channonyarrow | *throws self on fire*

Current Mood: angry

Entry tags:

throws self on fire

Things I Really Fucking Hate, Part The Bajillionth:

- Steve Irwin. He taunted animals. Animals taunted back and won. Paleoanthropological theory proved!
- Timothy Treadwell. Though I admit, I got a laugh out of it when I asked my mother if he'd been eaten yet and she said yes.
- "Safe space". What the fuck? When this is applied to a hate comm like

cf_hardcore, do they really need a "safe space"? They're haters, dude. If they can't take it, they should shut the fuck up.
- On a related note, the entire concept that somewhere needs to be fucking sanitised For Your Protection makes me nuts. The world does not come with safety straps and it would suck if it did.
- Basically, I'm getting the idea that a "safe space" is somewhere where the nasty ol' world can't come poke you with a stick. Reasonable in small doses, perhaps - but guaranteed to make me froth at the mouth.
- Pathetic Political Posturing. Did you know that Iraq and the War On Terror are linked? After all those years of saying that they're not - they suddenly are. Oh, Joe Lieberman, how I wish to eat your liver.
- Joe Lieberman. Creepy when the VP candidate, pathetic loser now.
- Lawyers. I can't tell you why, because I work in Corporate America, and therefore it is confidential.
- Airline security. On the other hand, at least we're not only dissin' on the Muslims now. The latest instance of someone being thrown off a plane (and forcing the return of the plane to the gate) was a Hasidic Jew who spoke neither English nor French (on an Air Canada flight) who started praying. Clearly, a terrorist. Terrorists often pray, as do normal citizens. Therefore, normal citizens are, clearly, all terrorists.

More as it makes me angry.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I dunno... denying civil rights to people who display any religious affiliations? They could be onto something here. ;)

No, no, I believe in extending civil rights to all the little freak interest groups, even if most religions make my skin crawl.

Liberalism: It Doesn't Mean Standing Up For Only What You Believe In. That would be Republicanism.

And that sort of indiscriminate thinking is the downfall of liberalism. The truth must not be accorded the same weight as a lie.

No, standing up for right-wing ideology is Republicanism. Standing up for every fool idea to come down the pike out of some misguided notion that truth and lies should compete together on a level playing field is Liberalism.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist. I'm perfectly happy to advantage my ideology and disadvantage the competition. I don't want the game to be fair, I want to win it.

I don't want the game to be fair, I want to win it.

Thank you for summing up the mindset of why I hate my local political candidates.

There is no win in life, and certainly not, to me, by denying rights to someone else. It just gives someone else another shot to deny me rights.

And I didn't ask the truth and the lies to compete on a level playing field. I can't prove that religion is a lie, any more than I can prove the existence of most subatomic particles by direct observation of any sort. I do believe, however, that anything that one does that does not directly harm another person (and I mean in the ten commandments sense - do not rape, do not steal, do not murder) is fine with me. You live your life as you like, and I'll live mine. And I won't tell you what to do any more than you'll tell me what to do. We have too much telling people what to do, and it's all motivated by fear.

"There is no win in life"

No, everyone loses. Much like WOPR's assessment of war, the only way to win in life is not to play.

And the concept both of "rights" and of "denying" them is a semantic trick. There is no accommodation which one by nature deserves, nothing one is owed by simple virtue of existence.

Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.

"I can't prove that religion is a lie"

Actually, you can. It isn't necessary to contradict the claims of religion to disprove it, but simply to show that its claims are by design unfalsifiable. That which cannot be tested for truth value must be assumed to be false or we might as well go back to picking grubs off each other in the great forest. To assert as true that which cannot be tested or in any way evidenced is to lie - and to lie in a manner that steals the future of the many to serve the profit (or simple lunacy) of the few should be a society's greatest crime.

"You live your life as you like, and I'll live mine."

A philosophy that suits the rugged individualist but doesn't work so well for the communitarian. I don't oppose the neocons for their methods, but rather for their ambitions. If they behaved in the same manner in pursuit of laudable goals they'd be my absolute darlings. We are not islands that exist untouched. The manner in which you act, what you believe, what you say... all these in act to varying degrees upon the environment in which we all live, and so your beliefs, words and actions are of direct concern to mankind as a whole, as they work to shape our world. There are some beliefs which we as a group cannot afford to have held as true if we are to see our best interests achieved, some words we cannot afford to have said, some actions which we cannot afford be committed. Among those are debilitating concepts like the servitude of man to an imagined deity whose commands serve to hold mankind back from achieving his potential. Motivation by fear is a fine thing if the thing to be feared be a genuine terror. A future in which mankind squanders its potential and sits, frightened by its own shadow and whimpering, at the bottom of a single gravity well waiting for the next comet to come by and hand the brass ring to the roaches, that is something of which to be genuinely afraid - and any ideology that serves that end should be stamped out, not argued against, not gently persuaded, not engaged in dialogue, but eliminated.

