Keep Your Worldview to Yourself!

     On several occasions, I have seen someone post something religious on social media, only to garner a response of "keep your religion to yourself."  Now matter which side is acting in more ignorance (likely both hold an equal standing), I find this response to be quite amusing.  Humans are naturally emotive as to their standings and social media is a place where people are encouraged to share those standings.  Even more amusing is the fact that one can simply select those with whom they share and receiving these statements of standings.  One does not go to a democratic rally if one is highly opposed to democratic standings, especially when they have the temperament of an adolescent.

     Religion, as with anti-religion, shapes our worldview.  Someone who believes in God will have a very different view on life and their role than someone who does not believe in God.  Likewise, someone who believes in a different god will also hold a different view.  These views emerge out of everyday conversation--everything from the dreams we have, to our political standings, to our job.  One who demands that someone "keep their religion to themselves" basically is asking the other to shut up, because conversation absent a worldview is almost an impossible task.  One might be able to discuss the weather, possibly could converse about the quality of food, and only likely could talk about business.  Nearly all other topics, especially those of any intellectual substance, would be out-of-bounds.  Now, Facebook basically is a cesspool of human intellect, as these rules would demand, but I digress.

     No this person is not asking to keep worldviews out of conversations, just their worldview.  This person seeks the refuge and comfort in one's own views that ignoring another's provides.  While likely the "original poster," as one might call them, spoke poorly and also in ignorance, one cannot stop man from being stupid on occasion.  The tendency of humans to say stupid things, especially concerning things they are passionate about, should not bar one from speaking further about a topic.  If this were out into place, none would have the authority to speak but a select few who were either uninterested or unaware.

     So I ask you all to be kind and not respond to ignorance with ignorance.  While fire can be used to fight fire, ignorance only serves to fuel itself, especially when it is fueled by multiple sources.  And thus it blazes ever-onward, slowed only by well-meaning, intellectual conversation.  Do not tolerate poor thinking in discussions, but do not condemn those who do it to more extreme views.  One day you might find yourself well-entrenched in a battlefield that has been hard fought for no victory.             

The Hero of Legend

     It's funny how a seemingly normal man can be elevated into the title of hero in a single moment.  I'm not commenting on the propensity of certain humans to act in the aid of others--sometimes in the most extreme situations--but rather that of some humans to laud the actions of specific individuals according to fulfill selfish ambition.  

     Observe, if you will, the debates that rage amongst groups and the shining knights they present as their representatives.  The flowery language that adorns their character and the resolute steel of hard-line words that distinguish them from the filth of "that other guy."  There is no fault to be found in the presentations of these "unsung" heroes.  They represent you!  They stand for you!  They are your hero!  

      Now, I don't want to say that some off these individuals who get thrust into these positions are not truly heroes.  I would say a good portion of them are worthy of ceremony for their actions.  Sometimes, though, these individuals get pulled into a web of ambitious men and women whose cause needs a champion.  Sooner or later the hero becomes a saint and then the saint becomes a forgotten instrument of success.

     The easiest time to spot these "heroes" is during a presidential election.  Sometimes they are men who support certain candidates and sometimes they are the candidates themselves.  President Obama was one of these individuals.  As was the famous "Joe the Plumber" of the McCain campaign (though, obviously, President Obama's was a much more successful role).  President Obama's campaign was run masterfully: painted as the shining knight who would bring about the Change this country needed, Obama became an icon.  His name was equated with all manner of causes--a champion for the people.  And, in the end, the people chose their given hero to lead the nation.

     Eight years later, we find the hero a tarnished icon.  Few now believe in his capacity to bring about that promised Change.   The press that once sang his praises nows turns against him in an ugly rearing of their considerable power.  The one-time champion has become the butt of the joke.  

     I don't want to use this blog to rag on President Obama, though.  He isn't the focal point of today's topic.  He is just a readily available example of the kind of "hero" that gets raised into his position because of the actions of others rather than his own.  With such a short shelf-life, these individuals find themselves (as according to The Dark Knight) dying as the hero or becoming the villain.  Limited by the backing of those ambitious builders, they are unable to stand on their own feet.

     I wanted to write this to warn of the dangers of this kind of cause.  While the presence of a hero (real or constructed) is a good way to gain momentum for a cause, it is also a way of bludgeoning into the scene--often harming others.  It is a way of winning without thinking.  A way of getting a majority without acting with the majority's interest in mind.  Don't be afraid of having heroes, but do not elevate them into the realm of perfection that none can occupy.  

Well if HE says it ...

