I have a temper.
This is the entire conversation I had with X. There are some people who are already aware that I had this fight and know who X is, but she deserves her privacy. I choose to write my response this way because I don't believe that our "meeting for coffee" would work. I use this blog to articulate myself and process and I see no reason not to do it this way.
After receiving these, I posted an extremely angry response on the women's group that we were both part of (I left immediately after). It was definitely an attack, but I did my best in my rage to keep the ad hominem low and state what I believed. I'd post that here so you can see that it was irrational and angry, but it's been taken down since. X posted the very first message of the conversation we had, and from what I gather, it was that message alone that people assume I got angry about. I chose not to post the entire conversation in part because I wanted to find out whether or not she would. I knew the information would get back to me one way or another and that would either confirm what I believed about this being a propagation of victim mentality, or prove me wrong in which case I'd be more open to speaking with her more in depth. She did not prove me wrong.
For those of you who TLDR'ed that wall of text, the gist of it is that I didn't book have a woman booked on my show this month. That's true; I had someone booked, she dropped out, I chose someone else that I thought was a strong comedian. I picked someone that I thought was different in style and high energy (I won't say who it was), because I was considering the overall pacing of the show from what I know about the people on it.
I realize that this is a very long blog, but any one who talks to me about it will hear the exact same thing. I have this as backup. I want to be completely clear about where I stand and I hold myself accountable for what I say. If someone does illustrate to me that I am wrong and she is not, so be it.
After booking my last comedian and seeing my all male line up, I posted in a Denver comedy women's group inviting women to show me their sets. Invite me to a show, pull me aside at a mic, let me know who you are so if I was unaware I could book you. I considered this a solution so I could avoid in the future. In her message X accuses me of not looking hard enough. I'm not sure what the realism of this statement is. I hit mics constantly and I watch everyone's set. I pay attention to people that I don't know on shows. I opened up booking for women specifically. I'm not sure what is not looking hard enough so much as her just thinking I'm not allowed to have my opinion as to what is funny, or what would work in my room.
X, this is for you. I am not having coffee with you because none of your reaction to me seemed to acknowledge my views in the first place. You don't seem open to dialogue. To be blunt, wrongly or rightly, the fact that you hid behind your first message to make me seem like I was overreacting, combined with the content of your message, makes me believe you can't. You are aware of my opinion. You disagree. You want me to conform to yours. I will not, not with that kind of communication.
You simply stated that what I did wasn't good enough for you. You don't speak for every woman in comedy. You are new to the scene and the rationale you're applying isn't equivalent to the real world. This kind of blind eye, blanket approach to things is detrimental, in my opinion, to feminism as a whole.
From here on, I'm just going to break down why I reacted the way I did.
There are so many ladies looking to get stage time.
Yes, there are, but there are a lot of human beings looking for stage time. From what little I have to base this off of, there are about 80 women in that comedy group. There were about 400 people in the draft for comedy works, which includes all of us who signed up for new talent or the contest. That's not a perfect gauge of how many there are total, but it demonstrates a level of one in five, the number of women that are booked on the show that I, a woman who busts ass to put it together every month while hitting mics, shows and working 2 jobs, puts together. You are devaluing my work and opinion as a woman because you think I owe you more. I believe in fairness and mathematically, I believe that's a fair representation.
I'm sure your audience would appreciate a diverse lineup.
X, you have never set foot in my room. You don't get to tell me what they enjoy. Saying this implies that it's not something I consider because 2 of 14 shows, both instances because of someone dropping out, there have not been women. This is highly insulting to me, that you're suggesting I have put a room that averages about 60 people together and am clueless to what they might like.
It's strange to me that I need to remind you how hard it is [since] you're a lady comic and have probably faced prejudice yourself.
You contradict yourself on this point strongly a bit later, X, and this is one of the most condescending and infuriating things you said to me. For one thing, this type of statement is both an appeal to flattery and an appeal to consequence. You are telling me, effectively, that I should know better, "I'm better than my decisions. That's a nonsense statement. You're trying to elicit my emotional response as though I'm not completely aware of what I'm doing.
Secondly, you are essentially suggesting that "because I care about women, and your point is about caring about women, then I must be wrong if I don't agree to your point." I hope I don't need to further explain why that is a baseless argument. I believe in feminism and I believe in pragmatism, showing that we are empowered, logical and strengthen our argument with critical thought, not picking every battle for sympathy, which I firmly believe you did here. That, I will stipulate is my opinion and you can try and change my mind on that, I can't state what your intentions are, that's just how it comes across. More on this as we go.
Happy International Women's Day!
This wouldn't have bothered me aside from the fact it's a petty jab at me apparently being ignorant to your brand of feminism. This wasn't an olive branch or solidarity, it was a literal, use of words power play. If you are talking to me in person you can offer me inflection or tone but this is writing and choosing your words is all you have to get your point across. This reeks of ivory tower bullshit where you can tell me about your women's studies courses because my knowledge must be outdated or incomplete. It comes across as you believing I am ignorant. Again, you imply that I must be less ... I don't know, feminist, something, than you, because I didn't do what you liked.
My response explained the situation and steps I had taken for it not to happen in the future. I further mentioned my firm belief that I am against this kind of nitpicking and it prevents me from doing things that I consider to be supporting women, namely, letting them feature or headline when I don't see it happening. It is hard to win respect, and it is hard to be promoted.
I look at every show you have and see that you typically have at least one woman booked.
Holy, holy shit. First of all, 1 in 5, because I believe that is proportional. That number is on the rise which is encouraging, but that's still where I think it is. Second of all, looking at every single line up and deciding to comment on the one anomaly and feeling the need to say something is nitpicking bullshit. You didn't ask me what happened, which is why I become defensive by default simply by explaining it.
