Cancellation vs. Boundaries

 Good Morning All - hope you remembered to spring ahead!

A new issue has arisen:  Cancel Culture.

Various portions of pop culture are being taken off the shelves, or out of circulation, because they have been deemed unacceptable by today's standards.  These include entertainment products, sports team names and logos, and literature.

The reasons for their removal and rejection are based on good intentions:  namely, combating bigotry.  Since we Respect All, it is valid to remove prejudice and hatred from our own thoughts and actions.  

On this blog, we have explored a similar issue:  Boundaries.

We have accepted the fact that there are people and things that we do not need or want in our lives.  We cannot make them behave the way we would prefer, because they choose that.  We most certainly can, however, remove them or limit contact with them, because we have absolute power and control over that.

It seems that Cancel Culture is attempting to set boundaries against undesirable expressions and opinions, but doing so on a society-wide scale, rather than a personal scale.  

Both of these principles can be easily harmonized:

(1) Rather than penalizing the creators of older intellectual property produced years or decades ago because the words and expressions that they chose, at times when they were not considered offensive or hurtful, does not seem to be the most equitable remedy.  Rather, it seems a more responsible choice to simply not purchase or view the items, to the point where they are no longer considered valuable.  And if there are still others who consider them valuable, let them possess them instead.

(2) Instead of globally "canceling" such ideas and expressions, why not leave it up to each individual to decide what they will and will not accept?  Wouldn't this be tolerance and coexistence?  Wouldn't this be respect?  And most importantly, wouldn't this be the type of detachment that Emotional Maturity brings?

(3)  The Stoics taught us that there will always be people and things in this world that we don't like.  We can't make them disappear, and we can't force them to behave the way we want them to be.  What we can do, instead, is to either accept the fact that our world is less than ideal and proceed regardless, or when possible, to remove that which we find objectionable from our own personal realms.

So let it be with Cancel Culture.  Don't like what Dr. Seuss said in that book he wrote 80 years ago?  Don't buy it for your child.  Don't like what that football team wears on its helmet?  Don't watch them - in fact, cheer for the other team to beat them!  Don't like what's in that Disney cartoon?  Don't view it, and don't let your children view them either.

We Can Accept People For Who They Are, Because We Cannot Control Them.  We Can Also Reject People For Who They Are, Because They Cannot Control Us.

The operative word here being, "control."

I EXIST, I MATTER, I BELONG, I DESERVE.

RESPECT ALL, BEFRIEND FEW, LOVE ONE, HATE NONE.

DO NOT DEMONIZE, DO NOT DEIFY.

POINT OF EVAPORATION.

So How Did You Do?

Hey All - Kind of a warm day for December, isn't it?

Every year, as New Year's Eve approaches, we like to make a lot of promises to ourselves, but we often fail to follow through on them by the time MLK Day rolls around.  The main reason why this happens is that we think our transgressions of the prior year were minor, irrelevant, or tolerable.  We got so comfortable with them that we didn't seriously feel like changing them.

So how do we overcome this?  A good old fashioned performance review:

(1).  What mistakes did we make?

    (A).   Why did they happen?  Be honest!

    (B).   Did we learn from them?   If so, what did we learn?

    (C).   Is it possible to prevent them?   If so, what?

(2).   Did we disrespect someone?

    (A).   Why?   

          (i).    Would they have irreparably harmed themselves if we stayed silent?  Were they lost, blind, and oblivious to their own mistakes before we stepped in?  If so, please move along,

          (ii).   Were you angry?  In a bad mood?  Did  you let something get under your skin?  If so, how did that happen?

          (iii).   Were they alpholes?  If so, were you still Bold and Bulletproof?   Meaning, did you fire back at them only after they had tried to provoke you more than enough times?   And did they leave themselves wide open?

     (B).   What can we do to prevent reoccurrences of (i) and (ii)?  And not punish ourseives for (iii)?

(3).  Were we disrespected?

    (A).   Why?

         (i).    Did we instigate something?  See 2.A.1 and 2.   If so, was the retaliation justified?

         (ii).    Did we just show up somewhere?   See 2.A.3.  Did we respond as recommended by this very blog?