"safe space"? Isn't that, um, a closet? Or an attic or something? I don't know abou this - I think I need to look it up. Is it an LJ thing, or can I find it on Google?

I bet you can find it on google. But, you know, all the people who disagree with the feminist rage people or who disagree with childfree hardcore people - letting them into those comms makes it a space of hate, and people can't be free to be as nasty as they want, and will be, if not subject to the regulating pressure of, you know, other humans with a different opinion.

I found it - sort of. It seems to be a title applied to a place or organization that pretty much permits strict censoring in an attempt to curtail trolling and vituperative attacks.

Yeah. Sort of. Except a lot wankier. As you found out.

Germaine Greer had some particularly callous things to say about Steve Irwin... you'd probably agree, I thought it was in poor taste though.

"Slavery is the social and legal designation of specific persons as property, for the purpose of providing labor and services for the owner without the right of the slave to refuse, or gain compensation." -Wikipedia

I'm struggling to be compassionate. The author so clearly and beautifully laid out the deeper reasons so many people hated this man; his complete lack of resect for nature. Irwin was the real-estate develpoer of nature show personalities, paying his way to fame with animals' fear and anger. Putting a camera in the presence of an animal does not respect for nature make; in fact, IMO, when you chase that animal down, antagonise it, harrass it into an extreme of fear or anger until it attacks you, then make money off of its reaction and keep the proceeds - well, that's just slavery.

Irwin was callous, he was cruel. He abused, frightened, and invaded upon living beings until they gave him the reaction he wanted, with no remorse to whatever being he was tormenting. When we do that to other people, we call it torture.

The author showed the Irwin was not only willing to do this to animals, his crew, and himself, he was willing to use his own baby to further those ends. The category of 'other' is what one must sort people, places, or things into prerequisite to abusing or destroying them. Most acts of destruction occur under this assigned division of legitimency. The giraffe is 'other'(than human, than real, than sentient, etc.)so I will kill it for its skin. The Tibetan is 'other' (than Chinese, than human, than worthy of respect or peace) so I will kil it and take its home and land as my own. I

It's the spirit of subjugation, of consumation, that Irwin showed toward this world that made his end so poetic - to die a painful, primitive death, issued by a primitive animal's single self-defense weapon, in one silent, efficient strike.

I am failing to be compassionate. He taunted, harassed, antagonized, and invaded upon my space - my planet, my fellow living beings - over and over and over. I am biting back. I'll use his dead body to enrich my experience the way he used my planet's to enrich his - as one big joke.

An ammendment:

I did some research, when I realized the stench of self-righteousness I smelled in my living room was coming from me.

According to several articles and blogs, Irwin was a founder and maintainer of at least one zoo, and spent his entire life working with animals to support and encourage their conservation.

Also, a dead father is horrible for anyone, regardless of the details - which, from all accounts, were quite horrific. The media frenzy, especially the reaction of angry people like me, probably isn't making this any easier on the famiily, and for that I feel remorse.

Yeah he wasn't all bad.

He was also much bigger in the rest of the world than he was here in .au - until he died of course. Then the media frenzy you mentioned kicked off in a big way; the first EIGHT PAGES of the Daily Telegraph were all Steve Irwin the day after it happened.

I've been biting my lip, every time I see someone eulogizing Steve Irwin as a Saint for Animal Conservation, and Oh How Tragic. I understand he was human; he had a wife, and children, and people who cared about him; he did good things, and it's a shame that he died to suddenly, leaving them all behind.

But HE WAS NO FUCKING SAINT. I always hated his shows, couldn't stand watching him deliberately harass and torment animals, then crow acout "crikey! look at that reaction!" I don't know how to describe the difference, but I never got that feeling of "Let's make the critter dance for us now!" from Jeff Corwin, and that's one of the reasons I like Corwin, and hated Irwin. Also, Corwin never downplays the hazards of what he does - he never - toys with the animals he deals with; he always treats them with respect, even if they're not dangerous, or "probably" not dangerous. Stingrays aren't supposed to be dangerous, after all.

On the other hand, if I had to pick one of the current crop of animal annoyers to be killed prematurely, the South African snake photographer ASSHOLE JERKFACE is at the top of my list. Can't remember his name, hate him, hate him SO GODDAMN MUCH. He's been bit numerous times - unfortunately, hasn't been killed yet. I keep hoping.

I don't want to see anyone die because I think they're bad people or something (and I only read part of the article so I'm not directly reacting to that.) Nor am I saying that he was, of necessity, a bad person.