If this were a trend that I continued over a few shows, by all means, you should have asked me why; I would have had no good answer. My answer, which is what the pragmatist in me believes, is that shit happens. You are making a nothing statement to someone who does consider women and fairness and it makes me discredit you. When you are discredited, it is to some extension reflected on a lot of us. How much harder would it be to actually point out when someone is booking a sexist lineup when you're claiming that any moment something doesn't go your way is against women?
I find it hard to believe to believe that you can't think of a single funny woman to take her spot. If that is the case, I would have to say you aren't looking or listening hard enough.
X, I implore you to have someone say that to your face and see if you don't find it offensive. Again, I can think of a few women that I thought would be "funny enough." Some of them I want to feature in the next couple months, and there are even fewer of those spots. I don't like to book people multiple times too close together because my audience contains a lot of repeat members. I don't want to have them see the same show every month. Some of them were just on my show, and some of them simply didn't have the kind of energy that I wanted to balance the people I knew were on it. There were funny women, they just weren't right for this situation.
Additionally, you believe that I'm not looking or listening hard enough, knowing and being one of the respondents to a call to women to see their sets so maybe I can find people I have missed. What steps would you have me take? Should I book people that I have nothing to vet with because they're women? I won't. I realize our meritocracy is subjective, and the reason why I want to see people in front of a crowd is because even if they aren't my style of humor, I can see when they do well. What else, exactly, do you want me to do other than put someone on my show who I either don't know or believe is ready for it, or burn through people as openers that I want to give more time as features and headliners?
I appreciate your post [but] it's your show and your responsibility to book it.
See aforementioned point. I took steps to find more women that I might be overlooking. You're again implying that I did nothing, that I do nothing, that I don't consider this. Not once did you ask me.
I am happy to talk to you more in depth about how I see sexism arise in the scene and the nuances of my experience. I don't want to assume it's the experience of all women.
X, this is the sentence that triggered me to write the post attacking you in the first place. You are making a very stark and arrogant conclusion that I must be the way I am because I have just been shrouded in cotton candy and never been touched by sexism.
I was sexually assaulted as a teenager and I have spent most of my life developing myself into a person that can deal with that. Being able to not blame all of men for the actions of that one has taken me well over a decade, and has been at the expense of some very kind people.
I have been talked over, forgotten, been marginalized, misunderstood, dismissed and harassed. There are a few people who don't know me very well that have thought I have slept with a lot of comics to get where I am. I have been hurt, intentionally or not, by men and women. You inviting me to hear the nuances of your experience, just over the year-ish that you have been here, you don't get to tell me that. You didn't even ask what I've been through. You just said you didn't want to assume I've been through anything. Can you not see how that would be incredibly offensive?
You end that, effectively, with "let's get coffee and chat." You don't make that sound like you're inviting me to an open dialogue. That sounds like me staring at you while you get on a soap box about whatever has happened in your life. Maybe you have been assaulted too. Maybe you feel marginalized and trapped. You are inviting me to hear why you are the way you are but in no way have you presented yourself, in this message or your life, in a way that makes me believe you would understand the first thing about who I am and why I think what your doing is hurtful to women as a whole. You can't conceive of being wrong.
I accuse you of taking a moral high ground. Again, because you are nitpicking one of my shows out of many that I have had, and because you dismiss me, as maybe nothing has happened to me. Remember that line in your first message about how surely I must know how hard it is to be a woman in comedy?
I repeat what I said before about the steps I'd taken. I tell you not to police anyone's show. I accuse you of taking moral high ground. I withdraw from your show.
Just book a woman and you have no need to [justify] your actions.
I did book a woman. See continued point I've been making this whole time.
I don't know whose "job" you think it is to police the scene accountable. If I see a show that doesn't have a women booked, especially by a female show runner, I am going to say something.
I don't think it's any one's job to police a scene because that implies there are select people with authority. We should lead by example. Again, if there is a show where women are never booked over the course of weeks or months, then someone, (and I would) should ask the show runner why. Looking at behavior as a whole is important. Focusing on singular events is childish. It makes women seem entitled and trivial, that our merits aren't enough to get stage time. We are not more entitled than anyone else.
Also,because I am female show runner, wouldn't you consider holding me to some higher standard than you do men to be somewhat sexist? I should be held to the same standards as anyone else. I explained to you my rationale and you didn't like it. End of story. You have your opinion, X, and you won't budge from it. You are just going to be shouting into the void and you are going to alienate people from feeling like they can trust women, talk to them, or book them. You make mistakes and accidents look like threats to feminism as a whole. That cheapens the entire idea, and it's completely impractical.
The rest of your post just repeats your points, and I've already talked about them. You acknowledge nothing I said. You are simply saying I am not trying hard enough. You admit you're not perfect in your ways of communicating. That could be fixed by thinking critically about them and communicating with purpose. Ask questions, X. That's the easiest way. Make sure you understand me before you pass this kind of criticism. You don't, you give me no evidence of it, at least. I found this to be irritating and damaging to how I fundamentally believe we can gain strength and community. Alienating men is not an answer. Alienating me, and women like me, is not an answer.
You asked me for coffee. That's your solution. You think you can have this dialogue in a coffee shop. Maybe, X. But you didn't invite me. You told me. Nothing in your conversation so far has really seems to acknowledge why I hold my beliefs valid. You are lost in an echo chamber, X. Your own statements are just repetitions of themselves and not once did you ask me why. I hope you read this over coffee. That last statement, that is a petty jab. That's what you are eliciting with this type of "call out" behavior. It's the girl who cried sexism. X, you are so focused on your point that not once did I believe you realized you were actually talking to me.