    (B).   Were we Bold and Bulletproof in the face of disrespect and bullying?  If not, why?

(4)   Who was in our lives?

    (A).   People who respected us?  And vice versa?   If not, why?

    (B).   Hangers-on?  Friends-of-friends?   People we had to tolerate because they "don't bother" someone else?   Were we able to repel their repulsiveness?  If not, why?

Yes, as you can see, I'm not the answer man this time around.  You are.  Use this checklist, which is by no means exhaustive, to evaluate your social interactions of 2015.  Feel free to expand the situations to school or work.  Take a good look at why you made the choices you did.  Detach from your review any and all negative emotional responses.  Remember your choices from 2015 only so you can make better choices in 2016.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.

I AM BOLD.  I AM BULLETPROOF.   I AM BETA.

The Last Word on Elliott Rodger

Hi All, Welcome to June!

By now, most of my regular readers will have viewed my video about Elliott Rodger and the rampage he committed on May 23rd in Santa Barbara, California.  I have one last thing to add.

My deductive reasoning tells me that there was one source of his anger that not everyone has touched upon yet.  This anger he had towards the supposed horde of women that rejected him in favor of "real men" originated somewhere.  And that origin simply must have been the alphaganda.  This unsupported, invalid, and blatantly false assertion that if a male has not had sex with a woman by the time he is 16, no 14, no 12, then he is somehow a lesser man.  Unfortunately, instead of realizing that the alphaganda had as much truth behind it as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, Elliott Rodger bought the alphaganda.  Being deceived by this fraudulent way of thinking led him to believe that (a) the women who rejected him forced him into a lower level of the pecking order, and that (b) as a man, he needed to have sex with them in order to increase in rank.

Someone needed to explain to this young man how untrue this was.  Someone needed to explain to him that being a virgin after high school age was not a badge of shame, a sign of weakness, evidence of unmanliness, or anything negative at all.  Or better yet, they could have simply flipped on MTV, made him watch a few episodes of "Teen Mom," and asked him how he'd feel being one of the "teen daddies" on that show.  I guarantee all of those boys thought they were men before they got the news - how manly or studly do the producers of that show make them look now?  Don't get me wrong, I don't think of the teen moms as innocent little angels, but they are made to seem blameless in comparison to these "cool kids" who know nothing of responsibility.

If somebody could have set him straight, and if he himself could have learned that the alphaganda was false, chances are he would have lived a much more normal life, and not caused all of this senseless violence.  Unfortunately, the alphaganda is sometimes more persuasive than any positive male role models that are available, and that's very unfortunate.

If there are any would-be Elliott Rodgers out there, I hope you're reading this.  I hope you can think first, actually think several times first, and act later.  I hope you have the critical thinking skills to see the flaws in the alphaganda.  I hope you can realize who's an alphole and who's not.  And I hope you can accept the fact that these girls or women, no matter how good, nice, handsome, or funny you are, may still reject you, and hating them for it will not change their minds.

And more than anything, I hope you can realize that the fact that the alpholes claim to have started having sex the day they finished going through puberty has nothing to do with you.  If they are having sex (allegedly) and you're not, that's completely irrelevant.  It is their choice of morals, or complete lack thereof, and it does not mean that you are automatically less than them because you didn't emulate them.  Come to think of it, most families would be better served if more people elected not to have sex until at least their mid-20's.  However, this can only be a choice.   If we lived in a society that regulated morality with painful consequences, we would be no better than the Taliban,

So again, I say to all those Elliott Rodgers out there, never let the alphaganda get under your skin like it did with him.  Learn that it is baseless, groundless, and fraudulent, and that you have no need to follow it.  If you are the same age as this young man and are frustrated that you haven't "done the deed," look at your pay check stub and be thankful that there is no "CHSUPP" deduction.  Be thankful that your last doctor's visit did not include any bad news regarding your health.  Take a good look at your life and realize that you are exempt from the requirements of the alphaganda, and that you fall well outside its jurisdiction.  Let those who choose to follow it make their own mistakes, while you choose your own path in life.  Chances are, you may be ahead of the game and not even know it.

