looked more charmingly rustic than ruined. These people made a life for themselves. It is a weird life that involves them handing poisonous snakes every evening while singing hymns but a life nonetheless. Taking a page from "Tod Browning's Freaks" notebook right up until the end of the movie the church was actually a really cool place. The gentleman she brought with her for help got converted and not in a stupid fake way either. His conversion was gradual and it felt right. More than that though is that when the shit comes to light and hits the fan his anger is the anger of being betrayed. He is a man who wanted to believe and is instead let down...but not out.
The ending is interesting. There is a mild firefight. The preacher's muscle is killed. The preacher kills himself. The man takes the young girl who dragged him up to this damn church and another girl who is his blossiming love interest, puts them in a car and sends them away. He could of easily of gotten into the car with them but he stayed with the other church folk. I'm not sure what to do with this information really, no man is the center of the church and I imagine that a snake handling church has a relatively high turnover rate for preachers so maybe he'll be able to stay and live happily ever after. Or not. Characterization is one of the movie's great strengths and I can't help but care about the people who I spent the last 88 minutes with.
One of the youtube comments I read for the trailed expressed disappointment that there is yet another movie where Christians are the bad guys. Yet I don't think it's so easy to make that distinction with Holy Ghost People. Alright it is easy to write the preacher off as a villainous cult leader and the people of the church as a bunch of psychopaths. It is super easy the last thing we see them do is tie a young woman to a post and they are about to stone her to death. We know she isn't the first one, or the second. However, as the camera pans over the crowd there is a lot of indecision as to what they are doing and if it is correct. To break this moment down into bad guys and good guys is a gross oversimplification that may be convenient but it doesn't particularly capture what's going on. The people going to this church aren't evil. This isn't the Kill List. Oh god that movie fucked me up for days. However, well, guess there is no dancing around it but lets face it group think will fuck people up and religion can cause normal people who have all sorts of common sense to believe the stupidest things. If anything the movie is a warning about letting your priest run away with the congregation and less about the condemnation of Christianity as a whole. Heck the movie wasn't even interested in larger Christian themes it's just that the snake handling sect of Christianity makes for a sexy topic for a movie.
I'd even go so far as to say that the Preacher wasn't evil either, but he was lost. Shortly before he tried to have the girl stoned to death he married her. It is revealed that the same thing happened to her sister in the same order. The marriage didn't seem like the end result was consummation (SEX) but rather it was a direct seguway into her stoning. Previously when the preacher mentions his wife and her death he does so with sadness, and a bit of wistfulness. Yes he lies but he lies just enough to keep things going and he only lied to the outsiders. There is a great scene where the preacher gets called out for being a small man who is caught up on a power trip and his response is so down to earth and well adjusted that I'm still sold on it. Even after I've found out that he had several girls tied to a stake and stoned to death. The man they got to play the preacher has some powerful god damned charisma to him. I'll give him that. However, the movie also gives his character space and time to develop. He's a complex man with a past that we don't get to learn in its entirety. He could of been a great man and a true leader to those people and instead he lead them to ruin, simply because he didn't know any better. His story is a majestically tragic one.
Why? Religion makes people do some zany shit. Religion has both its good sides and its bad but lets face it, it makes people do some strange things. Things that they consider normal. Things that become normal but when we get to the outside world they aren't normal at all. They are horrible. Imma stop here because I am staring to get into the culture war which is good! But I want that to thoroughly be its own post. DONE!
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Friday, March 14, 2014
Ramblings of the Day!
I should by trying again on the blog post I wrote last night but I don't feel like it. I am feeling pretty groovy and I am in no mood to visit the past. So onwards and upwards. The problem is that I am having a hard time coming up with a subject for a long post. So I think I'll just write a bunch of little things until I am happy.
I realized at some point today that my disapointment with the movie Bag Man stemmed from my own desire to watch another David Lynch movie or show rather than any actual problem with the movie itself. The movie starts weird and it has the potential to get weirder. I wanted it to go all out and to show that the world we know is just a scab over an infected wound and when we pick at it just a bit all sorts of crazy shit starts to happen. The whole set up doesn't make sense. Cussack has a bag and he has to go to the hotel to protect said bag. Then for whatever reason it seems like everyone and their mother know all about the fucking bag and they are trying to take it from him. Everyone from the creepy hotel owner, to the tall black man and his Russian midget friend, to some fake FBI agents, to the local insane cops. Everything from the way the movie is shot, to its bizzarre lighting, to the case showcases a situation that defies any sort of sense whatsoever. Best of all Cussack's character realizes this and he's facted with the constant question of what the fuck is going on. Interspersed will all this is his menacing boss slowly but surely making his way towards the hotel. To what end? Who knows?
However, as the movie goes on everything gets explained, and not in some stupid hand wavey fashion either but actually explained. Best of all is that they don't hand hold you through the explanation. For awhile I couldn't figure out the motivation of the girl. The girl, like David's Prometheus, had all the information as to what was going on but didn't want to share it. Then right as I was about to go home I figgured out her endgame. It is a damn clever movie that will only be seen by like 10 people and appreciated by maybe 4. It isn't quite at the level of Way of the Gun but it is pretty close.
I still want a new David Lynch movie or at least someone trying to rip off his style. Fuck.
I like to kick around board game design sometimes. It never really goes anywhere but it is a type of creativity I don't get to use very often and it is a fun and interesting challange. I like to write out a list of goals and then institute designs in order to meet them. Currently I am kicking around a post apocalyptic base building game. It is worker placement but closer to the style of Eclipse or Twilight Imperium than say Agricola. Each player will have a base and some nearby reasources that they can gather. However, in order to progress they are going to have to venture out into the wilderness where they can discover lost technology, better sources of goods, specialists to help them build things, and whathave you. I want the whole thing to be card based because it is easy to break cards out and it is easy to make components for card games.
So each player will have a starting hand of cards that has stuff that is specific to their faction. There will also be other decks of basic cards that everyone can build such as warehouses, farms, houses, that sort of thing. However, if they want to get their economy going they are going to have to explore the wasteland which will be in the form of a deck in the center. The center deck will have things like, NPCs that you can trade with, permentate resource gathering spots, special artifacts or technology, skilled workers, essentially a mix of permenate wasteland features and temporary ones. It will take fuel to get to the wasteland and to get home again. Making trips to the wasteland will be the main source of victory points for the players.