When I was angry and posted my rage, I could have done that on facebook at large. I chose not to, not because I thought I was wrong, but because I was certain you would face a huge amount of trolling and attack that you did not deserve. I trust my point and the thickness of my skin to have done fine with it. I posted it in that group because I felt it necessary to "call you out" and this type of insular thinking in general. I don't tolerate it.
I looked for you last night. I'm not afraid of confrontation and more than write this I wanted to say it to you. The kicker is, I had you written in my notebook potentially for next month on my show. I know that when enough time has passed I will simply dismiss you. It was hard not to before because you made these complaints that make me have to believe you suck at proportions. You are not supporting women when you pick every battle. You are a shout in the street.
The premise that this article uses isn't originally mine; I read something very similar in an essay about feminism that I haven't been able to locate to credit. If you recognize the idea and know the original, please let me know so I can give some attribution.
I imagine if you're the person intended to read this, a member of your family or friend circle sent this to you. From what little I know about the people who visit this site, you're statistically unlikely to be one of them. You are white, you are most likely male. I am not sure how old you are beyond the fact that you're over 18. I don't know your education or socioeconomic status. You are likely to be religious. Much of what I know about you is unclear because it's hard to look up unbiased information about you. All I know is that we disagree with one another on some pretty fundamental levels, and I know that you are real, and you must assume that I am real, too. We might see each other as threats, but I don't know that with certainty.
I'm writing to you because I waited to see what would happen after the election, and now I'm starting to. I live in Denver and this city has a tendency to carry a liberal echo; as such I'm not as afraid of losing reproductive rights, I fear less for the future of my friends here. Who knows, maybe that will change.
I'm not sure what you want from me, but it seems opposed to what I want for myself, and that opposition will effect me. That's a simple truth and something that I struggle to understand. What you want on a national level conflicts with what I want for my life as an individual, and we've never met, my decisions don't effect you, but our opinions do effect each other. I've been watching attempts between people like us to talk to each other, so far as I can tell, they seem to be going nowhere. There's a lot of calm agreeing to disagree, and agreeing that we should discuss things. Of course we should, but we're still waiting.
There's a lot of things that I'm told you believe. I googled "conservative values" more for morbid curiosity and I've been browsing Conservopedia. I have no idea how accurate their representation of you is. Some of these might apply to you, some don't. For the purpose of this article, I'm mostly using the list I linked to, but with the exception of addressing race. I don't know what your thoughts on that are. It's hard not to generalize because I know nothing about you, it's just something I don't feel right not mentioning.
Here is what I gather are your beliefs:
Abortion is a sin, one that's encouraged by the government. Furthermore, it is a crime that should be outlawed, and Planned Parenthood should be defunded.
You believe in self-reliance, that people who are in poverty are there because they're not trying hard enough and opting to rely on handouts from a bloated government.
You believe that global warming and environmental issues are a myth. I'm unsure who you think is propagating it or what you believe the end goals of propagating that myth is. In any case, you believe that environmental acts are an assault on jobs and hurting the economy.
Then there's race, and that's a tricky one: you might believe that racial tension simply doesn't exist, is exaggerated by the media, or you might believe that you, of European descent, are simply better and more deserving than people of other races. I am extremely unclear of your beliefs here. I am also aware that my opinions on this are my own, I can't really speak for what people of color go through because I'm not one of them, so I'm not a good representative of their view.
These are the main ones, but I could list many. For time and simplicity, let's leave it at these. I disagree with you on all of these points, but rather than try and argue with you, I'm going to show you what it looks like to me, the world in which you are right, where you get what (from how I am informed) you are asking for. This is your ideal, this is what it will mean for it to become real. This is what we're (I'm) afraid of. Maybe you can show me where I am misguided. Maybe you can see why this would be hurtful to huge swaths of people.
In this scenario, you are right, and I am wrong. I am not allowed control over my body, because abortion is a sin in a religion I don't believe in. Effectively, you're asking me to abide by moral law that isn't mine because you believe it's true, and you're right. Just because you're right doesn't mean I'll change my mind any more than the reverse; In my world, I do believe I'm right, and I do not think I will change your mind. I'm getting a little ahead of myself, though.
Happy New Year, darling. We'll say the heartbeat bill has passed, despite how arbitrary the criteria. Abortion may not be outright criminal, but it's become closer to being such. It's a pretty big step towards outlawing it as a whole. Ideally, I'll still have access to birth control. I've never had an abortion or had a pregnancy scare for that matter, but now there is no alternative. In one reality, I'll get pregnant. I'm not sure what the complications of my pregnancy will be given I have heart problems, but we'll assume for now that I will give birth to a healthy baby and I will survive the process just fine. That baby will then be given up. She will not know my name. If she ever managed to find me 18 or so years later, I would have to explain to her that she was unwanted, that she was kept inside me until her birth and I let her go because I didn't want her, and I know I don't have the capacity to take care of a kid. I am not extremely healthy and I chose writing and art over having children; I know that the future is uncertain for me, and I wouldn't have wanted to subject a child to how difficult it can get. I had tried to avoid her. I believed (wrongly, in your world) that there wasn't a lot of time left for the planet and I didn't want to dump the problems of previous generations on her. I had known that in my life, being a mother wasn't an intent.
