Saturday, November 20, 2004
A better kind of civil union
If it were up to me, gay marriage would be legal TODAY. The majority of Americans are still against that, however, so it's a good idea to think through the best way to design a civil union, hereafter abbreviated as "CU," which would provide all the legal benefits of marriage without actually being called marriage, such that it would provide gay couples with the best deal possible. WHY do we need to give it any thought, when it's suppose to be designed to be exactly the same from a legal standpoint? Because, as we all know, "separate but equal" ISN'T. The only way I can see to avoid the CU falling into that category is to NOT have it be only for gays; if straight people were getting CU's also, it wouldn't be possible for any laws to later be passed eroding the value of a CU, or for any prejudice to be shown against it... too many straight people, all of whom are voters, would scream in protest for it to ever happen.
My idea on how to set this up is to go back to the concept of marriage being a religious construct, and to alter the laws such that the word "marriage" would apply only to a ceremony performed by a religious leader; straight couples who were NOT married by a religious leader (and that would include my own marriage, by the way) would therefore also have CU's, in addition to the gays who'd be getting them... and thus, a CU would NOT be just a gay thing, and it would be awfully hard to make it less than a marriage, benefits-wise.
Aside from straight people who, like my husband and I, just don't want religion in the middle of their marriage ceremony (for the record, we were married by a lesbian justice of the peace, how's THAT for PC?), who'd want a CU rather than a marriage? Pro-gay people would be choosing CU's just to show solidarity with the gay community, and their gay friends and relatives. Hollywood types would do it to seem hip and cool and modern, and to get massive publicity; star-obsessed regular people would do it to be like the stars. Rebellious and anti-establishment young people would do it to tick off their elders, and some folks would do it just for the novelty. If it could be made legal for religious leaders to officiate over CU's, and I see no reason why it couldn't, progressive churches could offer the option of a CU ceremony, and then gay people could get married in a church, and so could their friends and such who wanted the CU and the religious stuff too.
What about people who are already married? They'd be grandfathered in as still being called "married," and then, for a small fee, could choose to re-register as CU's; I'd be the first in line to do it, and many of the same sort of people who'd choose a CU would also pay to re-register. And then... gays would have a legal way to make their love official, a way that would NOT ghetto-ize them, religions could decide for themselves how to handle marriages, as they should be able to do, the religious folks would have nothing to complain about, and straight people would FINALLY have the option of a legal bond that's free of religious and historical trappings. I hope with all my heart to see at least this much progress made in my lifetime, and I'll NEVER stop hoping that it doesn't end up being necessary, that the American people will decide to cherish love rather than punish those who are different.
My idea on how to set this up is to go back to the concept of marriage being a religious construct, and to alter the laws such that the word "marriage" would apply only to a ceremony performed by a religious leader; straight couples who were NOT married by a religious leader (and that would include my own marriage, by the way) would therefore also have CU's, in addition to the gays who'd be getting them... and thus, a CU would NOT be just a gay thing, and it would be awfully hard to make it less than a marriage, benefits-wise.
Aside from straight people who, like my husband and I, just don't want religion in the middle of their marriage ceremony (for the record, we were married by a lesbian justice of the peace, how's THAT for PC?), who'd want a CU rather than a marriage? Pro-gay people would be choosing CU's just to show solidarity with the gay community, and their gay friends and relatives. Hollywood types would do it to seem hip and cool and modern, and to get massive publicity; star-obsessed regular people would do it to be like the stars. Rebellious and anti-establishment young people would do it to tick off their elders, and some folks would do it just for the novelty. If it could be made legal for religious leaders to officiate over CU's, and I see no reason why it couldn't, progressive churches could offer the option of a CU ceremony, and then gay people could get married in a church, and so could their friends and such who wanted the CU and the religious stuff too.