However, there will be overlapping victory conditions because I want combat to be a thing. The way I want combat to work is first the player needs to move a raiding force into the wastelands. Since most wastelands cards will have some sort of combat involved this isn't in of itself suspicious everyone will have to do it. However, then once the raiding force is in the wastelands it can then target another player. It will take one turn to get to the wasteland and another turn to get to the other player's base and the target of the raid has to be announced a turn ahead of time. This will give the defending player one turn to prepare. This represents the defending player's scouts and whatnot.
The thing is that I am having a hard time deciding what sort of combat I want. Initially I was just going to go with attack total +modifiers vs defense total +modifers= number of d6's rolled 5's and 6's are successes and whomever wins gets stuff.
However towards the end of my lunch break I was thinking that maybe instead I might wanna make combat a bit of an event. Something that involves a hand of lets say 3 rock paper scissor like cards and three special cards unique to every faction. I am thinking I like this better because I want every faction to play radically differently from each other and having more stuff that the other guy doesn't have will help this out.
The basic design goals of the game were to allow the players to feel like they are building a little settlement. To have it seat anywhere from 2-6 players. To be asymmetrical. The be expandable in all sorts of different and exciting ways.
Currently it is at the minimum on the heavier side of things and it is staring to resemble more Clash of Cultures, Merchants and Mauraders, Eclipse in terms of game play style. Considering that the original concept was a deck building game we've made quite a drastic shift. Like I said I want to keep it wholely card based because they are easier to transport. I am still in the vauge concept phase now but I think I'm going to start hammering out fine details. If I get to that point I'll ask for help.
Alright I am satisfied with the amount I've written time for Minecraft!
I realized at some point today that my disapointment with the movie Bag Man stemmed from my own desire to watch another David Lynch movie or show rather than any actual problem with the movie itself. The movie starts weird and it has the potential to get weirder. I wanted it to go all out and to show that the world we know is just a scab over an infected wound and when we pick at it just a bit all sorts of crazy shit starts to happen. The whole set up doesn't make sense. Cussack has a bag and he has to go to the hotel to protect said bag. Then for whatever reason it seems like everyone and their mother know all about the fucking bag and they are trying to take it from him. Everyone from the creepy hotel owner, to the tall black man and his Russian midget friend, to some fake FBI agents, to the local insane cops. Everything from the way the movie is shot, to its bizzarre lighting, to the case showcases a situation that defies any sort of sense whatsoever. Best of all Cussack's character realizes this and he's facted with the constant question of what the fuck is going on. Interspersed will all this is his menacing boss slowly but surely making his way towards the hotel. To what end? Who knows?
However, as the movie goes on everything gets explained, and not in some stupid hand wavey fashion either but actually explained. Best of all is that they don't hand hold you through the explanation. For awhile I couldn't figure out the motivation of the girl. The girl, like David's Prometheus, had all the information as to what was going on but didn't want to share it. Then right as I was about to go home I figgured out her endgame. It is a damn clever movie that will only be seen by like 10 people and appreciated by maybe 4. It isn't quite at the level of Way of the Gun but it is pretty close.
I still want a new David Lynch movie or at least someone trying to rip off his style. Fuck.
I like to kick around board game design sometimes. It never really goes anywhere but it is a type of creativity I don't get to use very often and it is a fun and interesting challange. I like to write out a list of goals and then institute designs in order to meet them. Currently I am kicking around a post apocalyptic base building game. It is worker placement but closer to the style of Eclipse or Twilight Imperium than say Agricola. Each player will have a base and some nearby reasources that they can gather. However, in order to progress they are going to have to venture out into the wilderness where they can discover lost technology, better sources of goods, specialists to help them build things, and whathave you. I want the whole thing to be card based because it is easy to break cards out and it is easy to make components for card games.
So each player will have a starting hand of cards that has stuff that is specific to their faction. There will also be other decks of basic cards that everyone can build such as warehouses, farms, houses, that sort of thing. However, if they want to get their economy going they are going to have to explore the wasteland which will be in the form of a deck in the center. The center deck will have things like, NPCs that you can trade with, permentate resource gathering spots, special artifacts or technology, skilled workers, essentially a mix of permenate wasteland features and temporary ones. It will take fuel to get to the wasteland and to get home again. Making trips to the wasteland will be the main source of victory points for the players.
However, there will be overlapping victory conditions because I want combat to be a thing. The way I want combat to work is first the player needs to move a raiding force into the wastelands. Since most wastelands cards will have some sort of combat involved this isn't in of itself suspicious everyone will have to do it. However, then once the raiding force is in the wastelands it can then target another player. It will take one turn to get to the wasteland and another turn to get to the other player's base and the target of the raid has to be announced a turn ahead of time. This will give the defending player one turn to prepare. This represents the defending player's scouts and whatnot.
The thing is that I am having a hard time deciding what sort of combat I want. Initially I was just going to go with attack total +modifiers vs defense total +modifers= number of d6's rolled 5's and 6's are successes and whomever wins gets stuff.
However towards the end of my lunch break I was thinking that maybe instead I might wanna make combat a bit of an event. Something that involves a hand of lets say 3 rock paper scissor like cards and three special cards unique to every faction. I am thinking I like this better because I want every faction to play radically differently from each other and having more stuff that the other guy doesn't have will help this out.
The basic design goals of the game were to allow the players to feel like they are building a little settlement. To have it seat anywhere from 2-6 players. To be asymmetrical. The be expandable in all sorts of different and exciting ways.
Currently it is at the minimum on the heavier side of things and it is staring to resemble more Clash of Cultures, Merchants and Mauraders, Eclipse in terms of game play style. Considering that the original concept was a deck building game we've made quite a drastic shift. Like I said I want to keep it wholely card based because they are easier to transport. I am still in the vauge concept phase now but I think I'm going to start hammering out fine details. If I get to that point I'll ask for help.
Alright I am satisfied with the amount I've written time for Minecraft!
The Culture War and Christianity
Recently, I watched this movie called Holy Ghost people which is a fantastic little low budget indie film that manages to pack a hell of a lot into its 88 minute run time. When I went to go post a link to the trailer on my facebook wall so that my friends would look it up and possibly watch it my eyes unwillingly flicked to the comment section where I saw things like:
So lets begin shall we? This movie isn't unique in putting Christianity in a bad light. There is Red State which is a direct slam against the Westero god hates fags assholes, Jesus Camp, But I'm a Cheerleader, the last season of Big Love, and all that's just off the top of my head. Christians like to talk about persecution. I think it is mostly because they are afraid of actually experiencing it rather than experiencing it proper but what do I know.