I would have to tell her those things if she found me. She would become a rift in my family; I imagine I would become something of a pariah. I'm assuming I had this baby with someone I really cared about, which is likely given the way my relationships are. Our relationship would probably suffer. I don't know for sure, but I don't imagine I would want to work through that with someone. I would focus on my career, I'd leave him. I don't know who would raise her or if she would turn out to be good or fucked up. My genetics are someone else's to mold, good luck to them.
You may think that when she grows inside me, that when I go through labor or that when I give birth and see a little face like mine that I will want to keep her. I have never wanted kids and it's very hard for me to believe that having one forced into my possession due to what's likely an accident will change my mind. Maybe I will, but I hope not. I would raise her always knowing that I had wanted something else; that there was a life I had felt driven to live that she took from me. I will never be able to try and make this work. Assuming our family unit remains intact, I will most likely become distant from her father by default. I will blame him, hate him, I will want him to suffer. That's if I change my mind; I find that unlikely.
According to the CCAI, There are over 100,000 children in foster care currently in the US. On average, they spend about 3 years in the system. In 2013, there were over 600,000 abortions reported, most of them in under 13 weeks; this is about 200 for every 1,000 live births. With the passing of the heartbeat bill, many of these would be felonies, with detection possible at approximately 6 weeks. Assuming I find out a week after missing my period, I have just over a month to put together the money, take time off, and ultimately decide that this is what I want. I know that I will decide this, but it will push me. It will hurt.
Any time I have tried to live a life that isn't the one I currently exist in, I feel intensely suicidal. This has been my peace of mind. I will probably at least attempt to kill myself, even if I did try to take care of this kid I don't know that I would be allowed to. She will have that to look forward to.
I suppose this is me being dramatic, not accepting my place in the world. That's a strange, because it suggests I don't know my own place in the world. That I shouldn't be attempting to pursue my goals relentlessly and with the passion it fills me with because I'm not supposed to. If I weren't supposed to, why would I have the drive? Why does anyone feel motivation, if not to do what it is they're supposed to on some fundamental level?
But darling, maybe that doesn't happen to me. I am resourceful and shrewd and maybe I just never end up having to worry about a baby. Maybe I can remain attached to the path I've chosen in life. Maybe people will still be listening to me, maybe they still read this blog. I have their support, I can reach out to them, but it will get harder. You will have so much respect for me though, doing this all on my own without any social assistance.
This brings me to your next belief, about how I must be poor because I'm not trying hard enough. I have to admit that this part of the argument is hard for me to figure out what it looks like for you to be right without some very flexible logic.
I'll be honest with you, my mind shuts down at the idea of trying to do anything but this, and I don't totally know what "this" is. Being a comedian doesn't generally happen when you get your degree and go up to theaters with a resume proving you're funny. You're looking for ways to reach people, and there is no rubric for it. We're all making it up as we go along. As we make it up, we also support ourselves through whatever means necessary. Counting comedy, I work 3 or 4 different jobs in a week in order to make rent and survive. My days are anywhere from 2 to 10 hours long depending on what needs to get done. I usually work 6 or 7 days out of the week in one form or another.
This is how I pull myself up. There is no safety net, but my starting point was not 0. I am able to make this effort predominantly because I was able to go to college; even if the degree pursuit was a worthless money pit it taught me about people. I was in a stable relationship for most of my early 20s, and his support helped me hash things out, at the expense of our well being as a couple. I rely greatly on friends and people in my life for, well, everything. I am painfully aware of my favors and I'm unsure how I will pay them back if I don't continue pushing forward.
I do all of this with no real proof that this will work out for me. There is no guarantee that I'm going to figure it out. There is a likelihood that I will fail and become destitute. I hope, given how I am already, that I will be able to support myself by some other means, but I can't know that for sure. Is it possible to work hard, fail, and come up empty handed? Or is hard work the only requisite, regardless of what you're trying to do?
The only way I can understand this, to make this align with your opinion that people who are poor are only poor because they are lazy is to just concede that I must be too lazy to ever make it. That the fact that I want to do this is some extension of my own inability to take care of myself. I have no ambition, I have no drive, because I'm not there yet. I'm not really sure what that means. I guess if you're right, then I'm a piece of shit. The fact that I write for this blog which doesn't make me money, and not exclusively for the soul crushing copywriting I sometimes do to keep my head above water is laziness. Any time I spend with friends or loved ones must be squandering; my life should only be the work.
Maybe I'm not lazy, maybe I'm stupid. Maybe the fact that I'm doing what makes me feel peace is stupid. I should marry someone and have that daughter of mine so I can convince her that it's not so bad to feel like half a person. I have tried several times to rewrite this part so it doesn't seem melodramatic, like I'm whining about my place in the world. I think it sounds that way because that simply isn't my place in the world. Where I am now is, and I love it here. I don't understand why you'd want to take that away from me.
Homelessness is one of my biggest fears, my friend. I know it's close to me. I've been looking harder and harder at this problem as I get older. I have so much more to say about it, but know that if you're right, a bunch of lazy pieces of shit like me, who are working to put together what they want as best they can, are going to end up on the street. That's not even counting "handouts" as you see them in terms of food stamps or other welfare programs.
I have a lot more to say, but I'll save it for the next letter. I just want to know, is this what you believe? Do I see you incorrectly, or is this the kind of future you see as the better option? I've been making a pretty staunch effort not to make this as dark and dystopian as it feels (I've re-written this 2 or 3 times in the past month), and to lay out my perception without fearmongering. This is the first part of what it looks like, to me, if you're right.
I will be honest with you darling, I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
This has been a challenge to sit down and write. A lot has been going on in my little world, and it's preoccupied my observations of the larger one as a whole. Usually, the month of October is the worst for me, but for the first time there haven't been any major catastrophes, just a lot of time to think.