And even if someone turns you down now, at the very least you made a decent effort.  Maybe tomorrow someone else will reward that effort, and that someone else will be worthy of you.  Don't worry so much about you being worthy of someone else.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.   I DESERVE.

I AM BOLD.  I AM BULLETPROOF.  I AM BETA.

Night All!

The Mechanism

Hello All.  Seems like I have a little bit of catch up work to do, so here goes.

Human beings of both genders are born with a mechanism -- both halves of a device used to propagate our species.  We experience completely natural desires to pair with the opposite gender to engage this mechanism, and to reproduce offspring to succeed us once we have left this realm.

While the mechanism's primary purpose is reproduction, over time we began enjoying simply the process itself, without intending to reach the natural result.  Some call this sinful and irresponsible.  But since that process happens to feel as good as a roller-coaster ride, followed by a belly-flop into a giant vat of ice cream, this "unauthorized" use of the mechanism has continued for millennia.

This "unauthorized" engagement led to the development of contraceptive devices designed to reduce the likelihood of unintended results.  Despite these advances, and their clear successes, none of them are 100% effective.

Despite what some may tell you, it's really NOT ALWAYS a blessing, or a surprise, or a welcome event to hear that an unintended pregnancy has occurred.  While there are parents who really are able to make that adjustment, marry each other for the child, they don't represent everyone in the same situation.  And yes, sometimes this type of thing happens with people who are already committed to each other, or have already set a wedding date.  If both parents are ready to meet that challenge, adapt to it, and put a child's interests ahead of their own, more power to them.  BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE WAY IT IS.  If some people suck as parents even if they've done it "the right way," what makes you think people don't suck if they do it this way instead?

When this subject is broached, everyone is ready for a good old-fashioned abortion debate.  A battle of the sexes.  Science against religion.  Does life begin at conception, or at birth?  I'm a woman, who has the right to tell me what to do with my body?  It's not just your body, it's a baby's body, who gave you the right to kill it?  On and on, back and forth, etc. etc., gettin' stale.

Believe it or not, this really is an issue that starts and ends with us gentlemen more than it does with women.  It is our portion of the mechanism that starts the ball rolling, so to speak.  I am no feminist, and I'm loathe to blame men for every "mistake," but it is we who usually commence this process to begin with.

So let me head off that whole abortion debate at the pass:

(1) Sometimes it's really OK to not engage the mechanism to begin with.  Our friends, the alpholes, will try to convince us otherwise, as they brag about putting up Gene Simmons numbers, and flaunt how "manly" they truly are by doing so.  They aren't.

I'm not saying you should embrace celibacy.  But I am saying that there are times it's just not a good idea to go for it.  And if you know it's not the right time, there's no shame in admitting it.  The fact that you can say no when you want to say no makes you much more of a man than these followers trying to be something they're not.  If our friends, the feminists, use such slogans as "No Means No" and "My Body, My Choice" to cheers and accolades, what's to prevent us from adopting the same concepts?

(2) If you actually do feel that the time is right, then be smart, and be responsible.  Every year or so, go for a check up and make sure there are no latent diseases seeping through your bloodstream, just for peace of mind.  And once you feel you are ready to engage the mechanism, make sure that both parties use protection at the same time.  No explanation needed.

(3) As stated before, next time a woman politely turns you down, thank her.  If she was smart enough to see that it wouldn't work before you did, she may or may not have saved you from a most undesirable existence.

The notion of diving into marriage with someone that was never meant for you, for the sake of an unintended pregnancy, is terrible.  People will tell you that it's responsible to jettison your former life to embrace fatherhood.  I say that it's even more responsible to not even let it happen in the first place.  Be aware enough of yourself and your surroundings.

Enjoy President's Day tomorrow!

DISCLAIMER:  The above post is not intended to pass judgment on those who have started families in unconventional ways.  It is your life and your choice, and none of my business.  But I am aiming this at those who may have different choices, and asking them to choose wisely.

Who Matters More?

Hi All:

Time for the weekly biblical analysis.