As an outsider looking in, yes there is indeed a conflict of culture going on. It is also one that Christians aren't doing to well in. The problem is that it is mostly their fault and they don't like to hear that but come on it is really easy. Setting aside Westero Baptist, the fact that christianity has been stolen by the tea party, the kkk, and any other group of nuts that want to justify whatever fucked up thing they are up to. Heck we can even set aside the occasional abortion clinic bombing or its really fucked up history in America. Taking all that and setting it aside we are left with two culturally problematic pieces of resistance.
1) They have little to no interest in policing themselves as a religion as a whole.
2) Is that a large number of Christians are dead set on everyone else following their code of morality no matter if they like it or not.
Before I go further I'd like to say that most Christians are nice, mentally balanced, well rounded people, who have a mix of wisdom and compassion. When I say most I fucking mean it. I don't mean most of my friends so in case one of them read it they know I am not talking about them because they should know that already. I mean MOST OF THEM in America as a whole are pretty decent god damn people. However, that doesn't matter because of point 1. See a lot of people have a superficial view of Christianity and lets face it for a religion that talks so much about flocks and shepherds they don't do dick when it comes to policing each other. Let's set aside the Westboro fuckwads and focus on the local scene. Churches form a community within the church themselves but most churches are isolated from each other. I've been a to a fuckton of churches over the years and I haven't seen very much in interchurch events, churches banding together in times of crisis to help the needy, churches working as a team to tackle social issues. No for the most part churches are in of themselves insular. As a result some churches end up weird. Really weird I went to an honest to god cult meeting once dressed up like it was a normal run of the mill 1st Baptist Church. There are some large Christian organizations but they aren't doing enough to undo the damage that some of their lost flock members are off causing. As a result their overall perception suffers. For those local to Pensacola Father Nathan Monk is a bit of a local hero and rightly so. He's a good guy and if more people stood up like him against the tyranny of the terrible flock members then Christianity could get some serious legs under it again. Unfortunately to many Christians just give the extremists a pass.
I don't know or really care how this is supposed to come to pass. I am not a Christian nor do I plan to become one. However, if Christianity is everything it is supposed to be then it is the most important thing those people are going to do on this earth and they can't really get some good going if they are going to allow the behavior of their extremists to continue unchecked.
Part of the problem that comes with checking the extremists is the conflict of, "Well they are right...we just don't agree with their methods". Harking back to Westboro, "Does god hate?" yeah well sure and since a lot of Christians don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle then what do you do? Tell them to please not be so mean about it? To have some tact? How do you tell someone to shut up when you agree with them? It is a tough question to answer but then again I don't have a problem with homosexuality so it is a lot easier for me.
This brings me neatly to point two. For the first point I focused heavily on Westboro but they aren't the real problem. They are a problem. But it is something that could be easily solved is the Christian community got together and told those people to shut the fuck up or at least if the Christian community banned together to say we condemn these people and pray that they come back to the light. There should be a constant prayer circle in front of their church trying to help them. However, they are, at most, a side show. A cartoon that this there for the amusement of the news and nothing else. All they do is ruin the days of the people whoes lives they affect. The bigger problem is that Christianity demands that everyone needs to believe what they believe. Gay marriage needs to remain illegal because the bible says so. Not because of any demonstrable danger to society and not to protect individuals from hurting themselves or others. Nope just because they believe, with no actual evidence to back it up.
Abortion is even worse. If they wanted less abortions. I mean REALLY wanted less abortions then they would set up an interchurch foster care system, they would pay women to bring their children to term and they would take care of them. They would offer women who bring their children to term support and a home. They would go out of their way to give women as many alternatives to abortion as possible. Instead we have the call for laws and protests. The laws are a particular brand of fucked up because they don't actually stop the abortions they just make sure that women get punished. We've all heard this shit before moving on.
Then there is the evolution debacle. Holy shit when Christians wanna get weird about something they go all out. These people are actually building a fucking ark. Millions of dollars have gone into this completely useless testament that Noah's Ark happened and that evolution is shit. Over 30 million dollars have been raised to build this stupid thing. Imagine all the good these people could of done instead of spending 30 million on a boat?
As an outsider I see all these things and I see a drive to force non Christians to conform to Christian law if we like it or not and that's messed up. As an outsider I don't like it. No one likes it really except the Christians who are to wrapped up in themselves to see reality. So on the one hand we have Christians complaining about the lack of faith in the millennial generation and how the country is slipping further away from Christian beleifs. Then on the other hand we have, God hates fags, giant boats, abortion clinic protests, and Christians who feel the need to walk up and pester you while you are reading. I called it a culture war in my title not because it is the rest of the world versus the Christians though it may feel like that from time to time.
The worst enemy of Christianity is Christianity. For every 100 amazing Christians there is one lunatic. The problem is that the lunatic is 100 times louder than all the good Christians and that's what we see. We see a group of people who want to pass ineffective laws so they can feel smug in their own morality, and who want to push their beliefs on us and it doesn't work. I don't hate the religion any more than I hate its practitioners. I recognize that it is a vast religion with people from all walks of life. But when they let the lunatics stand at the forefront then it becomes much easier to see why people don't like them very much. Failure to deal with the internal problems will rip the religion apart. Oh well.
"just another movie to make Christian people look bad and blaspheme God. What a shame!" -chazbo34
"Oh, Christians are the bad guys again while satanism promoted by Gaga, Katy Perry, Jay Z, Marilyn Manson is good..." ImmortalCataphract
"Making vampires, demons, ghosts look fun & cool. Also, making churches, religion look bad and anti social, that's the weird, evil, satanic hollywood's plan now, too obvious." -~ Bright Romeo ~ (this one is my favorite)
Here is the trailer for those to lazy to look it up themselves:
Normally I laugh off the contents of the youtube comment area but this struck me. Holy Ghost people is a low budget independent movie that you would only hear of if you follow an indie movie news feed like twitch or something like that. How these people, who have no interest in the movie, heard of it I will never know. I am curious though. Anyway though out my work day it stuck with me. Since I wanted to write more here in this blog I figure this would be a good time.