What about people who are already married? They'd be grandfathered in as still being called "married," and then, for a small fee, could choose to re-register as CU's; I'd be the first in line to do it, and many of the same sort of people who'd choose a CU would also pay to re-register. And then... gays would have a legal way to make their love official, a way that would NOT ghetto-ize them, religions could decide for themselves how to handle marriages, as they should be able to do, the religious folks would have nothing to complain about, and straight people would FINALLY have the option of a legal bond that's free of religious and historical trappings. I hope with all my heart to see at least this much progress made in my lifetime, and I'll NEVER stop hoping that it doesn't end up being necessary, that the American people will decide to cherish love rather than punish those who are different.
Friday, November 19, 2004
A couple of updates
The Blockbuster disaster (original post 11-9): 2 of the 3 missing DVD's turned up stuck into a magazine that had been floating around in my husband's car; he HAD lied about mailing them, as I said all along. He sent them back, and hopefully we'll get something sent to us to watch soon, as we're STILL paying for the service-we can't cancel until we return the 3rd DVD, unless we want to pay full retail price for it. Occam's Razor tells me that DVD #3 is also unmailed and shuffled in with my husband's stuff; he's still got alot of looking through piles of junk to do.
I'll tell you what I've been telling everyone; if you're the tiniest bit disorganized, do NOT use an online DVD service, because they don't contact you if you don't return the DVD's promptly, and it's all too easy for weeks to go by before you realize you're not getting new ones, or not getting them at the expected rate (eg if less than all 3 DVD's are unreturned), and by then you don't know where in all of your possessions the darned things might be hiding.
The first grader who was being starved (original post, 11-11): on my advice, her mother DID call the school, and the teacher she spoke to had the unmitigated gall to reply that the child was "eating enough food to sustain her," and that therefore nothing needed to be done. Oh REALLY? How DARE she pass judgment on how little food a growing child could eat and still be "sustained," much less do well in her lessons? The child's mother isn't capable of anger (it's part of her emotional problems), but this seemed wrong to her; she reported it to me, and when she saw how enraged *I* was, she was emboldened to try again, so we discussed what she should say next. This time, she told the principal that she wanted her child to have a FULL lunch like every other child was eating, because no fraction of a meal was enough for a child that had no access to other food all afternoon... and they GAVE IN-the girl can now bring a lunch. HOORAY!! :-)
Parents, take note; school policies aren't always set in stone, even though they try to make you think they are, and, if you make an issue of something, you often CAN get them to give in. If you think that your child isn't being provided with something they need, or is being subjected to something counterproductive to the goals they're supposed to be achieving, FIGHT it... every change starts with ONE person.
I'll tell you what I've been telling everyone; if you're the tiniest bit disorganized, do NOT use an online DVD service, because they don't contact you if you don't return the DVD's promptly, and it's all too easy for weeks to go by before you realize you're not getting new ones, or not getting them at the expected rate (eg if less than all 3 DVD's are unreturned), and by then you don't know where in all of your possessions the darned things might be hiding.
The first grader who was being starved (original post, 11-11): on my advice, her mother DID call the school, and the teacher she spoke to had the unmitigated gall to reply that the child was "eating enough food to sustain her," and that therefore nothing needed to be done. Oh REALLY? How DARE she pass judgment on how little food a growing child could eat and still be "sustained," much less do well in her lessons? The child's mother isn't capable of anger (it's part of her emotional problems), but this seemed wrong to her; she reported it to me, and when she saw how enraged *I* was, she was emboldened to try again, so we discussed what she should say next. This time, she told the principal that she wanted her child to have a FULL lunch like every other child was eating, because no fraction of a meal was enough for a child that had no access to other food all afternoon... and they GAVE IN-the girl can now bring a lunch. HOORAY!! :-)
Parents, take note; school policies aren't always set in stone, even though they try to make you think they are, and, if you make an issue of something, you often CAN get them to give in. If you think that your child isn't being provided with something they need, or is being subjected to something counterproductive to the goals they're supposed to be achieving, FIGHT it... every change starts with ONE person.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
The aging of my mother
My mother has always looked many years younger than she is, and she still does; although she's pushing 70, she looked easily 20 years younger, until... well, I guess I don't know when things changed, but I just noticed it yesterday. Don't get me wrong, she STILL looks amazing for her age, but... it's like her skin suddenly got looser. She lost the skin tone on her arms in the past year, but now suddenly the skin on her eyelids and browbone, which had just been a little crepey before, with some hollowness in the sockets, is... hanging, and folded-looking. This is the only change I saw in her face, and it's objectively not a big deal, especially on a senior citizen, but it sent a chill up my spine, because when she had certain expressions it made her look OLD, and I've never thought of her as an old woman before.
