A Lot of Words. Nothing To Be Said.


I work with all white guys….in a red state. There’s no variance of opinion.

But whatever. It pays the bills.

Yet due to this, I have to be subjected to right-wing radio…which, in all honesty, if I have to subjected to any form of halfassed news media, I’d probably choose that kind…but it’s all a Sophie’s Choice.

I’m not specifically calling out right-wing radio because it’s right-wing…I’m calling it out because I don’t know what they’re trying to say. I suppose I could say the same about a few liberal talking heads, it’s just that I rarely listen to any of those people. My concern is that it’s unclear WHAT exactly listeners are supposed to get out of these kinds of programs.

Is it knowledge?

Knowledge about what? How liberals are stupid and there’s a subliminal leftist conspiracy trying to erode away America?

Is that it? There’s a show dedicated to this problem that airs five times a week…for SEVERAL hours a day?! And if liberals are so oppressive, and successful, in implementing their agenda, how the fuck are they still on the air?

And why would they oppose their “agenda”? Is it just because liberals are whiny and hold these monolithic “Marxist” views which are never explained? What is it about these supposed “Marxist” views do they not like and why should people be persuaded to see things their way?

And strangely, these guys seem to get on to the Left for being so whiny, yet continue to whine about a guy that took a knee during the National Anthem.

This is why I’ve always said that cheap political punditry is more dangerous than pornography: it’s a gripe fest masquerading as intellectual discourse. It reinforces a limited worldview. It allows people to be mentally lazy…it tells them that they’ve achieved enlightenment, all they have to do is listen to the loud man in the box. When people should be thinking for themselves, they’re listening to some guy phone it in every day.

So don’t listen to those guys! Come read my fucking blog!

But seriously, the guys I listen to are the old-school “disciplined” conservatives. Not the new kids you can find on YouTube. These guys still talk about Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton like they were President yesterday. And since nothing new has happened since 2001, all of their talking points are addressing what other “mainstream media” outlets are saying.

So it’s all gossip. “Can you BELIEVE what CNN reported today?!”, “A kid was expelled from school for NOT participating in the anti-gun protests. The mainstream media will not report this!”

But like pornography, these programs are fine in moderation and taken with a grain of salt. It’s when they become a substitute for genuine discussion and rigorous thought that they become a problem.




The Post-Positive Age (Part I)


We can positively know things about the world, but can we know everything about the thing in the world?

The fuck am I talking about now?

Can more than one explanation account for a thing, and can multiple things account for an explanation?

I’m not sure where I’m going with this. But if there’s been a common theme with my last few posts, it’s been this: notions of progress are a human construction…things neither improve nor decline, they just change. (To get more specific with my personal philosophy, the mind is designed to seek flaws: whatever improvements we make gets exchanged for a new set of problems and conditions)

That’s all we can positively affirm in historical discourse.

Which seemingly makes Auguste Comte’s “three stages” of history (or social evolution) all the more nonsensical IF you misunderstand what I’m saying. Comte is essentially correct: how we come to understand the world changes. The mistake made is that he assumed the final stage, where we eschew the supernatural and metaphysical in favor pure positive knowledge (or science) would be a sort of “final destination”…where humanity didn’t need to advance any further.   In terms of how the “experts” assess modern questions…we are largely in a positive phase. Sure, we occasionally consult the priest or clergyman with life’s affairs, but to find factual or objective knowledge, we have to pursuit those knowledgeable in some form of inductive methodology…or in other words, people of science. Few people in the modern world would take the opinion of a priest over a scientist in the affairs of biology, meteorology, or most other -ologies (although MANY still do)

I suppose we could say that Isaac Newton ushered in this “positive” era (although Comte would have chosen a later era), where he was able to accurately uncover the principles of the universe without the use of theology (an -ology where positive knowledge WON’T help you). I suppose this turn in thinking would be what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift. There was probably a paradigm shift towards the theological which fundamentally changed human thought at some point in history. As we are living in the “era” of Newton, there will be another paradigm shift in the future.

