A Writing Exercise--What Internet Interactions Show About Humanity--Stream of Consciousness Essay

1) First, Internet comments like those from YouTube and BoredAtButler.com do not necessarily come from a representative sample of society. They come from people who enter those sites, and then take the time to comment. It is the case that many pages open to user comments are viewed more than contributed to. A video from The Young Turks YouTube Account received 1,618 views, and 79 text comments. Though repeated views and comments by the certain users can distort these numbers, it shows that most viewers of a webpage remain quiet. There is very little to be learned about the quiet ones from these statistics besides the fact that they seemed to have Interests in videos with titles such as "DWTS At Blvd 3 Part 2" and "Love Is A Lie." With this information alone, however, we know little about why the viewers find find whatever they have interest in interesting.

2) If you use the Internet to teach you about humanity, you will believe that people are jerks who make rape-jokes, believe 9-11 was a false-flag operation, and/or disdain capital letters.

3) An interesting thought: that some loud people, or "Internet gangsters," are more demure in person. Even polite. Due to cowardness?

4) Another thought: most rude behavior performed when jerk is in a position of perceived safety. Perhaps when surrounded by friends, or the abused seems less likely to defend in manner meaningful to jerk.

5) Certain acts of kindness performed from position of weakness. "Kiss up, kick down." A convicted murderer asking the court for mercy.

6) A thought: our perceptions of others are warped by our personalities, our desires, our fears, our experiences. Our views of the world are centered, strictly, around the self. Our ability to handle conflict may affect our willingness to appreciate headstrong people; whether we cling to them, or disdain them. Perhaps a fear that personal appearance will pervent meaningful interpersonal contact will promote shy behavior, thereby perventing meaningul interpersonal contact.

7) Misogyny, racism, any sort of bigotry are aspects of the more broad problems interpersonal conflict. The abuse of other people: requires explanations more broad than "I hate his face." The results and expression are the interplay of personal psychology, the psychology of others, accessibility of resources. Misogyny is nothing like a monster with a chain-saw teeth. It a variety of ideas shared by people, the varieties are more pronounced between individuals than cultures, really.

8) The Devil lives in the abstract world, pulling strings that connect him to the physical world. Metaphorically, I mean.

Meanspiritedness

People never get in your head. No more of this "I'm in your head shit." This-and-that and mind games. Never mind "I'm a cat and you're the mouse, so run run run."

BS. It's what people do when they want to blow up a situation to be bigger than it is. Drama.

If a person was "in your head" they would understand why you understood the world as you did. They would know something of your history, motivations to a point that they would have sympathy and maybe even empathy for you. None of this "I'm in your head" shit "to knock around your brain." No. If they knew you, they would have mercy for you. If they had to fight you in a boxing match, they would punch with the upmost respect, and only punch because that's their living--to punch and get punched--and you share that living. None of that headbutting, cheating.

So when people come at you in an aggressive, and/or, selfish, and/or antisocial manner, they come at you from what is a detached mental condition. They are distant from your motives, from your history, and this distance can be achieved from either ignorance or aloofness. Actually, a combination of ignorance and aloofness, usually.

Instead of a burglar, people shooting evil juju at you are more like the annoying kids who run up to your door and knock on the door, and hide away. You had happened to be washing dishes, and left the sink on while you opened the door to find no one there.

Then you shut the door, and "no one" knocks again and hides again. And then you open the door again. They are at the side of the house to rap on the window. You check the window. They rap the window on the other side of the house. You check. They knock on the backdoor. You check. They knock on front door. You check.

They knock here. You check. They knock there. You check.

They knock here. They knock there. They knock here. They knock there.

You check. You check. You check.

And now, when you were checking, you're distracted from washing dishes. Instead, running around the house, accidental knocking a chair over, breaking the TV, accidentally knocking over the dishes, hitting the wall frustrated, letting the sink overflow because you're frustrated.
And you caused the damage. The kids didn't break your stuff. The kids may have made noises outside; yet, staying outside the entire time. You broke your stuff. You kept running at their knocking, and forgot to take care of your house.