I have extreme longevity in my family, and she could literally last another 30 years, so it's not like she's going to die anytime soon; she's healthy as a horse, and lives a busy and independent life, so there's nothing whatsoever for me to stress about, but that still doesn't keep me from being a little weirded out. Part of the reason for that, I think, is that HER mother, who's in her 90's, is slowly losing her cognitive abilities, and this makes me see her death within the next decade, and THAT makes me see a time when I won't have either of them... and this is hard for me to grasp emotionally, as none of my family of origin have died during my lifetime as of yet.
Psychologically, the first thing anyone would say about this is that I'm worried about my OWN mortality here, and I'm sure I am at some level, although I haven't been consciously aware of it; people tend to freak out about the years past vs the years remaining when they reach certain pivotal ages and realize what they failed to do, and/or will never be able to do, but I've already exceeded my lifetime goals, and am far from the time when I won't be able to do anything I care about, so I honestly think that's a minor consideration for me currently... although when one of my closest friends turns 40 next month, that'll probably change for a while.
I'm not going to focus on this issue, as that generates bad karma; I'm glad that Thanksgiving is in a week, because I'm going to be VERY grateful this year for the family tendency to live past 100.
I have extreme longevity in my family, and she could literally last another 30 years, so it's not like she's going to die anytime soon; she's healthy as a horse, and lives a busy and independent life, so there's nothing whatsoever for me to stress about, but that still doesn't keep me from being a little weirded out. Part of the reason for that, I think, is that HER mother, who's in her 90's, is slowly losing her cognitive abilities, and this makes me see her death within the next decade, and THAT makes me see a time when I won't have either of them... and this is hard for me to grasp emotionally, as none of my family of origin have died during my lifetime as of yet.
Psychologically, the first thing anyone would say about this is that I'm worried about my OWN mortality here, and I'm sure I am at some level, although I haven't been consciously aware of it; people tend to freak out about the years past vs the years remaining when they reach certain pivotal ages and realize what they failed to do, and/or will never be able to do, but I've already exceeded my lifetime goals, and am far from the time when I won't be able to do anything I care about, so I honestly think that's a minor consideration for me currently... although when one of my closest friends turns 40 next month, that'll probably change for a while.
I'm not going to focus on this issue, as that generates bad karma; I'm glad that Thanksgiving is in a week, because I'm going to be VERY grateful this year for the family tendency to live past 100.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
A standard troublemaker pattern
As I read through forums, I'm constantly amazed as to how the same behavioral patterns emerge over and over in troublemakers; do they all read the same book or something? How do they always know to do the EXACT same thing, when they don't even know each other?
Here's one that's easy to spot, both online and in real life, and easy to BEAT, if you can just keep your head at the crucial moment:
1) The troublemaker, from here on out referred to as "TM" for short, says something nasty to or about the victim; it's usually blatant, but it can be more subtle if they're an experienced TM who wants to have a little gray area to work with later on.
2) The victim protests; it doesn't matter how mildly and politely this is done, the response will be the same.
3) The TM denies having said anything wrong or bad, no matter how extreme and ill-intentioned what they said was.
4) OK, here's where it gets tricky; the TM will then claim that, because they've been "unjustly accused" of saying something mean, THEY are the VICTIM. They'll generally also accuse the actual victim of having "attacked" them via this "accusation" (the phrase "you're jumping all over me" is a favorite), or they may be somewhat indirect and say something like, "You're just trying to pick a fight," or they might go for the "wounded" ploy, with "I'm just so HURT that you've said this"... whatever it is, it's an attempt to drum up some sympathy for themselves for their nonexistent victimhood before anyone has the chance to logically sort things out and say "Hey, wait a minute here..."
5) The TM might pause at this juncture, to see what the victim will do: if the victim is a wimp and backs down rather than get into an argument (as if an argument could HARM them), the TM gets an easy victory... but if the victim tries to argue the point(s), as they usually will, at that instant the interaction has switched from the victim voicing a valid protest to the victim having to defend their OWN statements, and thus the FOCUS of the argument has switched from the TM's actual wrongdoing to the victim's falsely accused wrongdoing. Unless what the TM said was fairly subtle or indirect, though, they won't have enough gray area, or a strong enough case, to win if the victim comes back at them quickly and with solid logic, and they know this instinctively, so you can be fairly sure that the next step will be used.
6) The TM will toss out a bunch of accusations at the victim to further confuse the topic in the eyes of the onlookers, and to throw the victim into a tailspin; they may say "You're making things up, "You're being defensive," "You're overly-sensitive," "You just want to be right," "You're denying my right to my feelings/opinions," "You're not being objective/fair/reasonable," "You're taking this too personally," "You just want people to say what you want," "You're trying to control everyone," and on and on, often getting more and more ridiculous and even belligerent.... and the stunned, outraged victim will almost always fall into the trap and start arguing about their guilt or innocence of each of the charges, thus making it look to observers, who are often incapable of remembering how the whole thing started, or unwilling to read all the posts from the beginning, like the victim is the bad guy, who must have done at least SOME of the many things they're being accused of (the usually-right concept of "where there's smoke, there's fire" works well for the TM, sadly).
7) There are 2 ways this can go now:
a) The victim gets bogged down with accusations that come faster than they can rebut them, especially if, as is often the case, the TM has friends that come and join the fun, making the victim have to rebut ALL of them; even onlookers who ARE following the entire story will react so badly (even *I* have felt this, although I always recognize it as wrong and push it away) to seeing a person arguing endlessly about what they actually said or did that they'll judge against the victim, who is now just screwed... the best they can hope for is for an admin to show up and announce an end to the battle (if they're online) or for some decent-minded person within earshot to say "Enough already!!" (if they're face to face), after which they're seen forever as being this awful, argumentative person, while the TM will mysteriously not be held accountable for all the arguing THEY did, much less for their original wrongdoing. If no help arrives, though, the victim flounders helplessly until the TM gets tired of it and makes a grand announcement along the lines of, "It's clear that all you want to do is argue and argue, but *I* don't want to spend time doing that, so I'm going to go now/stop posting so you can have the last word as you clearly want to"... after which, the TM looks like a HERO, and the victim is left looking like pond scum.
b) The victim can refuse to get sucked in, ignore the flood of accusations, and say something like, "You are NOT the victim here, and I am NOT the attacker. I'm not going to talk about ME, as *I* am not the issue here-YOU are. You have said something that, regardless of what your intentions may have allegedly been, can easily be seen as being insulting, and nothing you can say will change that; since you're not mature enough to admit to what you did and move on, at this point we can go a few more rounds of 'Yes you did/No I didn't,' or we can just STOP now-which would you prefer?"
Assuming you chose 7)b), the response will be:
8) The TM will launch another volley of accusations to try to get you sucked in; refuse to respond to individual comments, and instead make it clear again that you're not going to drop your claim or argue about what YOU said, did or meant. You may need to go through this several times, but be patient; there's no defense against this ploy, so all you need to do is stick to your guns. It may help to realize that, to the onlookers, the fact that the TM is still spewing attempted arguments, while YOU are no longer arguing, and are instead offering a way to end it, makes the tide turn sharply in your favor... and the longer the TM drags it out, the worse they look.