Despite the confidence in our abilities and knowledge, there will probably come a time when people will reflect on this era and say: “can you believe people believed that shit?”.

Scientific pluralism has something to do with this too, but I ran out of time. Which is why I’m posting this video below.

Thought of the Day: Past is Prologue


I should probably state the distinction between “Thought of the Day” and a regular post. A “Thought of the Day” is a more or less me taking a shot in the dark: it’s either going to make sense or be complete bullshit. In other words, I couldn’t figure out a way to coherently construct a thought, so I just started typing about a general subject and hoped for the best.

Keep that in mind.

Now I’m a nerd for history. But not because I see it as a window into our future. It appeals to me because the same way, say STAR TREK appeals to me…it just fucking does, okay?

Of course, I have frequently compared modern US to Ancient Rome but that’s only because it’s fun for me to do so. Not because I literally believe Rome and America are identical in their historical trajectories.

But the only way many can find the utility in history is if they see it as, again, a “window into the future”. “Those that don’t study history are doomed to repeat it” as the logic goes. Which is pretty idiotic when thought through. A historian must have thought of that one. But contrary to what your history teacher taught you, history doesn’t repeat itself. It doesn’t “echo” either. I mean, sure, events might be similar, but just because they’re similar doesn’t mean that they have the same cause. So what is history good for? Fuck if I know, I just like to study it.

But I suppose history as a discipline is useful for a means of (for a lack of a better term) rememberance. Shit happens. BAD shit happens. Some good shit too, but mostly bad. I mentioned something previously about empathy and its necessity for maintaining freedoms, which in turn helps bind our society. In a way, reflecting upon, investigating past events and peoples helps us engage this empathy…we are able to empathize with characters of the past and the conditions of their actions (in many ways they are “victims” of their age) because their decisions are what brought us to today. In a more negative sense, it might tap into our fear of what happens after death…notably what happens on Earth. Nothing could be worse than being forgotten. So we empathize with persons of the past for the sake of rememberance, lest we ourselves be forgotten. Look, I’m just spitballing here. But if there is to be a utility for history, it’s to remember. (To honor is another popular explanation, but “honor” seems insufficient to me)

How we recall events is also problematic. We tend to classify events based, in part, on future events. I suppose an example of this would be Gavrilo Princip, the man who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and kickstarted World War I…and in effect, World War II. We don’t need to know shit about the carnage of WWI to understand the motivations and life of Princip….nevertheless he’s lumped into the pantheon of the Great War. Upon closer examination, we realize such eras in history really weren’t eras….those titles are usually bestowed by future historians. Did the people living in the “dark ages” know they were living in the “dark ages”?

I’m not going to take this conclusion to its extreme where we can’t know anything about history (or a postmodern interpretation as an asshole might say). Obviously things DO happen. But can historical analysis transcend mere information? And is information alone enough to understand a particular timeframe? An example I have used before is my rant against SPOILER ALERTS! I argued that SPOILER ALERTS are useless and if you rely upon them to not ruin your movie-going experience, clearly you don’t know anything about how movies work. You can know everything there is to know about a movie before going to see it: it’s director, the script, it’s plot, etc…but none of that information will tell you if it’s a good movie. To learn that, you have to experience it. The study of history, at least commonly understood, is like studying a movie without watching it. We CAN know every detail about an event, about a particular era, but it won’t tell us what we want to know: what was it like?

In this sad sense, all of our memories and experiences will become, as Roy Batty eloquently stated, “lost in time, like tears in rain.”

So what is history good for? I suppose that it depends upon the era of history that you’re living in! Recently, the study has taken a more anthropological and/or sociological form with people like Jared Diamond and Yuval Noah Harari. But the study of it, and our interpretations, are based on the questions we want answered for our own time. 