     It seems a common trend to reinforce one's views, even if simply on a personal level, by including members of your group who happen to be stars.  This, of course, is no coincidence as we seem to hold recognizable pop icons to a higher standard than the average person working a normal job without cameras being shoved in their faces.

     It is really easy to invent a special "star realm" where all those celebrities live; a realm filled with enlightenment and holding the best and brightest of our society.  This is the same kind of realm that holds teachers, who obviously only exist at school (though there have been reported sightings at such places as grocery stores) and politicians, who exist in a realm where everyone is an idiot and nobody actually knows how to do their job.  This awe-inspiring realm of the celebrity is one to behold, though.  Words they speak hold such power with ironclad opinions that they set forth amongst the less enlightened.

     This all, of course, is a bit hyperbolic, but I hope my point is coming across.  We give celebrities and icons far too much credit!  Why is it that a government official can say something and it will receive little response and yet some famous (and likely attractive) movie star will say the same thing and be branded a hero?  Do we think we know these people because of the characters they have played in movies?  Does their ability to play a role of a hero make them one?

     This realm is not limited to movie stars, though.  This week I opened my Facebook to the lovely sight of more of that blatant ignorance that typifies Facebook.  This time it took the form of a picture of Hank Jr. (can't say I know exactly who that is) and his apparent quote that "Obama is a Muslim who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S. and we hate him!"  Beyond the simple fact that this wasn't even quoted correctly (though the message was the same), I was irritated that people were standing by this statement.  What, since he's (apparently) well known he gets to make stupid statements like that?  What's even worse is that since Hank Jr. here has a larger audience he can spout his opinions at, these opinions become the representation of those who oppose Obama.

     A new trend I find even more annoying is that of stating political or philosophical opinions through the words of memes.  In this new brand of ingenuity, one becomes represented by an icon that not only has no distinct personality, it can be utilized by any number of people with any number of views.  I might not bother complaining about this, but it has become a common way of feigning a solid point, when in fact there is no foundation to their arguments.  Those who use these memes either think they are being clever, or they are simply going for the surface-level "grumpy cat: good" approach to persuasion. 

     Here's what I want to leave you with: if you hear about some celebrity stating their opinions, take them about as seriously as you would any passing stranger.  They are likely no more qualified in making statements than you are.  There is no special "celebrity training" that informs them of all the facts.  Don't being impressed by name-dropping either.  Look for reasoning.  And if you see a political or philosophical statement being expressed through a meme, laugh at it, because it serves no other purpose than to be the object of a joke.    

This is My &%#$ing Blog!

     A few weeks ago (approximately) I wrote a blog in defense of using profanity to make a point.  I want to expand upon my views of profanity and the ways it best communicates real meaning.  Because in the almost inescapable realm of strong language, there are but a few areas of legitimacy found.

     At the end of a pre-game speech in which he thanked the police and emergency workers for the work they do, David Ortiz said, "This is our &%#$ing city.  And nobody's going to dictate our freedom.  Stay strong."  Now, I understand his intention--trying to rally people together in such a sad moment--however, his speech would actually have been better without the taint of the f-bomb.  The way in which he used it almost literally meant nothing.

     You see, profanity in and of itself is usually considered poor and improper grammar.  The words themselves are taken  entirely out of their intended meaning (though this is not entirely uncommon in the English language).  They also often fill all manner of roles within the language that do nothing to modify or enhance the meaning of the words surrounding them.  Those that use them often have no idea what their meaning really is and those that claim to understand their meaning often have some manner of stupid tale that has no place in reality.  The only thing they tend to communicate is the displeasure of an individual (which is easily communicated by non-verbal cues) or the minuscule vernacular of the individual using them (which is also often made obvious through non-verbal cues).

     In the case of Mr. Ortiz' comment, it literally added no meaning to the meaning of the sentence.  That is, unless you want to take the f-word for its commonly accepted meaning today, but that  is obviously not the meaning Ortiz intended to communicate.  But years down the road, when the language has changed (maybe to an entirely new one), we will likely find some very confused researchers.  Even in listening to his delivery of the speech, I was further disappointed.  There was little vocal inflection--something that might have actually communicated more meaning to his message.  The word he seemed to be relying on for emphasis failed him and he was left with a rather uninspiring message.

     Now my meaning for this blog isn't to attack Mr. Ortiz, but rather the misconception that swearing is necessary in every situation and adds meaning to speeches.  If you've spent any manner of time on the internet, you know that people like to swear.  It'd be nice to see this trend lessen and people embrace a wider vocabulary that they utilize in expressing their feelings.  Until then, I guess we'll all just have to continue bracing ourselves for an onslaught of uncalled-for and useless profanity every time we enter our browsers.