9) If you're with them in real life, the TM eventually will say something like, "Oh, you're just impossible" and flounce away. Online, they'll post something similar, and announce their intention to not post to you ever again (which is conceptually the same as leaving).
10) Congratulations-you WON!! :-)
All you have to do is resist that moment when every cell in your body is screaming for you to rebut all the accusations, and instead consciously realize what game is being played and refuse to play it; you'll not only beat the TM's, you'll usually be free of them, at least for a while-2 for the price of one. Remember, evil is always at its base blind and/or stupid; don't freak out if they target you, because there's ALWAYS a way to beat 'em.
Here's one that's easy to spot, both online and in real life, and easy to BEAT, if you can just keep your head at the crucial moment:
1) The troublemaker, from here on out referred to as "TM" for short, says something nasty to or about the victim; it's usually blatant, but it can be more subtle if they're an experienced TM who wants to have a little gray area to work with later on.
2) The victim protests; it doesn't matter how mildly and politely this is done, the response will be the same.
3) The TM denies having said anything wrong or bad, no matter how extreme and ill-intentioned what they said was.
4) OK, here's where it gets tricky; the TM will then claim that, because they've been "unjustly accused" of saying something mean, THEY are the VICTIM. They'll generally also accuse the actual victim of having "attacked" them via this "accusation" (the phrase "you're jumping all over me" is a favorite), or they may be somewhat indirect and say something like, "You're just trying to pick a fight," or they might go for the "wounded" ploy, with "I'm just so HURT that you've said this"... whatever it is, it's an attempt to drum up some sympathy for themselves for their nonexistent victimhood before anyone has the chance to logically sort things out and say "Hey, wait a minute here..."
5) The TM might pause at this juncture, to see what the victim will do: if the victim is a wimp and backs down rather than get into an argument (as if an argument could HARM them), the TM gets an easy victory... but if the victim tries to argue the point(s), as they usually will, at that instant the interaction has switched from the victim voicing a valid protest to the victim having to defend their OWN statements, and thus the FOCUS of the argument has switched from the TM's actual wrongdoing to the victim's falsely accused wrongdoing. Unless what the TM said was fairly subtle or indirect, though, they won't have enough gray area, or a strong enough case, to win if the victim comes back at them quickly and with solid logic, and they know this instinctively, so you can be fairly sure that the next step will be used.
6) The TM will toss out a bunch of accusations at the victim to further confuse the topic in the eyes of the onlookers, and to throw the victim into a tailspin; they may say "You're making things up, "You're being defensive," "You're overly-sensitive," "You just want to be right," "You're denying my right to my feelings/opinions," "You're not being objective/fair/reasonable," "You're taking this too personally," "You just want people to say what you want," "You're trying to control everyone," and on and on, often getting more and more ridiculous and even belligerent.... and the stunned, outraged victim will almost always fall into the trap and start arguing about their guilt or innocence of each of the charges, thus making it look to observers, who are often incapable of remembering how the whole thing started, or unwilling to read all the posts from the beginning, like the victim is the bad guy, who must have done at least SOME of the many things they're being accused of (the usually-right concept of "where there's smoke, there's fire" works well for the TM, sadly).
7) There are 2 ways this can go now:
a) The victim gets bogged down with accusations that come faster than they can rebut them, especially if, as is often the case, the TM has friends that come and join the fun, making the victim have to rebut ALL of them; even onlookers who ARE following the entire story will react so badly (even *I* have felt this, although I always recognize it as wrong and push it away) to seeing a person arguing endlessly about what they actually said or did that they'll judge against the victim, who is now just screwed... the best they can hope for is for an admin to show up and announce an end to the battle (if they're online) or for some decent-minded person within earshot to say "Enough already!!" (if they're face to face), after which they're seen forever as being this awful, argumentative person, while the TM will mysteriously not be held accountable for all the arguing THEY did, much less for their original wrongdoing. If no help arrives, though, the victim flounders helplessly until the TM gets tired of it and makes a grand announcement along the lines of, "It's clear that all you want to do is argue and argue, but *I* don't want to spend time doing that, so I'm going to go now/stop posting so you can have the last word as you clearly want to"... after which, the TM looks like a HERO, and the victim is left looking like pond scum.