Remember that annoying nephew Abraham had?  Well, he stayed behind in the infamous Twin Cities.  And Abraham was told by a few messengers from On High that not only will his wife give birth to a son at a ripe old age, but those Twin Cities are gonna get flattened.

So Abraham bargains a bit to look out for his boy Lot.  Almost reminding G-D of His promise to Noah not to annihilate an entire population when not everyone deserves it, he persuades G-D not to drop the sulphur on them if there are just 10 decent people in both cities.  Apparently the quota wasn't met, notwithstanding these negotiations.

So the messengers from On High walk right into Sodom to warn Lot that it's all gonna go down, and the local gangsters and miscreants pick up on it.  Lot, in a sorry show of cowardice, offers to let them all have their way with his daughters, so they'd leave him alone, to no avail.  Those messengers, in a display not unlike Qui-Gon Jinn and young Obi-Wan in Episode I, blind the crowd so they can't bust down Lot's door.

Just in time, Lot and his family escapes from Sodom before it's destroyed, although at least one member of his household just can't help but look back at the Strip one last time, only to be vaporized.  And then, feeling that they won't be able to find suitable mates, Lot's daughters get their father drunk so he'll perform a most unnatural act.  More on that below.

And what of Abraham?  Sarah tells him to boot Hagar and Ishmael out of the family for good.  This time, instead of blindly following her orders, he's actually feeling wrong about doing it.  But then G-D actually tells him to do what Sarah says, because Ishmael is not only going to survive, but be the father of his own "great nation," while Isaac gets the covenant.  So is a consolation prize meant to be enough?

And what does he do with the son he kept?  He almost kills him for G-D.  Volumes have already been written about that whole sorry affair.

What this selection shows is a major-league demonstration of misguided loyalty.  Prime examples of how not to respond to desperate times, even if the choices really are that difficult.

Abraham knew that his nephew, whom he already saved once, was going to be in worse trouble than before.  At that time, he had no problem bargaining with G-D to consider even the possibility of sparing the innocent.  He didn't know whether there were 10 people in Sodom and Gomorrah who were worthy enough to justify the cities' survival, but at that time, he wasn't afraid to ask G-D to reconsider a severe decree.  But that same urgency was gone for both of his sons.  His first son was getting evicted, and forced to fend for himself, with assurances from On High, that he'd be just fine, and not to worry about him.  He was already showing some strength of character by not merely accepting these circumstances without question, but showing real concern, as this was his son.  But where was his bargaining power then?  Why did he not ask G-D to just put Hagar and Ishmael in the Guest House?  Or maybe check out a new apartment for them?  Just to make sure he'd be OK by making the provisions -- how could he plead for Lot and not for his son?

Same issue with Isaac, but better known.  Where was his power of persuasion then?  He pleaded for Lot to be kept safe, but he didn't object when directed to slaughter his son on the altar.

And Lot's not that much better.  He was willing to let those low-lifes have their way with his daughters to prevent a worse rumble, and then later he allows his daughters to get him drunk and have him impregnate them?  True, the Ten Commandments had not yet come down at the time, so maybe it was technically okay to do that, but why did they have to get him drunk to make it happen?  And why couldn't he be a good enough father to say no?  It could be that his daughters had some corruption issues of their own, having grown up in Sodom, but this might have been his chance to set them straight now that they were out of that city.

It seems to me that we're taught to recognize lessons from these errors in judgment.  Unlike Abraham and Lot, we can use the right tactics for the right situation.  Abraham could have still stood up for Lot, there was nothing wrong with that choice, but he could have also stood up for both of his sons, and pleaded against the eviction and the sacrifice.  As gracious as it was of him to be a good uncle, he also needed to be a good father, because his powers of persuasion were needed by his sons even more than they were needed by his extended family.

Sometimes you have to think about it.  Consider the consequences and risks, and weigh which choice brings the greater benefit.  Don't waste your all of your smarts and arguments on issues that will effect you less, and don't "pass" or give up on issues that affect you more.  Just because some higher authority, divine or otherwise, demands that you do something that feels wrong, that doesn't mean you can't speak up and at least explain why you feel it might be wrong.  Choose your battles wisely.  Someone may thank you for it one day.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.