###

A conversation with Lucifer

*Lucifer frequents Burger Heaven at 62th st and Lexington. Once a week, Thursday or Friday, he stops by at about 5:30pm, buys a Cheeseburger Special, with French fries, and a glass of Sprite. He usually eats alone, at the bar.*

*4/17/08. 5:35pm, the restaurant is pretty much empty. A young man in his early twenties sits two seats to Lucifer’s right. Lucifer scans the young man’s fingers, as the young man flips through the menu.*

Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend’

Man (turns his head to Lucifier): Pardon me?

Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend.’

Man: Oh. Ok.

Lucifer: I mean, how many friends do we have anyway?

Man: We’ve got friend, some friends, I’m sure

Lucifer: Sure. Why not?

Man: Oh. No reason.

Lucifer: Then we got lots of friends, everyone we meet, speak to, breath on, look at, feel, hold. We have a lot of friends, we do.

Man: Sure.

Lucifer: What are you getting?Man: Probably a cheeseburger special.

Lucifer (points to plate) : That’s what I got.

Man: Oh. It looks good.

Lucifer: It’s ok.

*The waitress comes, takes the Mans order, and leaves. Minutes pass, and neither man speaks. They stare up at the TVs hanging from the ceiling. CNN. After a story on the current death toll in Iraq, there is a story on Lindsay Lohan getting caught on footage picking her nose. The waitress returns with the Man’s plate of food. The man begins to eat.*

Lucifer: What’s your name?

Man (places a French fry in his mouth, chews for a moment, swallows): Greg.

Lucifer: Greg?

Man: Gregorio. Call me Greg.

Lucifer: Yes. Greg. Well, Greg, I have a theory. I think people are looking for every opportunity not to speak to one another. People want to get away from each other. No matter what. The less talking they have to do, the better. If they can, just sit in the room and not be seen, they would do so. They would sit in the background.

*Greg pops a few French fries into his mouth.

Lucifer: Ever see a man sit alone during a paty.

Greg: Yes.

Lucifer: It’s disgusting. Nursing his beer, staring at his feet, then glancing at some girl’s ass as she passes by. Disgusting. And you know why he’s there.

Greg chews.

Lucifer: He wants pussy. But he’s too damn scared to get it. And you know what’s the only thing worse than that?

Greg: What?

Lucifer: A person who tries too hard. Who really, really wants one particular human being. The person—the lover—thinks the lovee is so damn special, so damn awesome, so unique. Out of 7 billion people. So unique, when another would do. Makes you think.

Greg: Yes it does.

Lucifer: But he doesn’t really want to talk to her. No. Romantic love? That shit in movies when only one girlfriend will provide happiness in the world, or life is fucked up? It’s BS. Any person will do. Any husband, any wife. The trick is to be mature enough to understand this. To understand that love—friendships—is about consumption. People are like chocolate cakes. But what we forget about chocolate cakes is that after passing through the intestines the cakes become poop. The same with people. People are disposable.

Greg: Really?

Lucifer: Hell yes. That’s what the Bond movies get right. Ever wonder why every movie had a different chick? Because people are disposable. Agent James Bond is the representation of the male fantas y where the man can exist outside of the boundaries placed upon him. That he can go anywhere. That he can do anything. That he can fuck anybody. And this fantasy is a one man show. The name ‘Pussy Galore’ represents an ideal more than a human being. Represents more of an urge than a soul. People are uninterested in each other’s soul. An individual wants the most gain with the least pain, and burying ourselves into each other’s souls require effort. It requires pain. The man totally obsessed with a woman fails to understand her soul. He is in love with ‘Pussy Galore’

Greg begins to eat his burger.

Lucifer: Not the woman. If the learns to love the woman as he loves himself, he must learn to acknowledge her habits, her desires rather than his own. And that bitch better be reciprocal. Because when two people pay more attention to personal urges than extrapersonal urges, then the relationship suffers. Now, they don’t have to spend all damn day with one another, they just need to understand each other, that’s all. And people have no strength to understand. They just don’t, they just wrapped up in their own thing, and worry little about the world of others. Seven billion narcissists. Do you own a MySpace account?

Greg (bites, chews, and swallows): Check please?

Corrupt Law Enforcement

The fact that an individual is a cop or guard means nothing in regard to their personality as human beings. The promise to serve and protect and whatever are only peripheral. What matters is who the law enforcement person is as a person.

Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.

For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.

Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.

And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.

When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.

People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."

When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.

Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.

Faith in God

I.
The existence of God remains in doubt. Either he exists or he doesn’t. Or he exists in some of kind of semi-existence, or as a creature birthed by human imagination, like the deities in Neil Gaiman’s novel, American Gods. Or something completely different.

The problem with the human experience of God is God’s immeasurability. Regardless of his status, it seems unlikely with our current level of technology that we can measure him/she/it. We cannot ask Him to stand with his back to the wall so we can measure His height. We cannot place Him on a scale to find His weight. We have failed to trap Him inside a room. We cannot do interact with him in these ways, by virtue of his apparent absence from our ability to sense the world.

The beautiful thing about the idea of God is that it is both apparently improvable and definitely undeniable. Yes, He could present himself to us, provided he is omnipotent and able to appear and disappear at will. Otherwise, we are left with the hearsay of the religious and their religious texts. The religious texts declare that God’s apparent absence is trivial. They would say that he exists, nonetheless, like an extrasolar planet yet to be discovered, or the ruins of Atlantis. People hundreds of years ago may have unappreciated the existence of extrasolar planets, but those planets did exist when our telescopes could only reach as far as Jupiter (or maybe God is playing a trick on us).

God is unlike the color of the sky. People can agree about the color of the sky because it is there. Outside of whether two people share the same mental concept of ‘blue,’ they will agree that the sky is blue.

Not so with God. His absence insures we cannot disprove his existence. The existence of God in an atheistic world is an example of the ultimate assumption because there would be no God at all to assume God’s existence. In an atheistic world, we made Him up. Even here, however, the assumption dies hard. The nonexistent cannot be disproven. We can disprove erroneous theories of gravity. We can disprove erroneous theories of how water interacts with fire. We fail to disprove imaginary objects and beings, however.

Besides, if he existed, he can evade our methods of detection. An eternity can pass, and humanity’s technological sources can rise exponentially, but an omnipotent God, in an Abrahamic context, has more power in His pinky than we ever could as a collective whole. If God has a pinky, anyway. Some say he does. Some say he doesn't. Some say it is sacriledge to suggest he has a physical form. For any one to state this claims, they must choose to believe in something that cannot be proven, or is yet to be proven. Even atheists need to take a leap of faith in order to say that God is nonexistant. But He could very well exist despite His absense.


II.
With or without God, we are limited creatures. Despite advances in technology, we still struggle with abstract concepts, like duty, love, and peace. Without an agreement on the physical embodiment of such concepts, we continue to live half-lives, kill ourselves, kill each other, eat ourselves to obesity, and waste time on illogical acts like Unrequited Love, and video games.

The trick of this "disagreement" goes further than broad socialculturaleconomicreligioushistorical definitions and buries itself in the consciousness of each individual. This explains why a man in a relgious society will murder his children, commit adultery at the risk of death, and why people contradict themselves, why they become hypocrites, saying one thing and doing something that contradicts the spoken word. Big talk of "Christianity, the military-industrial complex, and Hate" fail to pin down why individuals are so different from one another, and subject to behavior that works outside the bounds of accepted ethics. Individuals, rather than societies, must pin down the idea of God. And this is always the case for individuals make up societies, not the other way around. People find God and value systems for themselves.

Though generations have passed, and the dead leave behind books and books and books of information, the information remains useless as long as the young have yet to discover the information. The experiences of a past generation influence the environment of succeeding generations; but the interpretation of that experience and the interpretation of the environment are up to the succeeding generations. The succeeding generations choose a vaue system--let's say, capitalism or communism--and live their version of the value system. Great Britiain's socialist programs are different from Cuba's socialist programs. To look at this from another angle: even though a son takes after his father, the son's life will be unique from the father's. So even though the son may consider himself to have the same value system as the father, his unique experiences will insure that he interprets his value system in a manner different from how the father interprets his value system.

For example: even though different groups of Christians share the same holy book, their worshop of God differs from one another. Catholics practice in a way different from the practice of Baptists. These different groups interpret the Bible in their own way (and don't get me started about the beliefs of individual members...).