b) The victim can refuse to get sucked in, ignore the flood of accusations, and say something like, "You are NOT the victim here, and I am NOT the attacker. I'm not going to talk about ME, as *I* am not the issue here-YOU are. You have said something that, regardless of what your intentions may have allegedly been, can easily be seen as being insulting, and nothing you can say will change that; since you're not mature enough to admit to what you did and move on, at this point we can go a few more rounds of 'Yes you did/No I didn't,' or we can just STOP now-which would you prefer?"
Assuming you chose 7)b), the response will be:
8) The TM will launch another volley of accusations to try to get you sucked in; refuse to respond to individual comments, and instead make it clear again that you're not going to drop your claim or argue about what YOU said, did or meant. You may need to go through this several times, but be patient; there's no defense against this ploy, so all you need to do is stick to your guns. It may help to realize that, to the onlookers, the fact that the TM is still spewing attempted arguments, while YOU are no longer arguing, and are instead offering a way to end it, makes the tide turn sharply in your favor... and the longer the TM drags it out, the worse they look.
9) If you're with them in real life, the TM eventually will say something like, "Oh, you're just impossible" and flounce away. Online, they'll post something similar, and announce their intention to not post to you ever again (which is conceptually the same as leaving).
10) Congratulations-you WON!! :-)
All you have to do is resist that moment when every cell in your body is screaming for you to rebut all the accusations, and instead consciously realize what game is being played and refuse to play it; you'll not only beat the TM's, you'll usually be free of them, at least for a while-2 for the price of one. Remember, evil is always at its base blind and/or stupid; don't freak out if they target you, because there's ALWAYS a way to beat 'em.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Nonsense in women's magazines
If I had a dime for every time I've read the following in articles purporting to advise women on relationships:
"Don't worry about his ex-she's ex for a reason."
The reason might be that she dumped him... and he might still love and/or desire her, in which case you can't have a true relationship with him yet. The reason might be that they had a stupid fight... but they still love each other and might want to get back together. The reason might be that they just got a little bored... and absence might be making the heart grow fonder. Although it IS foolish to obsess over his exes, the reality is that exes DO get back together, and DO have "nostalgia sex"... so listen to your instincts, especially if he's still keeping photos and mementos of her around and/or keeping in constant touch with her.
"A man is so thrilled to be in bed with you that he doesn't notice any physical imperfections."
Yeah, right; nearly every woman has had the ego-wrecking experience of a man commenting, after or even DURING sex, about her cellulite, her spider veins, the pimple on her butt, that she needs to lose weight, exercise more, get her boobs enlarged or lifted, remove body hair... men are NOT blind during sex, and they ARE comparing our all too human bodies to the airbrushed perfection of the silicon-inflated, bone-thin women in cheesecake pics.
There IS plenty of good advice in women's magazines, but about some things they show an alarming lack of grasp of reality; be sure to take it all with a grain of salt.
"Don't worry about his ex-she's ex for a reason."
The reason might be that she dumped him... and he might still love and/or desire her, in which case you can't have a true relationship with him yet. The reason might be that they had a stupid fight... but they still love each other and might want to get back together. The reason might be that they just got a little bored... and absence might be making the heart grow fonder. Although it IS foolish to obsess over his exes, the reality is that exes DO get back together, and DO have "nostalgia sex"... so listen to your instincts, especially if he's still keeping photos and mementos of her around and/or keeping in constant touch with her.
"A man is so thrilled to be in bed with you that he doesn't notice any physical imperfections."
Yeah, right; nearly every woman has had the ego-wrecking experience of a man commenting, after or even DURING sex, about her cellulite, her spider veins, the pimple on her butt, that she needs to lose weight, exercise more, get her boobs enlarged or lifted, remove body hair... men are NOT blind during sex, and they ARE comparing our all too human bodies to the airbrushed perfection of the silicon-inflated, bone-thin women in cheesecake pics.