But I can say, almost without doubt, history is not moving in a definite Hegelian-like direction where the meaning of it all will be revealed to some “final Spirit” or some shit (unless living consciousness can last until the end of the universe. In that case, my apologies to Hegel) We know this to not be true, YET to some degree we allow this to inform our opinion on the study of history itself. “Past IS prologue”, but is not a determinate to our future.

The Best and Brightest


Higher Education is notoriously attacked on the Right, somewhat on the Left, and even those within the Universities have their criticisms.

And all of these criticisms are well deserved, I might add.

A common critique from the average joe is that universities should teach the skills necessary for the workforce. Many institutions reject such notions, claiming the purpose of higher education is to develop the mind and, to some degree, spirit…knowledge for the sake of knowledge, if you will.

Naturally, I tend to agree with the latter view…individuals shouldn’t be developed for “workforce” purposes, to be a mere tool of corporate America. YET, at the same time, I have a hard time seeing students developing their mind and spirit…to be a well-rounded individual…in modern universities.

This might just be my personal bias. I attended 5 universities in total, and I never observed any sort of “mind development”. “Knowledge cramming”, yes! But personal development? Whatever personal development that did occur only occurred IN SPITE of the university (like coping mechanisms to handle the stress). My experience isn’t universal of course, but I never saw anything close the philosophy that academics use to defend the purpose of their institutions.

If “personal development”….or even LEARNING….is your aim, then I recommend not going at all. As I’ve said before, I graduated a pissed off, stressed out person…hardly worth the thousands that I spent.

There’s reasons for this. Schools are under political pressure to produce a skillful workforce. Additionally, they have to compete with countless other schools for applicants. For the more “elite” colleges, they know that they are selling you a name so they have to maintain an air of “elite-ness”. In short, the student exists for the purpose of the institution, not vice-versa.

I’ve always maintained that colleges and universities are in an awkward spot in the Internet Age. Once upon a time, if you wanted pure “knowledge”, you went to a library or a university. But now that information is no longer contained within brick and mortar institutions. Just pull your phone out of your pocket and find out whatever you need to know.

It’s here where somebody usually evokes the word “education”…or something like “you have to have the education to apply that knowledge”. Fine. But personal bias again, there’s a difference between “knowledge cramming” and “education” and I’ve mostly experienced the former.

But universities are failing to live up to their own integral standards. They want to develop people, to create a better society,  yet also want to be “elite”….I suppose a Platonic holdover of a by-gone era…where they can serve ONLY “the best and brightest” rather than develop people into “the best and brightest”.

I suppose that makes their job easier.

But as a result, they’re not creating a better society…they’re contributing to an unjust one.

Love Thy Neighbor


pexels-photo-145683.jpeg“Death penalty for drug dealers.”

In the US, we like our freedoms with an edge…with a boot to our throats.

“Live free or die”, as the saying goes. And by golly, you will fucking die if you don’t live up to our standards of “freedom”. So it’s only natural that our response to the opioid crisis is to let drug dealers and addicts die.

This conversation has been picking up steam: China and Singapore don’t have a drug problem because of their stringent laws, we should adopt the same policy. I don’t know shit about China or Singapore and their legal system because again, I don’t do research, but does it matter if it’s true? Is it worth compromising our ideals just to eliminate opioid addiction and possibly letting thousands die or subjecting them to state sponsored murder?

You know how to eliminate diabetes? Kill the candy-makers and let the sufferers die. (I’m joking, of course)

“Diabetes doesn’t have the same ill-consequences that drug addiction does.” Someone might say.

It doesn’t? Having large swaths of the population being overweight and unhealthy doesn’t have adverse affects on society?

Letting addicts die (as a recent paper from the Brooking’s Institute seemingly advocated) and killing drug dealers just to solve an epidemic seems to run counter to the purpose of well, SOLVING AN EPIDEMIC. The purpose is to save people, not let them die. Using this cartoon logic that conservatives (and apparently courts in China and Singapore) use, when another outbreak of Ebola or HIV occurs (which I shouldn’t be giving them ideas), we should just round the suffers up and let them die. Problem solved LOL!