I came to a point at the end of September where things slowed down, and now things are right back at their scheduled chaos, but I've run into a problem; I'm stuck. I am frustrated, and I don't know if there's nowhere to go or just no room to. I have a lot of ideas and they aren't moving forward; I hit the bottleneck.
This is a weird thing in Denver comedy that I imagine everyone begins to notice once they're where I'm at. People don't want to take risks on you. There are a lot of talented people, but we all tend to give stage time to people that we see other people give stage time to. There's a hierarchy, which is fine, but not a lot of people look to promote anyone within that hierarchy, we just adhere to it. We're effectively a caste system in terms of stage time; there's open micers, openers, features and headliners. Nobody goes up or down, not far anyway. Your only leverage is if people can get something out of you. Since I run a show and I'm a woman, I have two things regardless of how funny I am. I have a spot I can offer you and I make your show look a little more diverse. Both of those are bullshit criteria but I'd be lying if I didn't say I think that's a huge part of why I get what I get.
We all build up inside the bottle, perfecting our spots. We get good at the places we're at. Once in a rare while someone sneaks through the neck of the bottle because someone took a risk on them and everyone noticed. Denver in particular puts a lot of stock in the comedy competitions which I think is ridiculous, but I'm likely biased given that I don't do well in contests.
I felt very lost after San Francisco. I'd gone out there with a purpose that didn't really work out. I wasn't upset about the opportunity loss, I just didn't know where to go from there. I'm very goal oriented. At the beginning of the year I made a commitment to try and figure out how to make (some) money doing comedy, which I guess I've started, but I needed somewhere to go from there, I just haven't figured out where that is.
I thought I was being patient, but patience can teeter dangerously on waiting for things to happen when it's my job to bring them about. Waiting is something I reserve for when I don't know what I should be doing. That's where I was at when things slowed down. Things were slow and I was okay with that, but I didn't want to wait for something to happen. I just needed to know what I should be doing so I could start.
It's taken me awhile to work it out, but I think I have started the answer; I have to make something here. Traveling is great, and you make a lot of connections (with people or concepts), you experience, create and explore. Now that I'm home I see myself as stuck, but I don't think darting around the country will get me anywhere. I need to be looking at this place. My problem is not unique. I need to break the fucking bottleneck.
I'm guilty of this too. I run a show that I care about and I always want to see do well, so I don't take a lot of risks when it comes to who I book. I'm contributing to the problem I'm experiencing. I'm going to make it a point next year to change that. I'm pretty experienced with risks, now I need to start taking those chances with people. If I'm lucky that will start being reciprocated.
I didn't get my cartoon up for the first Wednesday, which felt like a little failure. That was one of my goals this year, to add those twice a month, and it sucks a little to know I couldn't do it, but at the same time, it was certainly an indicator for me. I try to do a lot of things at the same time, and things that aren't prioritized or particularly special to me fall off the edges. Learning how to manage those things has been a huge process. I don't take that kind of failure as hard as I used to. I push myself and look for edges so I know where they are, and apparently, I hit one. This one appears to be the amount of things I can accomplish by myself.
I feel like I'm at the point where I've done all that I know how to on my own. For awhile I was frustrated that there was no sense of leadership, that I had no one to look up to in order to figure out what direction I should be going. I'm realizing that maybe that's the incorrect way to look at this, it goes against dancing to presume there's a shape to it. I can't do it the same way as other people and they're not going to be able to do it my way.
What I'm hoping to do now is to work with other people. I suppose it's a lateral approach. I'm not really sure how to work upwards but I'd like to work with people I know in order to see if we find places to go out of it. I've always held to an idea that a sense of community/connection with people is a huge problem solver. I was planning to look into it and use it as a springboard for this big project on homelessness I'm working on; some stuff about neotribalism but hopefully you'll get a really cool article about that later.
I've been wanting to do a little more with the articles here. They've mostly been my own thoughts backed with just enough research to make sure I wasn't completely mistaken about anything. I've covered a lot of my own basics and now a lot of what I'm writing about is stuff I'm learning about at the same time, and they're becoming bigger puzzles. It's pretty interesting, we'll see where that goes. I'm getting more of an idea of what I'm doing by writing them in the first place. When I first started, I really had no idea why I was except for that I liked to. I didn't have any great sense of purpose.
I just realized that as a person, I'm a microcosm of that big project. I have been wanting to do more. Every time I see a large system I realize that the flaws in it are easily reduced to the same flaws in an individual; you can turn almost anything into a metaphor for itself and that approach makes things more understandable and therefore more fixable. I've been looking at this big social problem and it's ultimately because it's the exact same problem I have on a very small scale. I am interested in homelessness because I have no place to go.
I don't know what it is I'm going to start. It's still new and shy and hard to see through the logistical thicket. Here's hoping that somewhere in there it gives us a place to belong.
Admittedly I could have titled this overall article better, but I chose the title because of its incendiary nature. There will be more on that in a later section; why we use "gay" as a derogatory term has a bit to do with why my friends have been struggling with their identity, as well.
First things first, there's a big difference between people I've met who are attracted to the same sex and people who ideologically believe they're supposed to because "that's their personality". I don't think there's something "wrong" with either person. That being said, these also entirely different struggles with identity.
If you're gay, I imagine your struggle is with feelings of attraction that you're told are unnatural or not okay; this might be in combination with a lack of feelings that you're told are expected or normal.