There IS plenty of good advice in women's magazines, but about some things they show an alarming lack of grasp of reality; be sure to take it all with a grain of salt.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Freedom of speech online
Have you noticed how many people have become confused as to what "freedom of speech" means as it applies to the online world? They seem to have gotten the idea that it includes the "right" to go anywhere they want and MAKE people "listen"... when of course nothing could be further from the truth.
In the real world, freedom of speech means that you have the right to speak, yes, but you can NOT force your way into someone's home or place of business, or come onto their property, and speak if they don't want you there; that's NOT exercising free speech, that's trespassing. Similarly, you do NOT have the automatic right to go onto a forum online that's owned by someone else and "speak," aka "post"; whoever pays the $ to maintain a forum has the right to decide who can post there and who can't, and what sort of posting is allowed there and what sort isn't... and if you don't agree, you do NOT have the "right" to use their forum to say so.
Nevertheless, I can't tell you how many times I've seen people arguing their "right" to post on a forum, and post whatever suits them; most such people are trolls, of course, and in fact I've learned that the surest way to determine that a person is deliberately trying to cause trouble is when someone takes them to task for their ugly posting and they start screaming about "freedom of speech."
Granted, there's some gray area in the case of things like Yahoo Groups, and blogging systems with commenting, where the actual owner and the one who admins/runs the group/blog/etc aren't the same; in this case, the admin is granted most ownership powers by the actual owner, but any terms of service the actual owner has made all users subject to obviously overrides the wishes of the admin where they're in conflict... but, there aren't going to be many instances where the actual owner wants free-for-alls on their forums, if any, so you still don't have the "right" to post on them.
Another area of confusion over "freedom of speech" is the idea that, if you're speaking somewhere where you ARE allowed to speak, people have to listen to you; no law says that people in real life have to listen in respectful silence while you spout off, or give up THEIR freedom of speech by not arguing with you or criticizing what you've said, and people online don't have to respect what you say, or refrain from argument or criticism, either... despite the trolls who claim that their freedom of speech has been compromised if the others on the forum respond to their nonsense with other than total agreement.
I've even seen people so deluded as to their "rights" that they've told forum owners that they have no right to in any way control what goes on on their own forums; what's even worse in a way are those who, while they agree that the owners technically have the right to control what they own, believe that they're somehow evil if they do so. Don't you wonder what planet the people who think they have the right to piss all over someone's forum, and the owner has to just sit and watch it happen, come from? Wherever it is, I wish they'd all go back there... I'm tireder than I can say of seeing forums grind to a halt because someone felt like spending their time disrupting it and then reacting with outrage when people take umbrage.
In the real world, freedom of speech means that you have the right to speak, yes, but you can NOT force your way into someone's home or place of business, or come onto their property, and speak if they don't want you there; that's NOT exercising free speech, that's trespassing. Similarly, you do NOT have the automatic right to go onto a forum online that's owned by someone else and "speak," aka "post"; whoever pays the $ to maintain a forum has the right to decide who can post there and who can't, and what sort of posting is allowed there and what sort isn't... and if you don't agree, you do NOT have the "right" to use their forum to say so.
Nevertheless, I can't tell you how many times I've seen people arguing their "right" to post on a forum, and post whatever suits them; most such people are trolls, of course, and in fact I've learned that the surest way to determine that a person is deliberately trying to cause trouble is when someone takes them to task for their ugly posting and they start screaming about "freedom of speech."
Granted, there's some gray area in the case of things like Yahoo Groups, and blogging systems with commenting, where the actual owner and the one who admins/runs the group/blog/etc aren't the same; in this case, the admin is granted most ownership powers by the actual owner, but any terms of service the actual owner has made all users subject to obviously overrides the wishes of the admin where they're in conflict... but, there aren't going to be many instances where the actual owner wants free-for-alls on their forums, if any, so you still don't have the "right" to post on them.
