sometimes i think i make a bad friend. i am very loyal but it takes a lot out of me to do emotional care. i can do practical care but i am not a nurturer, i just don’t have it in me. i think where i go wrong is when i try to be a friend to too many people. there is the reason i always end up with just a handful of friends. “good” and “bad” are moralistic indicators in the worst way, of course. but for the sake of shorthand: i can’t be a good friend to more than a few people at a time, so i should probably stop trying. this is easier to do when i remember that there are other ways to care for humans than to be their “friend.”
My mum and I were celebrating something today and we ran into my aunt at the pub. I told her the news and all I received was the typical dismissive “you do ______? OH right thaaaaaaaaaat” — err, you know, the fucking thing I’ve been studying the last 3 years, that you’re all totally aware of?
It’s so goddamn predictable now whenever I talk about what I do or what I’m interested in that my mum’s side of the family replies automatically in dismissive tones before checking themselves and delivering official, semirespectful replies. I’d love if there were a way to reply so equally dismissively to their feigned interest.
a dude i knew in hs is planning to submit a Women’s Studies essay with the opening sentence
"I’m a really nice guy and stuff and it’s why it makes me angry that in today’s world and stuff I can’t find a nice girl who’ll come over to my house."
Not even fucking joking, i could not make this shit up
I judge anyone who uses “sophistical” in sentences as likely being elitist academic snobs
…isn’t that precisely *why* one would describe someone else as sophistical?
The thing is I don’t even know what it means really, but it sounds like something academic-bros would say
Oh well that’s perfect then. Normally, people only use it in a denigrating sense to say that someone is obfuscating their ideas with high-falutin phrasing and unnecessary complication, etc.
This comes from the accusations of Socrates that the sophists could mix their words into, and out of, any argument; they were frequently tutors of and hired by the wealthy to defend them in court and instruct them on rhetoric/public oratory.
i’ve only been asked once
about my disposition toward various visual artforms—by a mentor-peer of sorts—and i take that as a generally representative heuristic of the interest that anyone has in anyone else’s opinions on art.
(but this is my blog you’re following, so LOL)
more to the point.
i suppose i’ll preface this by saying that my basis of evaluation of painting is ultimately very romantic, in a kind of appropriated sense.
my first favoured “genre”, if we’ll tolerate that nomen-declenture, is abstract expressionism in painting. there are numerous aspects to this, reflecting both my disposition and aesthetical (18th c. meaning) preference. i guess what i like is its silence. i like that it consists of nigh- purely-formal qualities.
it’s accidentally tragic, almost pitiable - anything so apo-logetic is bound to be appropriated for distrinsic interests. i could go on forever on this tack.
but my position to photography is more complicated. for whatever reason, i view photography as more intrinsically apo-logetic (meaningless), and so in a sense, automatically more abstract. it is the form itself which necessitates its rooting in representationalism, not the choice of subject matter.
for that reason, i view its silence as less “achieved”, and more something that has to be overcome. the oddity of this is that i tend to prefer much more symbolic photography, but the availability of that which isn’t violently stupid is in short supply, so. anyway, i leave you with this:
When a meat-eater says they love animals
It’s ill advised and illogical to say just because you eat meat it’s impossible to love animals. You vegans/vegetarians need to get over yourselves, you’re not better than the rest of society just because you choose to eat terrible tasting food. In actuality animals eat animals, that’s whats needed to survive and when looked at from a logical perspective we are just supremely evolved animals.
Normally I wouldn’t bother responding to this but because it was you, I want you to understand where I’m coming from.
I never want to come across as one of those preachy vegans because they’re generally condescending ,and let’s be serious, making people feel bad about their decisions is not going to ever really help.
This, however, was posted out of humour because in my opinion it seems illogical for humans to eat animals when they don’t need to.
To me, a life is a life and I don’t want to eat anything that had to lose its life in order for me to do so (please don’t bother with the plants argument [if you were thinking it] because that’s just exhausting). I don’t need meat or dairy or eggs to survive, so I don’t eat them. In my mind, loving animals and not eating them makes sense to me. I’d never eat Tonta because I love her and she has a personality and she deserves to live her life. To me, I don’t see why she should be able to do that and not all the little piggies!
I’ll admit that every time a meat eater says that they love animals, I cringe a little inside, but that doesn’t mean that I think that’s impossible. I’ve loved animals all my life and I ate them for years. Eventually, it just didn’t make sense to me and I found ways to survive without needing animals’ lives to be taken. So when I can, I will try to help enlighten people about being vegan.
And I’ll agree with you about the animals eating animals. However, animals that eat others are actually made to do so (the ability to eat raw meat, differently made organs and teeth) and they don’t have the resources to do anything else. We are “supremely evolved animals” that have evolved to the point where it’s unnecessary.
It’s 2013. There isn’t really any need to eat meat anymore for any other reason than enjoyment. And if that’s the case, so be it. Your opinion is your opinion and mine is mine.
However, it is my blog so I am going to post things that make me laugh and have meaning to me.
PS, c’mere so I can cook you a vegan meal and show you that we don’t actually eat terrible tasting food!
I went on kind of a big digression about this a few months ago, but I thought I’d like to chime in here to kind of pull the curtain back.
The general impasse between vegans and non-vegans is in the (1) regard for an animal’s life, and each party’s (2) perception of moral consistency. It should be noted that both parties view themselves as morally-consistent. And, generally-speaking (from a logical standpoint), they are. This is going to get quite long, so read the rest here.
We portray ourselves as happy in public to cause jealousy in the Other. That jealousy gives us the a posteriori joy we pretend to experience a priori. But the a posteriori joy is private, because to publicly enjoy that jealousy would attract widespread condemnation, and cause us to feel guilt.