I say imagine because I don't have a ton of gay friends, the ones I do have pretty much solidified who they are and feel empowered by their sexuality. No homosexual, in my limited, anecdotal circle, thinks there's a problem with the fact they're gay. The people this article is written about not only think they might be gay, but they also seem somewhat opposed to it. They're struggling with how their personality makes them into someone gay or why that's expected of them, and their internal identity doesn't match that imposed sense of self.
To my knowledge science hasn't exactly nailed down the gay gene (and never had, that was an oversimplification of a study finding a genetic marker more common in gay men). Rather, there's a plethora of genetic factors, possibly including epigenetic factors for both you and your parents, as possible sources. There's also a lot of evidence that homosexuality isn't some "evolutionary misstep", as some people try to claim when arguing for the impairment of reproduction. Evolutionary biology (or psychology) isn't even close to as black and white as "If it helps us eat more food or make more kids, it's evolutionary success." The short version : Science agrees that it's complicated, and not something you simply decide on.
And it's precisely the idea that you can decide your sexuality that starts making people uncomfortable, and creates bizarre social controls that encourage you to make the "right choice". Being gay is part of who you are, as is any other orientation, but that doesn't mean it exclusively governs all aspects of your personality--and not every trait that's culturally considered homosexual is a link to that orientation, or vice versa.
Wrestling with feelings about your sexual orientation implies that you've had some kind of feeling or experience that relates to the people you desire to be close to, bond with and have sex with. For the people I'm talking about, those feelings don't exist at all or are primarily heterosexual. Attraction becomes an intellectualized process that makes it difficult for the individual to feel connected to their own desires for intimacy, and Intimacy is complicated enough without the fear that you're doing it the wrong way for yourself/with the wrong person.
The guys I talked to often admitted they'd flirted with or kissed men, or engaged in anal sex with women, other things that tested their belief that they might be gay. Most usually found actual homosexual contact to be more conflicting if not a total let down, but continued to have incredibly strained relationships with women in ways that still fostered doubts about their orientation.
I think the starting point of sexual maturation for your body is different for everyone, and whether you do or don't get hormonal signals about your identity, you'll invariably be bombarded with cultural messages about who you're supposed to be, how you're supposed to feel and what that's supposed to look like.
The problem with a lot of these social constructs is that they're generalizations, and they don't allow for the complexity and fluidity of human nature. It makes no account for the neck tattooed construction worker who picks up a couple of beers for him and his boyfriend after they get off work, or an ascot wearing interior decorator who goes home to his wife and three children and teaches his son how to play football or build an engine from scratch. At most, these people become the butt of a satire about gender roles without any recognition of the fact that they're just a different example of being human. Socially, we group deviations from accepted gender norms in the same category as deviations from heterosexuality, which is, well, dumb. It also further highlights discrepancies in how we idealize being human based on sexuality, as well as what roles we assume people have or worse, deserve based on it.
Orientation is just a fraction of your identity, and the amount of emphasis it holds varies from person to person. For some, their sexuality is a point of pride and for others it's just background noise. Sex sells, and appealing to a person's libido is a quick way to get a point across, positively or negatively. As a culture, we develop strong cues as to "negative" and positive" markers for sexuality because we're fed so much of it, early, whether we know it or not.
Many, then, begin to tailor their personality based on what they think makes them attractive to their desired partner, or at least mimic what they believe is desirable. When you learn that the things that make you "unattractive" to your desired mates are also the things that are anchors of your identity, and furthermore those also make you attractive to a different mate, there's undoubtedly going to be some internal conflict. Luckily, the further along you get in your life, the more you'll learn to balance the perfection of your mating call with who you most enjoy being as a person. In theory, it's the way you level that out attracts "the right person", AKA that statistical anomaly of "the one" we all seem to be searching for.
This leads us to the next problem: Your orientation is something wired into you, whether you're a lumberjack or an aspiring ballet dancer. Your view of a lumberjack or ballet dancer's orientation is based off of cultural values that you learn and internalize as you grow up and interact with people. Which takes us further through this intellectual corn maze...-->>
I'm amazed at how many things we hide from the people in our lives for fear that we'd be judged, completely unaware that these are things we'd have in common. In this case, this isn't my struggle that I'm writing about, but it's one that's been divulged to me multiple times by multiple people, and at this point I'm just shocked no one has thought of mentioning it to another one of their peers. The conclusions they drew, how the individuals were shaped from their experience and their overall opinions vary, but the root experience, which I promise I'll get to in a moment, was the same. It's also one they generally felt *very* uncomfortable sharing.
Since this isn't something I ever dealt with, let me preface this with the closest experience I have. While I was in late elementary school, I thought I might be a lesbian. I had no concept of sexuality at this point; I hadn't developed feelings for either sex and I wouldn't have had a clue what to do about it if I had. I thought I was a lesbian because I wanted to be a writer, I didn't wear girly clothes or makeup, and I preferred dogs to dolls. Based on what I learned from my peers, TV and whatever other sources of social control I had, these things would mean that I'd grow up to like women.
Again, I didn't even really know or understand what it would involve to "like" a girl or a boy, at this point. I was developing my assumption of sexual orientation strictly because of what kind of attributes and gender role was assigned to it.
Thinking I'd be a lesbian wasn't an opinion I expressed out loud because it seemed like a moot point. Firstly I was too young to be attracted to anybody. Secondly, even at that age and despite having a pretty conservative upbringing, I didn't think I'd have a choice. I like what I liked, and if that meant I'd end up liking women, I didn't see the point in trying to be somebody else for the sake of being straight.