Of course, it’s easy to use this logic to appeal to the White suburban reader who largely see themselves as isolated from the problem (they aren’t). But it’s another thing once when they are facing it personally. I’m sure they’d feel differently if their son or daughter was overdosing, and I’m positive (as Chapo Trap House stated) the paramedics wouldn’t want to standby and watch someone OD.

But to listen to Trump and others that advocate this sort of thinking, we should simply forgo our empathy and concern for our neighbors just so we can ELIMINATE a problem, not solve it. We must forceably enact our freedoms, not allow people the choice.

How can this even be considered “freedom”?

I’ll have to apologize once again for evoking Zizek, but when discussing his form of “Christian Atheism”, (perhaps more on that later) he mentioned the commandment “Love Thy Neighbor”. We intuitively understand this and practice it to varying degrees, but CEASE to do so when presented with evidence that our neighbor might not conform to our standards of morality. Suddenly we feel that we are permitted to no longer “love” our neighbor, and can choose to hate or feel indifference towards them. But we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and   “Ourselves” occasionally fail to live up to our own expectations…YET we countinue to love the self. The opioid epidemic has been a creeping one: there is a strong likelihood that YOU know someone close that’s suffering from it, with or without your knowledge. It is, in effect, impacting all of us and by failing to have empathy towards those suffering we are hating or feeling indifferent towards our neighbor and placing  such high expectations on our own moral character that it would be impossible to follow through.

Today, it’s the drug dealers and addicts…tomorrow, it’s you!

That sounded much better in my head…but in any event, a boot to the throat may indeed solve the problem, but without empathy, our freedoms dissolve.

Face The Violence


Many times, I read an article believing that I will soon write about it when I get home. Often times that fails. When I finally get the time to write about it, the article itself becomes buried in the sands of the internet and I’m unable to locate it.

That’s the case for today’s article. (Mind you, I only spent 45 seconds looking for it)

Thankfully, the article’s summary is simple: we criticize movies and entertainment for their glorification of violence, why do video games get a pass? If you have the time and motivation, you can find the article at The Week.

Despite growing up during an age where video gaming became the primary source of entertainment, I was never quite suckered in. Of course I went through stretches of gaming periods, mostly with Madden, but I never took much enjoyment in “first person shooters”. Grand Theft Auto was fun, mind you, but getting involved in far more strategic gaming just seemed like too much work. I don’t like to work….nor do I like stress. When playing Street Fighter on Sega Genesis, I would get infuriated. Anger isn’t my thing. So gaming never became a part of my identity.

So I empathize with the author of this article in that video games seemingly promote violence with its interactive nature without much reflection. From what I can recall, there is no subliminal message within Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty that gives any sort of reflection on violence. They’re presented as mere entertainment, a means of escape. Only the “action” and “excitement” around violence is shown and experienced….we don’t see the consequence of such actions.

But what bothered me about the article is that the author suggests that we don’t give movies and television that same pass…that when such violent material is presented in those mediums, it’s “called out” and discussed without much resistance. Yet strangely, The Walking Dead, James Bond, and countless superhero movies where thousands die pass through culture without any mention of their presentation of violence. In fact, ONLY video games get discussed in this regard while we give James Bond, Batman, and Rick Grimes a pass.

Nevertheless, I agree with the author’s fundamental assertion: our presentations of violence is troublesome. What can be done about it?

Infamously, Penn and Teller created the video game Desert Bus as a response to the moral panic that was occurring in the 90s. The purpose was to show that we don’t want accurate representations of the real world in our entertainment…we want escapism through excitement. (If we got actual representations, then our video games would be driving a bus at 45 mph from Phoenix to Las Vegas)

To combat the glorification of violence, predictably I take a Zizekian approach: show the violence!