Here is the trailer for those to lazy to look it up themselves:
Normally I laugh off the contents of the youtube comment area but this struck me. Holy Ghost people is a low budget independent movie that you would only hear of if you follow an indie movie news feed like twitch or something like that. How these people, who have no interest in the movie, heard of it I will never know. I am curious though. Anyway though out my work day it stuck with me. Since I wanted to write more here in this blog I figure this would be a good time.
So lets begin shall we? This movie isn't unique in putting Christianity in a bad light. There is Red State which is a direct slam against the Westero god hates fags assholes, Jesus Camp, But I'm a Cheerleader, the last season of Big Love, and all that's just off the top of my head. Christians like to talk about persecution. I think it is mostly because they are afraid of actually experiencing it rather than experiencing it proper but what do I know.
As an outsider looking in, yes there is indeed a conflict of culture going on. It is also one that Christians aren't doing to well in. The problem is that it is mostly their fault and they don't like to hear that but come on it is really easy. Setting aside Westero Baptist, the fact that christianity has been stolen by the tea party, the kkk, and any other group of nuts that want to justify whatever fucked up thing they are up to. Heck we can even set aside the occasional abortion clinic bombing or its really fucked up history in America. Taking all that and setting it aside we are left with two culturally problematic pieces of resistance.
1) They have little to no interest in policing themselves as a religion as a whole.
2) Is that a large number of Christians are dead set on everyone else following their code of morality no matter if they like it or not.
Before I go further I'd like to say that most Christians are nice, mentally balanced, well rounded people, who have a mix of wisdom and compassion. When I say most I fucking mean it. I don't mean most of my friends so in case one of them read it they know I am not talking about them because they should know that already. I mean MOST OF THEM in America as a whole are pretty decent god damn people. However, that doesn't matter because of point 1. See a lot of people have a superficial view of Christianity and lets face it for a religion that talks so much about flocks and shepherds they don't do dick when it comes to policing each other. Let's set aside the Westboro fuckwads and focus on the local scene. Churches form a community within the church themselves but most churches are isolated from each other. I've been a to a fuckton of churches over the years and I haven't seen very much in interchurch events, churches banding together in times of crisis to help the needy, churches working as a team to tackle social issues. No for the most part churches are in of themselves insular. As a result some churches end up weird. Really weird I went to an honest to god cult meeting once dressed up like it was a normal run of the mill 1st Baptist Church. There are some large Christian organizations but they aren't doing enough to undo the damage that some of their lost flock members are off causing. As a result their overall perception suffers. For those local to Pensacola Father Nathan Monk is a bit of a local hero and rightly so. He's a good guy and if more people stood up like him against the tyranny of the terrible flock members then Christianity could get some serious legs under it again. Unfortunately to many Christians just give the extremists a pass.
I don't know or really care how this is supposed to come to pass. I am not a Christian nor do I plan to become one. However, if Christianity is everything it is supposed to be then it is the most important thing those people are going to do on this earth and they can't really get some good going if they are going to allow the behavior of their extremists to continue unchecked.
Part of the problem that comes with checking the extremists is the conflict of, "Well they are right...we just don't agree with their methods". Harking back to Westboro, "Does god hate?" yeah well sure and since a lot of Christians don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle then what do you do? Tell them to please not be so mean about it? To have some tact? How do you tell someone to shut up when you agree with them? It is a tough question to answer but then again I don't have a problem with homosexuality so it is a lot easier for me.
This brings me neatly to point two. For the first point I focused heavily on Westboro but they aren't the real problem. They are a problem. But it is something that could be easily solved is the Christian community got together and told those people to shut the fuck up or at least if the Christian community banned together to say we condemn these people and pray that they come back to the light. There should be a constant prayer circle in front of their church trying to help them. However, they are, at most, a side show. A cartoon that this there for the amusement of the news and nothing else. All they do is ruin the days of the people whoes lives they affect. The bigger problem is that Christianity demands that everyone needs to believe what they believe. Gay marriage needs to remain illegal because the bible says so. Not because of any demonstrable danger to society and not to protect individuals from hurting themselves or others. Nope just because they believe, with no actual evidence to back it up.
Abortion is even worse. If they wanted less abortions. I mean REALLY wanted less abortions then they would set up an interchurch foster care system, they would pay women to bring their children to term and they would take care of them. They would offer women who bring their children to term support and a home. They would go out of their way to give women as many alternatives to abortion as possible. Instead we have the call for laws and protests. The laws are a particular brand of fucked up because they don't actually stop the abortions they just make sure that women get punished. We've all heard this shit before moving on.
Then there is the evolution debacle. Holy shit when Christians wanna get weird about something they go all out. These people are actually building a fucking ark. Millions of dollars have gone into this completely useless testament that Noah's Ark happened and that evolution is shit. Over 30 million dollars have been raised to build this stupid thing. Imagine all the good these people could of done instead of spending 30 million on a boat?
As an outsider I see all these things and I see a drive to force non Christians to conform to Christian law if we like it or not and that's messed up. As an outsider I don't like it. No one likes it really except the Christians who are to wrapped up in themselves to see reality. So on the one hand we have Christians complaining about the lack of faith in the millennial generation and how the country is slipping further away from Christian beleifs. Then on the other hand we have, God hates fags, giant boats, abortion clinic protests, and Christians who feel the need to walk up and pester you while you are reading. I called it a culture war in my title not because it is the rest of the world versus the Christians though it may feel like that from time to time.
The worst enemy of Christianity is Christianity. For every 100 amazing Christians there is one lunatic. The problem is that the lunatic is 100 times louder than all the good Christians and that's what we see. We see a group of people who want to pass ineffective laws so they can feel smug in their own morality, and who want to push their beliefs on us and it doesn't work. I don't hate the religion any more than I hate its practitioners. I recognize that it is a vast religion with people from all walks of life. But when they let the lunatics stand at the forefront then it becomes much easier to see why people don't like them very much. Failure to deal with the internal problems will rip the religion apart. Oh well.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Better late than never.
It has been nearly a year since I've sat down to do this which is quite a while and yet not very much has changed. Some would argue that my life has entered into a state of intoerable stasis but I say back to those people that they have no idea what they are talking about. I am rarely bored, I am constantly learning, I have tons of creative outlets, good conversation, and delicious food. The Brittish went to the new world and went to war over spices because what they had sucked. I live in a sub tropical climate. I don't have a whole lot to complain about.
I did have a pretty bad attack of depression just recently. I'm not going to lie it started to scare me a bit. I'd managed to hide it for a good while but towards the end it just started to paralyze me and I couldn't do anything. It had been lurking around me for a bit causing me to feel a lil down but since it couldn't find anything to latch onto however, a couple of bummer things happened close together and both of them ended up setting it off so I ended up wasting a week being sad for no real reason. It is for the best I think. In a lot of ways it is kinda like vomiting. I can feel this big black cloud of sadness just floating around for no damn reason and at this point in my life I can keep it at bay for a good while. Next time I should just let it in have a good old fashioned cry, eat a lot of ice cream, and see if that works better. It is where I end up more or less anyway and now that I know how to effectively fend it off I can wait until it is a good time for me to fall apart instead of somewhere embarrassing like in the parking lot at work. It's weird I mean people walk up to you and say hi and ask how are you doing and you can't say, "Well I just cried in the parkinglot for 5 minutes for no fucking reason but other than that I'm fine" because I was fine after it happened...well kinda. The average person might mean well but most people have no idea how to help or deal with something like that. Though to be honest there is nothing for them to do. Or rather anything they do has a 100% chance of eliciting a random response from me. That's what depression is. It is an emotional state based off of non external or rational internal stimuli. As a result it can cause unpredictable secondary emotional states like anger.
Oh well. I don't think this is what Sasha had in mind when she asked me if I still wrote in my blog. So let us move on. It occures to me that at some point I managed to make peace with the excistential problem of the inherent uselessness of my life and I am not sure how I did it. I wish I knew though.
Yeah that last sentence sounded fancy but it really isn't. I am not really a big fan of existentialism though I think that the questions and problems it raises are more important now than ever. The thing about it isn't so much that the questions aren't hard but the answers are ugly. Then when faced with the ugly answer you have to decide what you want to do about it, accept it or change. Like the question posed by Camus, "Why shouldn't you kill yourself?" It is amazing how much difficulty people have answering that. To put it a less ideologically loaded way, "Should you die tomorrow will anything really change?"
For the most part the answer is no, the world will keep on spinning, your possition at work will be replaced, people will mourn so that they can move on and yeah. Some might think this is an unusually grim way to look at the world but it isn't. I don't. I think of it as a challange. I try to produce at least as much as I consume. Mostly I produce ideas, conversation, and boring information framed in interesting ways. This doesn't convert very well into plastic which I seem to use a lot of but I try. For me that's enough. I think it is less about what you ultimately end up doing and more of a willingness to look the problem in the eye, and not blink. To meet the inherent vastness of life head on and to understand where you stand and be willing to work up from there. Or something. I don't know.
Depression makes a lot of everyday things very difficult for me. Sometimes I win and it is grand and sometimes I loose and it sucks. My personal struggle however is mine and I love it for it has made me into who I am. I deliberatly sculpted myself and judging from the company I keep I did a pretty damn good job.
Tomorrow is another day. Next time Imma write about minecraft or board games or something.
I did have a pretty bad attack of depression just recently. I'm not going to lie it started to scare me a bit. I'd managed to hide it for a good while but towards the end it just started to paralyze me and I couldn't do anything. It had been lurking around me for a bit causing me to feel a lil down but since it couldn't find anything to latch onto however, a couple of bummer things happened close together and both of them ended up setting it off so I ended up wasting a week being sad for no real reason. It is for the best I think. In a lot of ways it is kinda like vomiting. I can feel this big black cloud of sadness just floating around for no damn reason and at this point in my life I can keep it at bay for a good while. Next time I should just let it in have a good old fashioned cry, eat a lot of ice cream, and see if that works better. It is where I end up more or less anyway and now that I know how to effectively fend it off I can wait until it is a good time for me to fall apart instead of somewhere embarrassing like in the parking lot at work. It's weird I mean people walk up to you and say hi and ask how are you doing and you can't say, "Well I just cried in the parkinglot for 5 minutes for no fucking reason but other than that I'm fine" because I was fine after it happened...well kinda. The average person might mean well but most people have no idea how to help or deal with something like that. Though to be honest there is nothing for them to do. Or rather anything they do has a 100% chance of eliciting a random response from me. That's what depression is. It is an emotional state based off of non external or rational internal stimuli. As a result it can cause unpredictable secondary emotional states like anger.
Oh well. I don't think this is what Sasha had in mind when she asked me if I still wrote in my blog. So let us move on. It occures to me that at some point I managed to make peace with the excistential problem of the inherent uselessness of my life and I am not sure how I did it. I wish I knew though.
Yeah that last sentence sounded fancy but it really isn't. I am not really a big fan of existentialism though I think that the questions and problems it raises are more important now than ever. The thing about it isn't so much that the questions aren't hard but the answers are ugly. Then when faced with the ugly answer you have to decide what you want to do about it, accept it or change. Like the question posed by Camus, "Why shouldn't you kill yourself?" It is amazing how much difficulty people have answering that. To put it a less ideologically loaded way, "Should you die tomorrow will anything really change?"
For the most part the answer is no, the world will keep on spinning, your possition at work will be replaced, people will mourn so that they can move on and yeah. Some might think this is an unusually grim way to look at the world but it isn't. I don't. I think of it as a challange. I try to produce at least as much as I consume. Mostly I produce ideas, conversation, and boring information framed in interesting ways. This doesn't convert very well into plastic which I seem to use a lot of but I try. For me that's enough. I think it is less about what you ultimately end up doing and more of a willingness to look the problem in the eye, and not blink. To meet the inherent vastness of life head on and to understand where you stand and be willing to work up from there. Or something. I don't know.
Depression makes a lot of everyday things very difficult for me. Sometimes I win and it is grand and sometimes I loose and it sucks. My personal struggle however is mine and I love it for it has made me into who I am. I deliberatly sculpted myself and judging from the company I keep I did a pretty damn good job.
Tomorrow is another day. Next time Imma write about minecraft or board games or something.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Ineuality
While reading an article on Capitalism and Inequality I found myself starting to come to the conclusion that there is some ingrained desire for inequality within the human condition itself. Since I've been in a Marx mood lately my mind immeditily turned to The Communist Manifesto which is pretty much the book on the subject. The manifesto itself came out over 100 years ago and yet it still feels current to this day. Only just recently did it start to show its age and that is mostly because the technologies inherent in the computer and the internet have allowed us to take back many of the means of production that were once in the hands of the bourgeoisie. However that's its own topic.