But it's hardly surprising to me that someone who seems to have made a career of provoking animals got killed, even if the accident was as freakish as everyone says, by an animal that might or might not have been provoked into an attack. We paid him to provoke animals; he did so; he died, and everyone went "HOLY CRAP!"

I can regret that someone died, but I can't really say too much if someone who likes to juggle chainsaws gets killed by one coming down. And the outpouring of grief and shock over people who did not know the man is appalling, simply because it's like this is not everyone's drama. It just isn't. He was a public figure, but the people that should be affected by his death in a significantly public way are his wife and children and close friends and business partners. EVERYONE on my flist, practically, posting about the shock and tragedy of his death is a real turnoff, particularly given that someone like Betty Friedan can die with nary a ripple. But he was on TELEVISION, so he was FAMOUS and he DIED and it's AWFUL.

I can regret the death of someone I don't know, but trying to make a big damn deal out of it strikes me as more than a little offensive - it's trying to make the survivors' drama into my own, and I don't need the spotlight that much.

But it's hardly surprising to me that someone who seems to have made a career of provoking animals got killed, even if the accident was as freakish as everyone says, by an animal that might or might not have been provoked into an attack.

Precisely.

The crazy thing is that I saw him in an ad on National Geographic channel on Sunday saying that he thought he was more interesting to people than the David Attenboroughs of the world precisely because he didn't bother with the academic side of things. He just got out there and got his hands dirty. I actually said to

isotripy at the time "He's going to meet a sticky end eventually" and THE VERY NEXT DAY he gets assassinated by a bull ray.

Freaky.

btw Ms. Greer is being pilloried in the Australian press for her comments...

When I made the comment to my mother that I did about Timothy Treadwell, she'd been explaining his thing to me the night before and she said "By the way, did you hear about Treadwell," and I said "No, did he get eaten?" The look on her face was...something else.

Unfortunately, he was probably right about the David Attenborough/himself thing.

- Basically, I'm getting the idea that a "safe space" is somewhere where the nasty ol' world can't come poke you with a stick.

I have one of those. It's called "my house" and is the only place I expect that. :D

You and me both. It's LJ. LJ =/= subject to the same rules as my house.

*shrug* I have a "safe space" on my LJ; it's called a "friends filter," and there are filters that let me make even finer adjustments. I also have an extremely "safe space" on LJ - an account with no friends, no public posts, no links, and no connection to this LJ. That's fucking safe.

I don't disagree with that. What I really, really, shoutingly dislike, is when communities exist for the sole purpose of reinforcing their members' opinions, by censoring, banning, and otherwise regulating who can have access to the community. I'm not saying that, you know, if I go post about how Bush is psycho in a conservative comm I shouldn't expect to get eaten, but it helps no one when people carry around baggage they can't deal with because they're not required to deal with it. What does it advantage anyone if I decide that having my ass grabbed on Pike Street a few years ago was SO AWFUL that I can't cope with the fact that some people are pigs and I then decide to block out anyone who might possibly do anything other than reinforce my idea that some people are pigs?

It doesn't do anything. And while not everyone should do what I did when someone grabbed me in a club once and I picked him up by the neck and slammed him into the wall while informing him of the error of his ways, at the same time, I shouldn't see myself as such a victim that I had to immediately leave and go home and cry and stay there because it was so horrible. I can understand not wanting to be exposed to things that are unpleasant, but I also kind of think that in a lot of the cases I know about, it's not wanting to deal with something relatively minor on the scale of what could have been. I could have been raped in that situation (rather easily, if one considers date rape) but i wasn't - should I mourn that I almost was, or should I simply consider that I wasn't, I'm not a victim, and move on?

We - particularly and primarily women - are currently encouraged to be victims because the definition of what it means to be a woman is so hyperfeminine that victimhood is about the only way to truly be a woman in this society. A lot of my behaviour is a reaction to that, but more of it is a reaction to people who choose to take that role on.

From the other side, different things have different effects on people; what to one person is no big deal can be a tremendously huge deal to another person.

My first sex was - less than ideal; the best phrase I've heard to describe it is "unwanted sexual encounter," something along those lines. I would hesitate to call it "rape", for my own personal definitions, but it definitely counts under some people's definitions. The fact that it was my first sexual experience gave it an extra level of suck - it put me off sex entirely for the next um four? years, which all things considered was probably a damn good thing, as it gave me time to think and talk about sex and figure out what I did want.

The biggest emotional thingy, grubblybit, tangle, whatever, that I got from the whole experience was a vague feeling of "Jeez, that was unpleasant, and it was sort of rape, and I'm not a virgin anymore. Shouldn't I be more upset about it?" Honestly, I felt worse about the fact that I didn't feel all that bad about it than I did about the experience itself.