More chaos exists for economic systems, because economic systems are based wholly on theory and must be implemented before it can be accepted or critiqued with authority. Therefore, countries tend to revamp the economy and bank system only after serious economic depression. The regulating bodies of the economy were simply ignorant to the fact that a depression would happen. Experience can teach us what certain events bring about, and experience can lead us to have different interpretations of the same event. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center will produce a more emotional effect on a war veteran than a 5-year-old from Kansas. Even among veterans, the opinions will vary. Our experiences, the value systems we grew up with, and the value systems we choose to follow, are our Gods.

And this is a chaotic system, because the value systems are unfixed. They change from person-to-person, moment-to-moment. Even among war veterans, the emotional response to the 9/11 attacks will vary. In a sense, because of this chaos of thought, people live without God. At the very least, God refrains from programming us to operate under uniform and specific values...so it would seem; I could be wrong; God could be causing me to type these letters without my knowledge and/or your knoweldge. I cannot prove that God is doing this, and I cannot disprove that he is. When you get down to it, the absence of God leads to this delicious paradox.

We are left, for all intents and purposes, to fend for ourselves. And because nothing is certain, everything relating the value systems is an act of faith. When we point at the point, and say, "This side is America; this side is Mexico," we are a chain in a link of faith that began with the creation of the world, continued when the nomads from Asia settled in what is now the southern United States, continued when they themselves broke into different groups, continued when the European settlers fought with the "Natives" and kicked the Natives out to form "The United States of America, though the land is only the United States of America to anyone who believes what maps say. The only reason the border is where it is is because of an agreement between the US and Mexican governments. Nothing metaphsical, just arbitrary.

Even the effect of war can be artbitary. Though bullets often play the role of the fearsome LORD, but the truth found in bullets must still be interpreted and misinterpretation begins with an interpretation. So if metaphyiscal truth can be found in a bullet, the truth can confuse the truthseeker despite the clear effect of a bullet fired from a gun.


III.
And so when we look for that truth, we are stuck with our assumptions. Not because we want to, but because we have to. Every act is an act of faith. Our first lesson in faith arrives when we are
babies, and assume our parents continue to exist when they hide behind a blanket.

"Peekaboo! You can't see me!" "Mom? Where are you?" We paused, and looked. "Mom? Mom!

Ahhh!"

And then she lowered the blanket and revealed herself.

"Oh, Mom, there you are."

And then she again covered herself with the blanket.

"Ahhhh!"

Sooner or later, we came to assume Mom's existence, even though she was absent from the room. Our relationship with God is similar, and even more one-sided because while we can find our mother if she is physically present, an omnipotent God can choose to remain hidden despite our best efforts to discover Him. Yes, He plays the most fabulous game of Peekaboo.
Yet, we some of us assume God, even without hard evidence of His existence. We assume this as we assume that other people share our mental concept of the color blue. I wrote the first draft of this essay in a subway train in New York City. Your only evidence of this claim, unless you happened to see me, is this very sentence. I may be lying or otherwise incorrect. I am telling the truth. I can't prove it to you, and therefore, your acceptance or declining of these claims is an act of faith. And faith is an act of resignation to reality due to lack of certainty about that reality. We simply believe. Or don't

Pity

A man on the 1 train asked the people in the car for money. He wore a yellow coat, and jeans and was white and skinny. He spoke in a monotone, almost computer-like voice, and paced the car abd with a script that came out so easily, so quickly, it must have been practiced. He must have been doing this all day.

"I'm going to be upfront with you," he said, and told us, the other people in the car and myself, that he had just gotten out of jail, and his family wouldn't let him live in their house. He has been staying at a shelter, which he gave the address to, where others had beat him up. He didn't want to return, and needed money for a better place to stay, which cost $15 a night (he gave the address to this too). Monday, he will get his old job back. He gave a lot of detail for a panhandler telling a story (he said he wasn't a panhandler, drug dealing, etc). Two white people across the aisle from me, dug into their pockets in the middle of his speech, and gave him wads of cash. Others on my left, and I am sure others throughout the train, gave him money too. I refrained from staring or making a show of staring.

Most panhandlers I have seen in NYC are black, and I wonder if the apparent, relative success of this guy was due either to the fact it is the beginning of the spring break tourist season, when people have more spare change, or his skin color, or both, or both other elements. The skin color element would have to be tested, and also the financial situation of the donators must be considered. A single mother working as a nurse would probably give less than a real estate salesman on vacation since the salesman will probably have more money. The nurse had herself and her children to think of if she feels inclined to give money to panhandlers and buskers. When people give money, they lose money, and the choice to give or take must be considered under this light.

Should a white panhandler get more money than a black panhandler on any given attempt for money, other elements besides skin color could play a factor. The delivery of the pandhandlers' requests for money could play a factor, if the white guy gave a better delivery than the black guy. His method of dress, the believability of his story. The white man I saw today had a slightly more detailed story than most panhandlers I've come across from. His included his work status, specific dates, cash amount he needed, and why he was homeless. Other panhandlers give a brief overview of their lives, but detail always help get people to understand where the storyteller is coming from. Many simply say that they have a terminal illness, that they have kids they need to feed. But leave it at that. They don't even say how
many kids they have. The man in the yellow jacket spoke the best script of them all.

A woman panhandler who frequents the Flushing, Queens area sits Indian-style and holds a sign saying she has children, and needs help feeding them. She is white (Flushing is an Asian neighborhood) and always slumps down, looking at the ground, and I've never heard her speak or seen her lips move whenever I pass her. My first impression of her and my plain idea of her is that she is a victim. By victim, I mean she is dependant on others fo survival when she very well could take care of herself but for some reason like laziness or mental barriers, she has trouble making ends meet. This is a one-way street in regard to give and take of resources. Of course, her life is bigger than days sitting on a sidewalk, holding a sign. I am ignorant of her childhood, the pain she might have gone through,, her strengths, and what she is working to get autonomy over her life, so she can better provide for her children.

She may be unemployed, or employed. She may take more from her kids than she gives. I am unsure. I only know that I am inclined to see her as weak. That is how her posture and script are designed. The same goes for the man in the yellow jacket. They both bring to mind images of those who need to be protected. They bring to mind the desire to support children and help the needy.

Across time and cultures, protecting the week had been an action looked upon a duty. What I wonder, though, is if the desire to help is based on actually caring for others, or the tinge of pity, or other self-serving motives, like using a donation to a charity as a tax write-off. I consider actual caring to be different from pity because pity is only a motivator to help others. Without pity, a person may keep their money in the prescence of a panhandler. Pity does not exist when the needy are not present. So as long as the needy are elsewhere, donators will fail to give to them because they (the donators) don't feel like they do.

Say we come across a starving child. Malnurished, suffering from Kwashiorkor, a condition where the child has too little protein in the system and has a swollen abdomen, though suffering from starvation. We will probably buy a Happy Meal for the kid, and call the police so that authorities can place the child with those who can provide for it. If we had the money, we may even offer to adopt it ourselves. Now, this is hypothetical.

We do all this because the child is present. Now, the starving children miles away--we know of their existance, but care little because they are not present. We need to be reminded by commercials on TV asking for 95 cents a daily. Upon viewing these commercials, we are struck by pity. And pity hurts. Without pity, a person will keep their money. Givers only give because their themselves hurt, and not so the needy give comfort. If we truly cared about starving African children, instead of spending money on going to the movies, we would use that money on the kids. Instead of overeating, we would give the extra food to the poor. Instead, people need to be stung by pity before they give money and food, so that the pity will go away, not our of any sincere care for the impoverished.

Now, a person who feels pity may be sincere in caring. It is just that for a strong feeling of empathy to occur, a person must consider how bad the other person feels. Without a consideration of the feelings of others, the action of giving is only done for the giver's sake--to reduce pity--though the panhandler reaps the physical benefits of giving.

On Spitzer (aka Client 9)

People are fueled by passion and guided by logic. And sometimes a match ignites the fuel and obliterates the logic.

Governor Spitzer put his marriage and career in danger. For sex. Apparently, he's purchased the company of ladies several times. It makes little since that he would do this, since he has been a top figure in NYS politics for about a decade, but, well, he did. So why?

He might be a sex freak. Now, it seems that this is a weak argument. It makes little sense for a man in his position, no matter how horny he is, to risk things on illicit sex.

There is no logic involved. An experienced politician who graduated from Harvard Law-- my dream school <3 --with a reputation from cracking down on corruption. Seems to be a man guided by logic and wisdom.

However, the most important experience a person can have is in dealing with their passions. Gov. Spitzer seems to be a very smart man, but possibly has little experience in dealing with his secret passions, or at least having to deal with his in such a way that he has to deny himself certain activities. He allowed his passion guide his logic. That was his choice, I must clarify. No "heat of the passion" argument. He decided to dwell on those passions and chose to put gratification ahead of duty--that's my speculative argument. And that's how people work, and Gov. Spitzer is a human being. Quite simply human, and he had to learn a human lesson at the worst possible time.

So, oh well. He's screwed. Time to move on. Even if he wants to still be Gov, he should resign, because he will be dealing with too much drama to do his job as well as he could. Let's see how Paterson does.

PS. By the way, his short speech in response to every is full of BS. It was cute, and written in with an eye toward his duty as public servant, but his actions say that his duty is not always going to be the first thing on his mind.

Resolved: Hentai is sad

Written October 2007

If we wanted other people only for sex, we’d all just masturbate. Forget the effort of meeting people at nightclubs, forget spending evenings out, forget snuggling with them, or getting hung up on them. We’d all just masturbate, because interaction with human beings carries greater emotional and physical risk than masturbation does.

But, obviously, people get into friendships with each other. They pay to have sex with one another. And so forth. There must be another reason why people interact with one another, despite the risks. This reason must be inherent in human interaction.
I mention this because in the case of hentai, the masturbator is utterly removed from people.

There’s no such thing as human interaction, so obviously, this person is missing something other people get.

So, we must ask: what does human interaction get us?

I will begin to answer that question by saying that when I hang out with people I like, I feel a nice little glow. We see a movie, we get some coffee, we sit on Low steps to chat. I enjoy hanging out with them for the sake of hanging out with them. And when we leave each other, I feel that hanging out was good use of my time.

Sex, Adam Sandler once implied, lasts around 8 minutes. Friendships and other relationships last a little longer that. They are more substantial than that. But sex, at least, involves human interaction. If you have sex with someone you like, you’re bound to enjoy yourself as much as you can. The type of lover doesn’t matter--it doesn’t matter if the person is a fuck buddy, or an exclusive lover. What matters is that you’re comfortable with this person—if you’re comfortable.

Therefore, emotional interaction outweighs sexual feeling, even though sexual feeling is pret-ty fucking awesome.

Therefore, hentai is sad because people who love hentai miss out on the warmth of human interaction.

Resolved: Organized Sports are More Dangerous Than Organized Religion

Written December 2006

Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.

On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.

Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.

But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.

You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.

And he’s a convicted rapist.

You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.

You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.

Beer, beer, beer, beer,

And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems

The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying

"TAZER"

"TAZER""TAZER"

Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.

So let me review.

You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.

You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.

You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.

And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."

Nine Statements

1) Plain logic is difficult, if not impossible, to separate from emotion; as emotion is difficult to separate from logic. They guide each other. Imagine men made of silly putty in a wrestling match. They grab each other and alter the shape of the other one. In the same way, emotions and logic (ie, explicit thoughts) guide each other. (I owe much to the late Albert Ellis for the foundation to this idea. In fact, this has been more of my interpretation of his REBT.)

2) If a person has been taught that roaches are full of disease--potentially dangerous--then he may be setting himself up for fear of roaches. And if he does feel this fear at the sight or memory of a roach, he will reinforce the negative view of roaches. However, another person, with a neutral logic about roaches, will probably have less fear and disgust. He may be fine with having a roach crawl on their arm.

3) People talk about "Crimes of Passion," or impulsive actions with negative consequences--How their actions are immediately guided by intense, sudden passion to do things that wouldn't be done in a less distraught state. I'd like to alter this statement. Though emotions may fuel actions, preexisting logic permits those actions. (Logic influences emotion in the same manner.) This is why two different people--in the same stimulating reaction--will commit different responses. Why one person will find a particular incident neutral, and another may find that same incident to be excessively negative. If a person perceives people to be generally selfish and evil, then he or she may be inclined to distrust people, because of their faults, and less likely to be open toward them for said faults--he may feel that the faults are of humanity's bad nature.

4) In the end, with this logic of humanity's worthlessness embedded in his head, the person may be inclined to observe proof to sustain that logic. He will be sensitive to negative events, however small. He will be crushed by the mildest, kindest rejections; he will sneer at the most neutral of snubs; he will read hostility in voices of little affection. Unless he catches himself to alter his thinking process, those negative thoughts become habit. His depressing view of humanity and himself will continue unless he does what he can to stop it. Like all habits, bad thinking must be stopped in the process, or it will continue. The problem is that limited, negative thinking often appears benign. They are mistaken for 'realism.' They become a big problem when SO MANY negative thoughts build up over time. This is the danger of sustained negative thinking.

5) With such a sweeping condemnation of humanity sustained, this kind of person will consider himself evil, even when he has NOT done evil things. In any case, he is painfully aware of his faults and limitations (ie. too many pimples; lack of uncertainty about how life will turn out; etc). He might find himself exaggerating these faults. After enough time, he will convince himself fully of these thoughts, regardless of how other people see him. At this point, he will be more likely to commit inappropriate acts, because he is convinced of his worthlessness. The first step toward self-destructive evil, then, is the sustained feeling of worthlessness. The destructiveness is ready to be initiated once hopelessness sets in.

6) I would like to take a moment say: avoid labels. If you wanted a God's-eye-view of people, then you need to be able to view both their actions and their thoughts. Unfortunately, we can only view their actions within the lens of our thoughts. Our thinking is limited in that we can only observe others, not read their minds. Because we not Professor X, we are in danger of negatively interpreting benign actions. So many misinterpretations can take their toll on us. Therefore, we may do better to only view actions for what they are (must view them only as best as we can), then handle our own business. We must, as Kevin Costner once said in a (shitty) movie, "Be present." We're better off focusing on our immediate environment. We will jump the hurdles when we get to them. If we return to past events, and even interpret new events in the lens of those past events, then a negative past will upset our present. If we focus on an imaginary future, then we can upset our present. In ruminating, we are in danger of limiting our current potential. What's done is done. So, don't let what happened in Arkansas fuck you up in Alabama. This goes for witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.

7) The only thing alcohol does is remove feelings of inhibition. It removes fear. Everything else (besides reaction time and balance) are sustained. When a drunk tells you that he loves you, "I LOVE YOU GUYS," then he really fucking loves you guys. Consider Mel Gibson. No way in hell he is NOT anti-semetic, in some way. Those are the thoughts he thinks, if he said them when drunk...and to a cop. He was definitely thinking them when was drunk. God knows if he's been thinking the word "sugartits" every time he sees a good-looking woman. Beer allows people to confidently do things they'd only confidently do when drunk, or after a change in overall point-of-view. Sometimes, only two kinds of people can be trusted to always tell the truth: drunks; and confident, (sober) honest people. They usually say what they mean. For bad and good. And bad. And good. (PS. The only time I've ever been drunk, I was in a FANTASTIC mood. "I love you guys.")

8) Love is a key to living well; and loving sucks. By love, I mean mutual unconditional respect towards people. By love, I mean 'turn the other cheek.' By love, I mean 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' And love sucks because even if one person loves another, the person being loved might show disrespect. Turning the other cheek results in two bruised cheeks. Also, it's hardest and most unpleasant for a person to love when he doesn't believe that others can love. He fears people; he fears the attempt to love. When the belief and fear are sustained, he finds himself loving less. In this state, he feels safer to be aggressive, rather than wait for things to happen. He feels safer hurting others, rather than to wait for hurt.

9) Another key to living well is attempting to keep steady. "Don't let what happened in Arkansas fuck you up in Alabama." The past can be messy, messy motherfucker. For people to live more happily, we must attempt to avoid getting shackled by the past. I'm sorry to say that the most trite cliches are the most true. We just got to worry about what what's in front of us. Be present. Now, the world doesn't have to be perfect, but we can certainly avoid unnecessary harm. And if we run into unnecessary harm? Oh, well. Sometimes the biggest roadblock to a perfect world is the fear of never reaching it.