An example of this is the aptly titled film A History of Violence. David Cronenberg not only shows gratuitous acts of violence…he also shows their consequences. In one scene, Viggo Mortensen viciously beats the shit out of a guy’s nose to rescue his son. After the individual was defeated, most films would likely not show the character’s face again as he would no longer be of consequence. But not here. Cronenberg shows this individual’s destroyed face and the pain he is enduring. It was a quick shot, but one that establishes that “throw away” violence which is usually shown in these films have victims: there is the initial act of violence, then there’s the aftermath that the hero rarely sticks around for. In such aftermath, there is blood, mangled bodies, confusion, distress, etc.  As A History of Violence shows, violence is not a contained moment in time.

We see James Bond kill the unnamed henchman, but we rarely see Bond at home living with his actions. We also don’t see friends and family of the deceased henchman learn the news of his death.

It’s tempting in times like these where school shootings are all too present to DEMAND censorship or some sort of superficial response like “having a conversation”. But I argue the contrary. As Dave Chappelle acutely pointed out, it was only AFTER American readers were exposed to the consequence of violence via a picture Emmett Till’s battered and deceased body that the Civil Right’s Movement took off. If we want to decrease the prevalence of violence, we can’t hide from their consequences: they must be shown.

Show the pictures of the Parkland High School shootings…show the bloodied mangled bodies, show the confusion immediately afterwards, listen to the distressed students and their loved ones, listen to how death and violence has effected the lives of everyone involved.

This graphic display doesn’t “de-sensitize” us from violence…in fact it “re-sensitizes” us after years of desensitization from escapist violence. It’s the escapist form that has caused us so much harm, which includes molding conservative opinion that all it takes is a “good guy with a gun” to stop a shooter because in their minds, James Bond films are genuine representations of how violence works (this also explains why they sometimes get offended when far more genuine depictions of violence are shown in entertainment). When we have this informed opinion on how real violence operates, suddenly its escapist form is less palatable….OR we are better able to appreciate (or critically analyze) escapist entertainment.

To change the moral fiber of a society, you don’t shield them the dynamics of truth….but present it to them in a very real way. And here in the West, particularly the USA, we’ve been shielded from this truth. We’ve allowed our entertainment to inform us on reality and hence our desensitization from violence….and a complete disinterest in reality itself.

And that’s my primary criticism of gamer society. Indeed, I suppose that’s my criticism of ALL internet-based cultures, to include those that are “addicted” to some form of social media: reality failed to meet their romanticized expectations, so they retreat into a subculture or platform that helps affirm their conceptions. This society, or identity, becomes more REAL than, well….genuine reality. This artificial world, perhaps subconsciously, informs the gamer on the nature of violence or fuels a narcissistic ego of the Facebook user.

In short, we’ve become unable to distinguish between reality and our escapist pursuits of entertainment. To prevent violence, we cannot retreat behind censorship or the comforts of our digital personas, we must LOOK AT IT.

Remembering Author Charles R. Jackson

Cormac McCarthy said that “if there’s an occupational hazard to writing, it’s drinking.”

Charles Jackson would probably second that. It’s amazing how alcoholism affects SO SO many in the field.

I quit drinking several months ago. So much was done to prevent me from doing so again that the thought “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic” seldom crosses my mind. But it’s true. As discussed in the video above, Jackson was 11 years sober when he slipped up, believing himself to be fully in control of his alcoholism. Despite writing The Lost Weekend, then considered the seminal work on alcoholics, it doesn’t appear that Jackson ever overcame his disease. It is claimed that he died from suicide by barbiturate overdose. Despite my seemingly successful sobriety, I have to be reminded of these stories from time to time.

I got a lot out of the speech Jackson made to Alcoholics Anonymous in the video posted. If you’re going through these sorts of struggles, I strongly recommend a listen.