I know that, for some people, an experience like that could easily be scarring-for-life. For me, it wasn't, and I honestly don't know why. It just wasn't that big a thing for me. It wasn't fun, and I regretted it, and I still wish I could have done something different. But it was a learning experience for me, and I can't regret the way it made my life the way it is now.

On the other hand, I've always had an irrational fear of stepping on an upturned nail and having it poke into my foot - so when it finally happened to me a couple of years ago, I FREAKED THE FUCK OUT way out of proportion to what had actually happened, and nearly passed out from shock. It wasn't the pain, which wasn't really all that bad; it was the immediate reaction of "OH GOD MY WORST FEAR HAS COME TRUE I'M GOING TO DIE HURGLEBLARRRGH" and the subsequent adrenaline overload.

... I dunno, I have a point in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can articulate it. I think that folks get to determine their own levels of violation and victimisation; but I don't think that having been a victim for anything, at any point in life, gives one a free pass for everything else. But, uh, you were talking about "safe spaces"... yeah, I don't get that at all, really. I don't go to them, I generally find them boring and bland and frustrating, but I guess I see them as being like commercial sport events: other people really like them, whatever.

... I just completely missed the point of your comment, didn't I? :D

I don't think you did, actually. I've seen too many comms/people/spaces (online and off) who seek a safe space to heal from something that, really, needs to be dealt with rather than frozen in amber and mourned. If you had taken your encounter and decided to mourn it rather than move past it - I've met too many people who can't do that. I lack sympathy in any case (seriously, I'm a very unsympathetic person; it's not that I don't care, it's that I think that if there is a problem it should be solved rather than discussed - very direct-action) and it's frustrating to be in the position of trying not to say "Yeah yeah yeah, been there done that got the t-shirt NOW MOVE THE FUCK ON."

People do get to determine their own levels of violation and victimisation, but having done that - you can't live there, as

the_siobhan said. I think of "safe space" as a place to not heal that lives in the guise of a place that promotes healing, I think of it as, generally, a mistake, and I think of it as a place that perpetrates victimhood, and no one should be a victim. People are attacked, in ways literal and metaphorical, but being a victim - I dunno. Again, not sympathetic, so I tend to think of being a victim as a choice. And being in search of a safe space is a choice to perpetuate whatever victimised the person in the first place.

Sorry, this is probably incoherent. One of the things I find interesting about LJ is that when I post something, I invariably have to defend or clarify or re-discuss it, and it makes me make my thoughts more coherent, but I have some trouble putting thoughts on paper in a way that doesn't repeat the same point OVER AND OVER AND OVER without moving on to Point B any time soon.

Sorry, this is probably incoherent. One of the things I find interesting about LJ is that when I post something, I invariably have to defend or clarify or re-discuss it, and it makes me make my thoughts more coherent, but I have some trouble putting thoughts on paper in a way that doesn't repeat the same point OVER AND OVER AND OVER without moving on to Point B any time soon.

S'okay, I tend to just ramble on incoherently, adding more words to the fire, and eventually give up with something along the lines of "well I obviously can't explain it properly". These days, what with the constant brain-squishy, I tend to avoid potentially contentious issues that would require heavy thinking on my part entirely. :P

I, um, should probably take that plan of action up. *g* No time to think for me!

Airline security. On the other hand, at least we're not only dissin' on the Muslims now. The latest instance of someone being thrown off a plane (and forcing the return of the plane to the gate) was a Hasidic Jew who spoke neither English nor French (on an Air Canada flight) who started praying. Clearly, a terrorist. Terrorists often pray, as do normal citizens. Therefore, normal citizens are, clearly, all terrorists.

Yeah, but people who aren't White Christians are all the same: terrorists. ASDFGHJK! Fuckers. I don’t know about the US, but here the "lets make planes scary" campaign has gone way too far; 3 different reports of plane crashes in 2 days. National tv is usually a lot more subtle than that. Not to mention all the info they gave was where, when, the number of deaths, how baffled the authorities were and all this while showing images of the burning plane remains. *facepalm* Do you hear that, Mister News producer? It's the bewildered herd stomping around in panic!

Oh yeah, I love how the media is supposedly reporting ALL the news, when in reality what they're reporting is the things that will sell their paper or their ad space, and that's horror stories.

We live in an insane world. Sometimes, I hate that too.

I'm really puzzled by the reaction to Irwin. Um. Why is everybody surprised?

I won't be surprised when somebody offs themselves on camera on one of those Fear Factor and Jackass shows either.

Re: safespace, I've always felt that "safe space" is what we need in order to heal from injury - emotional, physical, whatever. I want to go off and fix myself back up again before I'm ready to take on any more battles. But I can't live in safe space and I shouldn't want to, its infantilizing.

You have said what I think about safe space better than I managed to. Healing? Great. Living there? Being a victim.

I hate self-victimisation.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

throws self on fire

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject