It is said that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather indifference. If you hate someone, you are still acknowledging them, whereas by being indifferent, it's as if they don't even exist.
Now imagine suffering from mental illness and having people indifferent to it. They "don't know what to do", they "don't want to interfere", basically they are just full of excuses to not do anything.
A large part of mental illness is feelings of loneliness, of being "misunderstood", of not "fitting in", and when others are indifferent to it, it amplifies those symptoms.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Ideas I've been writing
Just because "that's the way it goes" doesn't make it right. I rather question, be skeptical, be accused of being "a dreamer" or "idealistic", even it it means being criticized, even ridiculed. I even prefer question something and be proven wrong than to not have questioned and simply accepted.
Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?
We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.
Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?
I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.
Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.
Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?
We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.
Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?
I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.
Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
I'm back
Haven't posted in way too long. Life got in the way, I also let it. It's just good to be back.
When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?
People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?
I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.
I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.
I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)
I missed blogging.
When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?
People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?
I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.
I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.
I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)
I missed blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