Arrogance of Modernity: Steven Pinker


Full disclosure: I haven’t read  Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now. This is based only on the Salon article that you can read hereBut based on what I know of Pinker, I have no reason to doubt Salon’s accusations against his newest book. Should I have read it? Probably. But as I am fond of reminding you: this is my blog and I can talk about whatever I want. So there you have it…

If I were a respected intellectual, I have no doubt that Pinker would have called me out in Enlightenment Now for being a leftist “progressophobe”. I prefer to think of myself as a “progressive skeptic”. But that would be missing the point: I am not “anti-progressive”. I have asserted that technology and our common notions of “progress” only set up the parameters of modern life…they do not “make life better”.

Let me explain this again: when we reflect on history, it becomes “apparent” that humanity has progressed for the better. We’re living longer, we’ve seemingly taken control of the planet, information is readily available, and….that’s pretty much it! But the mistake that intellectuals like Pinker make is that longevity of life and access to modern conveniences equals progress. This is what I’ve called the “arrogance of modernity”.

“Progress”, as we like to think of it, is quite subjective (for a lack of better description). I don’t share the neoliberal optimism that Pinker and others have shared. I am not a materialist. Have I benefited from such innovations like the internet? Absolutely. But again, material gain does not equate to a better standard of living. While we have more shit at our disposal, we are also working slave wages, suffering from a plethora of mental health illnesses IN ADDITION to diseases like diabetes, cancers, and heart-related problems because our diet is terrible. We also have automatic machine guns, nuclear weapons, and standing militaries capable of committing genocide at a moment’s notice. Sure, cavemen were undoubtedly savage assholes living in rough times, but what would they say if they could evaluate our lives today?

Since we are living in a “post-Enlightenment” era, an era that the rarified air of Ivy League academia has benefited from, intellectuals like Pinker have become blinded by definitions of progress as spelled out BY the Enlightenment. (I cannot attest to Salon’s accusations that Pinker fundamentally misunderstood the Enlightenment readings that he cites.)

Again, I didn’t read the book, but I will entertain Salon’s accusation of Pinker’s so-called “apology of capitalism”. Presumably the argument is that even though capitalism has brought with it much harm, it was also the catalyst for the improvement in quality of life….or what Pinker defines as “progress”. I’ve already spelled out why progress is a faulty assumption…and to add to that, material gain does not automatically equal a better life. Liberal intellectuals like Pinker have fallen into the neoliberal meritocracy myth, which is why guys like Bill Gates love this work. But this meritocracy has contributed to much of problems of modern life, problems that the Ivy League-attending billionaires and intellectuals like Gates and Pinker don’t suffer from. Instead of being a champion of “progress”, Pinker is unwittingly defending the status quo essentially, as addressed by Salon.

But back to the defense of myself and my criticisms of common notions of progress…in the West, we’ve defined human achievement as improvement in material well-being. But, I suppose that wealth and longevity in overall public wellbeing aren’t good indicators of “existential” wellbeing, if you will. Our evaluations of people based on their productivity has made us “poor in spirit” (for, again, a lack of a better description). Capitalism has been effective in so far in its ability to manipulate our existential concerns to spur development and economic growth. That’s progress ONLY in a material sense, but not in a very human sense. If we want HUMAN progress, I don’t advocate a DO MORE, WANT MORE ethic that that neoliberal meritocracy warrants, but a WANT LESS attitude that focuses on personal (or spiritual) wellbeing.

Now THAT’S progress I advocate.

Thought of the Day: Lie To Me


In a study that should shock no one (which you can read about here from the BBC) researchers discovered that ‘false news’ travels faster than truth on the internet. It was something that people have long suspected but now we have empirical evidence to support it’s validity.

It appears that much of the study was centered around Twitter, but it’s probably safe to assume that this is a massive problem across all social media platforms. And again, if you need evidence that literally nothing good comes from using Twitter, here it is.

Part of the appeal to ‘false news’, as the researchers indicated, is that it is more ‘novel’ than genuine news. But I’d like to add that false news confirms the bullshittery of our beliefs…and actual news is all to easy to dismiss in the Internet Age. Just go ask Ben Shapiro who will probably dismiss this study as a conspiracy against conservatives.  Which, in fairness to Shapiro, does lead to the question of how we DEFINE truth. But I suppose that false news is more than just ‘novel’, it fuels our sense of indignant outrage…as if we’ve been vindicated in our beliefs.