I didn't look for women to be attracted to, either. Most of my preteen and teenage years lacked development of sexual desire. The reasons for that are pretty complex, but for brevity's sake, I can say that I didn't really feel attraction in any understandable form until I was 16, and I wouldn't do much about it with anyone until I was in college a year later. I just didn't understand how it worked, and at the time, I didn't place a lot of importance on it. Maybe I figured that the "right person" would be the one I'd work it out with, so I didn't have to worry about it.
Eventually, when I started getting crushes on boys, I didn't feel conflicted about it; and I certainly didn't feel like I was forcing myself to. It felt normal. I experimented with girls a little in my early 20s, but this had a lot more to do with problems I had in my relationship at the time. I was drinking a lot at that point, too. I don't devalue those experiences, but they didn't influence or change my orientation, and I didn't do them because I had questions about my sexuality.
I knew I was straight regardless of how I was perceived or thought myself to be perceived. Again, this wasn't a huge deal for me, although, maybe it wasn't a big deal because I didn't have to wrestle with my sexual identity. I imagine if I were gay, it would have been a whole other experience, and I would have gone through a lot more turmoil based on my exploration with those women. In the end, it was shits and giggles, stories for future parties, bucket list entries...
So what's with the personal exposition? Hang in there kids, this is armchair psychology day. It's also the moment I remind you I didn't graduate college, so take this all with whatever serving size of salt you require. This is all observational on my part. This observation also applies to something I'm not: a guy.
Recently, another male friend of mine confided in me that earlier in life, he had thought he was gay. That in itself isn't shocking; and while homosexuality is real and often times poorly misunderstood or mishandled in early years, that wasn't his case.
My friend believed this about himself because from what he understood, his personality "was gay", and not because he felt attracted to the same sex. He was artistic, perceived as more sensitive, slighter in build, and overall lacked the brutish, testosterone fueled stereotypes of masculinity that he perceived in his peers. In some cases, it was assumed for him, regardless of how he handled himself. So my friend experimented, felt unfulfilled, and struggle with his sexuality and his identity for years. It would be a few years before he worked out both his orientation and masculinity, all of which happened years before I met him, but left him with some downright bizarre ideas about relationships, and relationships with women in particular.
I'm not sure why he felt the need to tell me about it. I'm doing my best to keep any him as well as anyone else who's revealed this to me as anonymous as possible. I need to stress I wouldn't have any opinion were it not for the fact that I've heard this story a lot. This turned into a "tell me once, interesting story, tell me ten times, why the fuck does no one know this about each other?"
My friend was surprised to learn that I'd heard his story before. None of the guys I've talked to, to my knowledge, felt comfortable telling their friends or girlfriends, or felt misunderstood if they brought it up. This might be because the confusion and mixed feelings appear related to messages other people give you about what you're supposed to be. It's a strange kind of vulnerability to have with people whose opinions of you matter so much. It's mind blowing to me that these men could feel so deeply affected and completely terrified of the effect that they refused to tell anyone, opting to quietly deal with it alone. I guess they didn't feel like they had any alternative.
This article is written on the slim chance that someone else doesn't know how to work out what they're feeling, and they don't have anyone they trust to tell it to.
Firstly, you're not alone.
Secondly, you're not even a little weird.
Thirdly, even though this one doesn't really matter, I doubt you're actually gay. A lot more on this later.
This has taken me a long time to write, and I've split it into sections in hopes that it will be a little easier to read. If you have some insights that I missed, feel free to express them. This is a pretty complex issue and I don't claim expertise. This is only what I've learned from the people I've seen go through it, and I hope it's helpful to somebody.
Briefly, here's the overview of the next few sections.:
1. Your sexual orientation isn't a choice, but your idea of what makes you a man, to a degree at least, is.
2. In this case, the latter is what you're struggling with. This has a lot to do with the absolutely bonkers way we view masculinity in our culture, in addition to the amount of emphasis we place on that bonkers view.
3. The emphasis we put on this ideal descends further into madness because we have no real methodology or belief system for attaining masculinity, which makes it an even more vague quality.
4. We don't really understand or acknowledge the parental role, mother or father, that is embedded in our self-perception, particularly in our fulfillment of gender ideals.
5. Finally, the ill-defined, seemingly unattainable but ultimately prized sense of what it means to "be a man" is directly correlated to an also ill-defined, albeit much more attainable sense of "being a woman" (or a pussy, as will usually be used in this case). This fear of femininity, implicit or expressed, both comes from and causes a great deal of misunderstanding between sexes. I'd also argue that homophobia comes more from this quagmire of misconception than it does from any latent homosexuality.
Feeling unsure about this? Don't worry, we'll get there, bud. Read More Here -->>
Lately, I have been bothered by trolls.
No, not in the literal sense, but the figurative idea of trolls and what they represent. According to urban dictionary, a troll is “One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument”, which I guess would make them the online equivalent of the joker.
Unlike the joker, however, I don’t think that trolls are representative of the nihilistic rage that makes us seek destruction. Or maybe they are, and I just don’t want to give them that much credit. I guess what I’ve been struggling with is the consistent human urge, if not the downright desire we have, to hate.
It’s all over the place. Racism, Sexism, Horsism, Pick an-ism, there is surely a thick layer of hatred frosting it like a douchebag's over-moussed tips. And as much as many would like to believe that people are inherently good, I’ve already rejected that hypothesis. For those of you who assume that we *are* inherently good, what the fuck are you basing that from?
We are experiencing tragedy after tragedy fueled by hatred, and by dismissing the slaying of innocent people by suggesting that hate is a social construct devalues human life. No one wants to admit to these feelings though, let alone to being the kind of person that acts upon their hatred of something. If you want to deny that you’re capable of hatred, fine. Unfortunately denial hasn’t been the solution to many problems, ask any drug addict.