When Marx states that, "All human history can be defined in terms of class struggle" I have always agreed with that up until a point. It is obviously a false binary but it is a useful one none the less that works in the majority of the cases and moves things along. However, Marx never did properly address where the basic inequality in society came from and I think that's important when trying to suss out how deal with each other as a society and what amount of social safety net is reasonable for a society to provide. Or you know if you are setting up an anarchist commune or a genuine commi goverernment it is important to figure out if we have a desire for inequality or a need and how much of a need it is and how much work is it going to take to overcome.
Lets gets some evidence out here. Most (all?) children need to be taught how to share. I think that is the most telling piece of evidence right there. Child sharing is good for the group only because it creates an atmosphere of mutual entertainment ie sharing toys. Sharing food, resources, et cetera is handled by the child's caretakers so it isn't like the need for possesion is nessisary for the child's survival and yet that need for possesion is present sometimes very strongly. The counter argument is, "well in times of need people pull together and share food and stuff" but that isn't nessisarily true. It is especially not true when someone realized they have the physical strength or resources (a gun) to force other people to give more than they receive. This is the prototypical apocalyptic dilemma but it is also the basis of military dictatorships and every other damn thing.
Then there is slavery. It is amazing how we managed to use our unique ability of rationalization to convince ourseivles that the different looking ones are different and as a result they can be treated however they want.
This still function along more closely defined stratas as well I just can't think of anything. I guess gang wars would be a pretty good example. Can you imagine what the inner cities would be like if gangs were devoted to improving their local environment instead of enacting operation ghetto storm against each other constantly?
The self destructive need for inequality sits at the center of these and thousands of other issue. There is also the semi self destructive fear of inequality where one is afraid of giving to much and ending up poorer from it and since there is this hardwired desire for inequality they might not end up helping them.
However our desire for inequality isn't a compulsion. It isn't a mandatory part of our life. It can be beaten with empathy, self awareness, education, and of course effort. Should we do that only then will the bourgeoisie fall, anarchist communes will work, and capitalism will be less horrible for those of us who clean your dishes and take out your garbage.
When Marx states that, "All human history can be defined in terms of class struggle" I have always agreed with that up until a point. It is obviously a false binary but it is a useful one none the less that works in the majority of the cases and moves things along. However, Marx never did properly address where the basic inequality in society came from and I think that's important when trying to suss out how deal with each other as a society and what amount of social safety net is reasonable for a society to provide. Or you know if you are setting up an anarchist commune or a genuine commi goverernment it is important to figure out if we have a desire for inequality or a need and how much of a need it is and how much work is it going to take to overcome.
Lets gets some evidence out here. Most (all?) children need to be taught how to share. I think that is the most telling piece of evidence right there. Child sharing is good for the group only because it creates an atmosphere of mutual entertainment ie sharing toys. Sharing food, resources, et cetera is handled by the child's caretakers so it isn't like the need for possesion is nessisary for the child's survival and yet that need for possesion is present sometimes very strongly. The counter argument is, "well in times of need people pull together and share food and stuff" but that isn't nessisarily true. It is especially not true when someone realized they have the physical strength or resources (a gun) to force other people to give more than they receive. This is the prototypical apocalyptic dilemma but it is also the basis of military dictatorships and every other damn thing.
Then there is slavery. It is amazing how we managed to use our unique ability of rationalization to convince ourseivles that the different looking ones are different and as a result they can be treated however they want.
This still function along more closely defined stratas as well I just can't think of anything. I guess gang wars would be a pretty good example. Can you imagine what the inner cities would be like if gangs were devoted to improving their local environment instead of enacting operation ghetto storm against each other constantly?
The self destructive need for inequality sits at the center of these and thousands of other issue. There is also the semi self destructive fear of inequality where one is afraid of giving to much and ending up poorer from it and since there is this hardwired desire for inequality they might not end up helping them.
However our desire for inequality isn't a compulsion. It isn't a mandatory part of our life. It can be beaten with empathy, self awareness, education, and of course effort. Should we do that only then will the bourgeoisie fall, anarchist communes will work, and capitalism will be less horrible for those of us who clean your dishes and take out your garbage.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Hello Moon!
I sacrificed Feburary on the altar of computer gaming and it was GOOD. Now I am back and I need to find a way to balance my desire to read, write, read comics, socialize, excercize, and a bunch of other things with computer gaming. Good stuff. Anyway I am starting that by writing here so hello!
So the Zombicide season 2 kickstarter ramped itself up and I was seriously considering backing it but I seem to have finally talked myself out of it. Whew. The reason being is that despite the fact that I love me some Co-Op games I mean seriously they are my favorite type of game Zombicide just strikes me the wrong way and last night I realized why.
In Zombicide you are playing against a system. Like almost specifically a system that you have to game in order to meet sucess. So for example Zombies automatically hit you, Zombies always go towards the largest sources of noise, and when shooting in the same room as another survivor you will always hit that other survivor. I mean shit even in Arkham I get to roll a pile of dice to see if I kill the zombie or not. So right there you have two different instances where things will always happen and one instance where you can control groups of zombies based off of noise. So you could sacrifice a player to have them make a lot of noise drawing the zombies away from the main group so that they don't automatically die just because there are zombies around. Along the same lines you can't save said survivor because if you shoot into his zombie filled square you'll hit him first even though that doesn't make any sense.
There are more instances of this but in general when you play Zombicide you are gaming a system. Lord of the Rings, Arkham, Sentinels of the Multiverse and Pandemic all, to varying degrees, have a mixture of luck, strategy, and adaptation. In all the games I listed there aren't any real certainties except that things can go tits up very quickly. In Zombicide you have the same thing but because of the various certain elements it forces "inorganic" game play choices. You are less a group of survivors trying to beat back the zombie hordes to achieve some goal and more a group of people trying to manage a situation using highly artificial rules. It isn't something that really becomes clear until you've played a co-op game. Like in Sentinels I feel like I am a part of a group of heroes pulling out the stops to take down a villian. Not a guy with a hand of cards trying to manage the villian's deck of cards. In Arkham I feel like I am barely scraping a victory from the claws of an unnamable horror not just moving peices around to get results. With Zombiecide I could be feeling that way too, but with two different types of auto hits and it feels more like a management game than anything els and thus it won't get backed.
Lunch is over and off I go.