Another area of confusion over "freedom of speech" is the idea that, if you're speaking somewhere where you ARE allowed to speak, people have to listen to you; no law says that people in real life have to listen in respectful silence while you spout off, or give up THEIR freedom of speech by not arguing with you or criticizing what you've said, and people online don't have to respect what you say, or refrain from argument or criticism, either... despite the trolls who claim that their freedom of speech has been compromised if the others on the forum respond to their nonsense with other than total agreement.
I've even seen people so deluded as to their "rights" that they've told forum owners that they have no right to in any way control what goes on on their own forums; what's even worse in a way are those who, while they agree that the owners technically have the right to control what they own, believe that they're somehow evil if they do so. Don't you wonder what planet the people who think they have the right to piss all over someone's forum, and the owner has to just sit and watch it happen, come from? Wherever it is, I wish they'd all go back there... I'm tireder than I can say of seeing forums grind to a halt because someone felt like spending their time disrupting it and then reacting with outrage when people take umbrage.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Laughter IS the best medicine
It's no secret that laughter makes you feel good, and that anything that can give you a more positive mindset, reduce your stress, and make you happier is good for your emotional and physical health... hence the old saying in the title. Today, though, I saw laughter perform yet another health-enhancing function, and it was so odd that at first I didn't see what has happening.
The background; a friend of mine has been under heavy and steadily increasing stress in recent weeks, and when she was hit with a monstrous betrayal by people who she'd done an endless # of gigantic favors for (they stole $2000 worth of jewelry from her, and that's NOT a typo), she was so overwhelmed with her rage and pain that she shut down emotionally, sealed it all inside of her because she was afraid of what would happen if she let it out.
Today, she was desperate to be distracted and cheered up, so my husband and I went to spend the evening with her and her husband; I have the wildly funny "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" on DVD, and I brought it along in the hopes that it would take her mind off her troubles for a while... and it performed beyond my wildest expectations. I'm not using a hyperbole when I say that I don't think she paused in her laughter for even so much as 30 seconds during the entire 106 minute show; she showed no signs of hysteria, she just laughed at every punchline... and laughed and laughed.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on; deprived of any other form of release, her intense emotions were pouring out, not in screaming or tears, as would be normal, but in laughter. The woman who was nearly vibrating with tension when we showed up was all loose and ready to go to sleep when we left; I've never heard of "bad" emotions getting dealt with that way, and might have been dubious about it if I HAD heard of it, but having seen it in action, I'm going to try it myself... if it works, I'll have a way to get rid of bad emotions that's not only healthier, but produces good karma rather than bad-you can't beat that.
The background; a friend of mine has been under heavy and steadily increasing stress in recent weeks, and when she was hit with a monstrous betrayal by people who she'd done an endless # of gigantic favors for (they stole $2000 worth of jewelry from her, and that's NOT a typo), she was so overwhelmed with her rage and pain that she shut down emotionally, sealed it all inside of her because she was afraid of what would happen if she let it out.
Today, she was desperate to be distracted and cheered up, so my husband and I went to spend the evening with her and her husband; I have the wildly funny "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" on DVD, and I brought it along in the hopes that it would take her mind off her troubles for a while... and it performed beyond my wildest expectations. I'm not using a hyperbole when I say that I don't think she paused in her laughter for even so much as 30 seconds during the entire 106 minute show; she showed no signs of hysteria, she just laughed at every punchline... and laughed and laughed.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on; deprived of any other form of release, her intense emotions were pouring out, not in screaming or tears, as would be normal, but in laughter. The woman who was nearly vibrating with tension when we showed up was all loose and ready to go to sleep when we left; I've never heard of "bad" emotions getting dealt with that way, and might have been dubious about it if I HAD heard of it, but having seen it in action, I'm going to try it myself... if it works, I'll have a way to get rid of bad emotions that's not only healthier, but produces good karma rather than bad-you can't beat that.