ACTUAL news, or facts we can think of them, don’t care about our feelings…as the great (I’m joking) Ben Shapiro likes to remind us…so we in turn don’t care about it.

Social media allows us to wallow in our tiny cocoon of beliefs, at least if we use it as our main source of information. It’s the blanket of ignorance that keeps us warm. Since false news gets more views…and more views equal more revenue…then absolutely nothing will be done it.

So as I’ve warned before, and I will continue to do so: just say no to social media.

Or just say no to Twitter at least.

Quitting Social Media: A Reflection


When we consider the ‘dangers’ that the Internet poses, pornography is usually the subject discussed the most: keeping it out of sight from children, ensuring that adults aren’t addicted, not making it demeaning to women, etc.

In the age of Trump, ‘fake news’ has now become a cause for concern. And I’ve always argued that cheap political punditry is far more damaging than online pornography.

Social media, however, occasionally gets its critics. But it always gets a pass because everyone uses it.

It’s been a few months since I’ve quit social media. I don’t miss it. But the truth is that I might’ve never understood it.

What do I mean?

I suppose the theory behind Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, etc, is that it allows you to ‘connect’: stay in touch with friends, meet people with similar interests, etc. That’s the idea at least, and that is likely our rationale behind using it.

But it’s not really about ‘others’. It’s about providing a false image of yourself. For many, this image has become indistinguishable from themselves. They are unable to divorce themselves from the platform which presents this image, which is why they are unable to relate to people face-to-face: their online world has become indistinguishable from reality because reality presents an insufficient self. That’s a common criticism at least.

But, in a world where we need more face-to-face interaction with regards to our political activity, online platforms have been seen as a substitute for that as well. Twitter is a prime example. ‘SJWs”, “hashtavists”, “Twitter Heroes” see their activity as being just as important as the Civil Rights work of previous generations. In their eyes, they’re bringing ‘awareness’ to a larger audience…somehow believing that a limited number of characters can enlighten others. This halfassed form of activism usually results in mockery and downplays the severity of the issues because it is seemingly done  for the benefit of the users narcissism. It appeals to their “feel good” nature by having them believe that they’ve done something admirable and provides and image of superiority over the opponents. AT LEAST that’s the image they’re providing. I have no idea what the actual thought process is…all I know is that Twitter probably hurts more than helps their cause and is definitely no substitute for ACTUAL action. If you want to change the world, one has to act WITHIN it.

I think we can all agree that Twitter needs to go away.

What provoked me to slowly move away from social media was a Twitter incident during my podcasting days. I managed to provoke a response from the National Review’s Kyle Smith. It didn’t do any good: Smith thought I was an idiot (for good reason) and I ended up hating him. But I felt a rush of power because I actually got a response from someone in ‘power’. But after a few hours of reflection, an emptiness was felt inside of me because I realized that the interaction only resulted in hate and feelings of superiority. A few days later, I took down the account and never looked back. When I began to assess why I use social media, I realized that that was the ONLY reason I used it…to piss off others.

Soon after, my Facebook use began to decline. Eventually I deleted my account (I have another account that, I guess, is still active but I have no access to it). I have not used social media in the last few months.

“What about your friends?”, you might ask.

I’m a grown ass man. If I wanted to contact my friends, I’ll fucking contact them!

If I needed social media to stay in contact with my family, then maybe I just don’t want to talk to my family!

True, I suppose we could say that this blog is a form of ‘social media’ (except I don’t care if I meet any of my readers). But this blog at least allows me to thoroughly explain my opinions to an audience that might actually want to read them. That’s something that neither Facebook nor Twitter could provide (at least adequately).

There was a lot more I wanted to cover, but since leaving those platforms, I’m looking at my phone LESS and engaging in personal discussion MORE. And in today’s world, people need to be reminded to do that.