So the Zombicide season 2 kickstarter ramped itself up and I was seriously considering backing it but I seem to have finally talked myself out of it. Whew. The reason being is that despite the fact that I love me some Co-Op games I mean seriously they are my favorite type of game Zombicide just strikes me the wrong way and last night I realized why.
In Zombicide you are playing against a system. Like almost specifically a system that you have to game in order to meet sucess. So for example Zombies automatically hit you, Zombies always go towards the largest sources of noise, and when shooting in the same room as another survivor you will always hit that other survivor. I mean shit even in Arkham I get to roll a pile of dice to see if I kill the zombie or not. So right there you have two different instances where things will always happen and one instance where you can control groups of zombies based off of noise. So you could sacrifice a player to have them make a lot of noise drawing the zombies away from the main group so that they don't automatically die just because there are zombies around. Along the same lines you can't save said survivor because if you shoot into his zombie filled square you'll hit him first even though that doesn't make any sense.
There are more instances of this but in general when you play Zombicide you are gaming a system. Lord of the Rings, Arkham, Sentinels of the Multiverse and Pandemic all, to varying degrees, have a mixture of luck, strategy, and adaptation. In all the games I listed there aren't any real certainties except that things can go tits up very quickly. In Zombicide you have the same thing but because of the various certain elements it forces "inorganic" game play choices. You are less a group of survivors trying to beat back the zombie hordes to achieve some goal and more a group of people trying to manage a situation using highly artificial rules. It isn't something that really becomes clear until you've played a co-op game. Like in Sentinels I feel like I am a part of a group of heroes pulling out the stops to take down a villian. Not a guy with a hand of cards trying to manage the villian's deck of cards. In Arkham I feel like I am barely scraping a victory from the claws of an unnamable horror not just moving peices around to get results. With Zombiecide I could be feeling that way too, but with two different types of auto hits and it feels more like a management game than anything els and thus it won't get backed.
Lunch is over and off I go.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Culture Change
So I don't know what is the deal with Barns and Noble but they have done a fantastic job making it as horrible place to go be as possible. Say what you want about Books a Million but at least they have chairs that don't make me want to kill myself and everyone around me.
That said I ended up buying a political journal at Barns and going to read it at Books. There is a message in there somewhere I am not sure where though.
Moving onto the topic at hand I've been reading more and more articles on entitlement spending (medicare, medicaid, and social security+other stuff) so as to better get a handle on it. Entitlement spending is one of those issues that sounds like it can be fixed with the magic wand of common sense but in actuality are quite complex. As a result everyone seems to have a dismissive overly simplistic idea of how to deal with it. None of the major news outlets are doing much to help matters. Of course then again what are they gonna say, "this is some complex shit and here are some sources so you can go educate yourself?" No they are going to knuckle down and do the best they can with summaries. Oh well.
To give a little bit of background one of the most intellegent peices of writing I've read on the topic is that our Congress is grossly under equipped to handle entitlement spending. Congress, while capable of great things and passing sweeping legislation, is to short sighted to effectively plan for increased costs of entitlements, and to appropriately deal with the problems that causes. The narrative of the baby boomers taking the surplus, running away with all the money and fucking over the kids is a symptom of that. That narrative is true only to a point. It is mostly a short sighted congress inflating entitlements so as to stay in power and no one like the senate, president or an independent commitee coming by and saying "knock that shit off". I mean jesus most people prolly assumed that when their social security benifits increased it was done so in a way that wasn't "more loans". We have to remember that our level of political awareness was nothing near this level 10 or even 8 years ago. So there is a lot of catching up to do.
Anywho the article came up with some neat ideas how to address the problem. Good for it.
Moving on the other article I read was more interesting to me because it advocated more of a culture change instead of various policy changes. This article was both amazing and loathsome at the same time which is quite a feat. While I and the author both advocate culture changes and government getting the fuck out of the way of said culture changes the article advocated an increase of institutions like marriage and churches whereas I am advocating...well something else. I mean I have the damnest feeling that if I were to take that article and use it publicly as evidence supporting gay marriage I'd get an awfully angry letter from the author stating that's not what he meant. He never came out against gay marriage specifically but considering the fact that every other solution to his problem involved churches I just got that feeling.
Still we have plenty of common ground and he did bring a really interesting and fresh perspective to the subject. In the 60's lots of things changed, distrust in government, the rise of divorce, the fall of church attendence, and the worst welfare program ever was enacted. Maybe wellfare came in the 70's damnit now I wanna know...60's I was right! For those of you who don't know for every dollar you earned you recieved one less dollar of funding. So if you got a shitty low paying job that didn't make ends meet you would be receiving less wellfare dollar. I'm not joking they put that shit on a 1:1 ratio. So most people made more money sitting at home. Not only that but most people made more money having more kids and staying at home. Hence the welfare queen. Things have improved in most states.
Not a bad idea even though it got off to horrible start and is still an inherently broken system which produces behaviours on the inverse of that which it would like to inspire. The problem is that it chased off thousands of charitable organizations that the government all the sudden felt the need to micro manage. The article used the example of the San-Antonio based "Victory Fellowship". The following is rage inducing. Over the course of 40 years this program helped over 13,000 people get clear of drugs and alcohol. They were nearly shut down by the government because they used faith based techniques and they employed former fellons instead of following some rediculous sets of standars set by the state who is so far removed from any sort of problem what so ever that you can pretty much tell they were coming up with this shit by ear. Okay yeah whatever not a fan of faith based but they were helping so many people. A venerable institution helped that many people in such a tiny area? Holy shit these people should be awarded congressional medals, have statues built after them, they should appear in text books and be applauded as American heroes. Instead we did the direct opposite because of the stupidity inherent in bureaucracy. Plain and simple. The story of Victory Fellowship isn't unique but it is interesting to see what sort of work welfare did to usurp the various forms of citizenship we once had.
Okay so this guy believes that famiies and churches are the answer. Good for him. The problem is that for most people who haven't grown up christian churches are pretty much a poison pill. To many of them a weird. I know I've been to some weird fucking churches. To many of them do nothing for the community around them. To many of them just aren't very good. Add that to the negative press the catholic church garners, the jesus hates fags people, the nice folks who stand on street corners informing me that I am going to hell, the guys who just kinda show up on campus and tell me I am going to hell, the pushing annoying christians who won't leave you alone even when you are really into your book or vigorously typing, the KKK, and the mormons and you have a serious god damned image problem. That isn't to say that there isn't some great churches out there. I am saying that they have one massive image problem.
I am also saying they are totally unnecessary. The idea of citizenship is a problem in our country. To often I encounter people who believe they deserve while offering nothing in return but sob stories about how much they deserve. There is a lot of undirected mailice to the poor and less fortunate that I never really understood but I see it all the time. But this is the start of a tangent.
We both believe that a change in culture is nessisary but he wants to go back to a previous set of ideal when you can't. We can never go back things have changes and changing them back is the opposite of progress which is what we both want. The thing is that we have to enact changes in our culture that promote being better people. Once upon a time taking a large bonus while not adiquetly paying your lowest earning employees was a mark of scorn. Now it is something people do. It is accepted so much so that we want laws to stop it. Changing culture is hard. Really hard. But it can be done. It happens all the time without help from anyone. Now if we could change it for the better well wouldn't that be something?
I think it can be done. Certain anarchist groups have the right idea. There are more and more organiations that are centered around non religious based do gooding. This can happen.
That said I ended up buying a political journal at Barns and going to read it at Books. There is a message in there somewhere I am not sure where though.
Moving onto the topic at hand I've been reading more and more articles on entitlement spending (medicare, medicaid, and social security+other stuff) so as to better get a handle on it. Entitlement spending is one of those issues that sounds like it can be fixed with the magic wand of common sense but in actuality are quite complex. As a result everyone seems to have a dismissive overly simplistic idea of how to deal with it. None of the major news outlets are doing much to help matters. Of course then again what are they gonna say, "this is some complex shit and here are some sources so you can go educate yourself?" No they are going to knuckle down and do the best they can with summaries. Oh well.
To give a little bit of background one of the most intellegent peices of writing I've read on the topic is that our Congress is grossly under equipped to handle entitlement spending. Congress, while capable of great things and passing sweeping legislation, is to short sighted to effectively plan for increased costs of entitlements, and to appropriately deal with the problems that causes. The narrative of the baby boomers taking the surplus, running away with all the money and fucking over the kids is a symptom of that. That narrative is true only to a point. It is mostly a short sighted congress inflating entitlements so as to stay in power and no one like the senate, president or an independent commitee coming by and saying "knock that shit off". I mean jesus most people prolly assumed that when their social security benifits increased it was done so in a way that wasn't "more loans". We have to remember that our level of political awareness was nothing near this level 10 or even 8 years ago. So there is a lot of catching up to do.
Anywho the article came up with some neat ideas how to address the problem. Good for it.
Moving on the other article I read was more interesting to me because it advocated more of a culture change instead of various policy changes. This article was both amazing and loathsome at the same time which is quite a feat. While I and the author both advocate culture changes and government getting the fuck out of the way of said culture changes the article advocated an increase of institutions like marriage and churches whereas I am advocating...well something else. I mean I have the damnest feeling that if I were to take that article and use it publicly as evidence supporting gay marriage I'd get an awfully angry letter from the author stating that's not what he meant. He never came out against gay marriage specifically but considering the fact that every other solution to his problem involved churches I just got that feeling.
Still we have plenty of common ground and he did bring a really interesting and fresh perspective to the subject. In the 60's lots of things changed, distrust in government, the rise of divorce, the fall of church attendence, and the worst welfare program ever was enacted. Maybe wellfare came in the 70's damnit now I wanna know...60's I was right! For those of you who don't know for every dollar you earned you recieved one less dollar of funding. So if you got a shitty low paying job that didn't make ends meet you would be receiving less wellfare dollar. I'm not joking they put that shit on a 1:1 ratio. So most people made more money sitting at home. Not only that but most people made more money having more kids and staying at home. Hence the welfare queen. Things have improved in most states.
Not a bad idea even though it got off to horrible start and is still an inherently broken system which produces behaviours on the inverse of that which it would like to inspire. The problem is that it chased off thousands of charitable organizations that the government all the sudden felt the need to micro manage. The article used the example of the San-Antonio based "Victory Fellowship". The following is rage inducing. Over the course of 40 years this program helped over 13,000 people get clear of drugs and alcohol. They were nearly shut down by the government because they used faith based techniques and they employed former fellons instead of following some rediculous sets of standars set by the state who is so far removed from any sort of problem what so ever that you can pretty much tell they were coming up with this shit by ear. Okay yeah whatever not a fan of faith based but they were helping so many people. A venerable institution helped that many people in such a tiny area? Holy shit these people should be awarded congressional medals, have statues built after them, they should appear in text books and be applauded as American heroes. Instead we did the direct opposite because of the stupidity inherent in bureaucracy. Plain and simple. The story of Victory Fellowship isn't unique but it is interesting to see what sort of work welfare did to usurp the various forms of citizenship we once had.
Okay so this guy believes that famiies and churches are the answer. Good for him. The problem is that for most people who haven't grown up christian churches are pretty much a poison pill. To many of them a weird. I know I've been to some weird fucking churches. To many of them do nothing for the community around them. To many of them just aren't very good. Add that to the negative press the catholic church garners, the jesus hates fags people, the nice folks who stand on street corners informing me that I am going to hell, the guys who just kinda show up on campus and tell me I am going to hell, the pushing annoying christians who won't leave you alone even when you are really into your book or vigorously typing, the KKK, and the mormons and you have a serious god damned image problem. That isn't to say that there isn't some great churches out there. I am saying that they have one massive image problem.
I am also saying they are totally unnecessary. The idea of citizenship is a problem in our country. To often I encounter people who believe they deserve while offering nothing in return but sob stories about how much they deserve. There is a lot of undirected mailice to the poor and less fortunate that I never really understood but I see it all the time. But this is the start of a tangent.
We both believe that a change in culture is nessisary but he wants to go back to a previous set of ideal when you can't. We can never go back things have changes and changing them back is the opposite of progress which is what we both want. The thing is that we have to enact changes in our culture that promote being better people. Once upon a time taking a large bonus while not adiquetly paying your lowest earning employees was a mark of scorn. Now it is something people do. It is accepted so much so that we want laws to stop it. Changing culture is hard. Really hard. But it can be done. It happens all the time without help from anyone. Now if we could change it for the better well wouldn't that be something?
I think it can be done. Certain anarchist groups have the right idea. There are more and more organiations that are centered around non religious based do gooding. This can happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