The truth is, though, you’re far more likely to do something about a feeling of hatred than you are a feeling of love or well being, because the latter two don’t offer incentive to change. Presumably those feelings mean all is well and therefore don’t require a change. Hatred offers motivation, be it through a critical yelp review or horrific acts of violence.
But why do we hate? This is what bothers me. Much of society tries actively to discourage it, tries to banish it from conversation. We act like hatred is an emotion only dealt with by the petty or undereducated, but it’s everywhere, even inside of us. Even inside of me, who quietly seethes when people walk too slowly in front of me in a hallway. I really don't mean anger, by the way, I mean hate.
Neurologically, the parts of our brain responsible for love are active for hatred as well. This makes a lot of sense to me, given that I think we experience these emotions, like most other ones, in our quest to find meaning and propagate our species. Hatred is typically associated with fear and for good reason. My guess, is that hatred resides in that same buried instinct that makes us want to hump each other....
...but sometimes we don’t get to hump each other. Sometimes someone else humps the person we find humpworthy.
And that makes us angry.
And something primal in us whispers that we have been wronged somehow. In a way, the half-portion of children in your gonads have been robbed of something; the chance to be a real boy. And we hate that.
I wouldn't pin sexual frustration as the sole catalyst of hatred, by any means, but it's certainly the simplest one to identify and empathize with. Hatred could be thought of something of a cocktail between love and shame. Making yourself purposefully vulnerable, (which is where we start out as children, because we’re dumb) is, in a way, what love is. But something happens, and showing our vulnerability gets us hurt, or at the very least, remain unhumped. Maybe it’s scar tissue, something that grows over the raw parts, leaving us unable to expose it again, and let ourselves get hurt again. That’s why I think people are so driven to act on feelings of hatred. On some level we think we can heal ourselves, neutralize a threat, cover up that creamy center with barbed wire and skin made of bees so that nothing will ever make us feel shitty. There’s nothing more powerful than self preservation, and hatred isn’t just about self-preservation, it’s that self preservation and adding a sense of vindication.
It’s so easy to hate because it satisfies those ideas that we are not only protecting ourselves, but anyone who has exposed that kind of vulnerability and experienced pain, whether or not that threat is real. We can believe that our hatred helps people, how bizarre is that?
But what about trolls, what about people who seem to inexplicably just...hate? Are they really the hurt, the vulnerable, or are they simply acting on some devilish impulse, just so they can watch the fireworks? Maybe a bit of both. The only thing I can come up with is that it's misdirection. Some 11 year old who has trouble talking to his parents about how much he hates school gets on Call of Duty and strings together some nonsensical swear words. Some guy who can't stand up to his boss at work lashes out against women on the internet. It's all the same instincts, all the same source, but sometimes the anger gets misappropriated. But why bother letting go of all that energy, when you could do something productive like tell some 14 year old on youtube she's fat?
I think this because I've done this. I've never just shamelessly bashed a stranger on the internet, no. I've never yelled at strangers on the street either, unless they wanted to talk to me about the environment and started the conversation with some bullshit like "are you nice? But have I had the impulse? Absolutely.
In terms of strength, I am the bottom of the totem pole. I'm smart but I'm not quick, I'm nervous and flinchy in person. I make too much or too little eye contact. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be doing research on humans for my home planet, but I ran out of Alien Grant Money and they just left me here to quietly go insane. I understand so little, feel so vulnerable and powerless, and it makes me hate. I don't take it out on strangers, because I'm too weak to handle the loss. I take it out on friends and family. When I was younger I made caustic relationships for the sole purpose of breaking people until they could no longer talk to me. Why? Because on some level, that hatred made me feel powerful.
Is there still a way to reach out to people mired in their hatred, to teach them that one exgirlfriend is not enough evidence that all women are cheating whores? That not everyone who picks up a bible intends to throw it at you and assert you’re going to hell because you jerk off? How do you stop people (people like me, even) from sending more shit into an already shiterrific world?
When I said that I didn’t believe that people weren’t inherently good, I meant that we respond to whatever social stimulus gives us a favorable reaction. If a hate-group takes you in, then that feeling of acceptance will lead to a feeling of hatred that means self-preservation. If you want to be loved by those people, then paradoxically, you must hate. So no, that means that it’s not possible to save every neonazi and misogynist (or hell, misandrist). I suppose. But it's not hopeless.
Martin Luther King Jr, whether it’s cliché or not, is one of my personal heroes. Few spoke so passionately about change through compassion and kindness despite being faced with unbelievable darkness. And that is, as far as I know, the closest we can come to an answer.
“The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”
This idea, delivered through his sermon on Christmas, is not new, but doesn’t seem to have ever been fully embraced. I don’t know that it could be. Martin Luther King uses this sermon to postulate exactly how one loves their enemy; how can you forgive someone who has wronged you, and offers the beautiful advice that forgiveness will not erase what has been done, nor does it erase feelings of ill will. What forgiveness is meant to do is offer a means of reconciliation, a way for both parties to have a relationship of some kind together even though they both know they're starting on uneven ground. If that’s not fucking poetry I don’t know what is. It can't be easy, I know it's not easy. Sometimes I've been guilty of outright hating someone who simply navigated social cues in a way I didn't like, to the point of belittling them for it or worse.
Unfortunately, speaking strictly in terms of numbers, I'm afraid we're locked into these pitfalls as a species. It only takes a small number of people acting on hatred to negate the actions of hundreds of people acting from a peaceful mindset. Very few lambs have gotten away with laying beside lions. In my opinion, 'love' could be less cryptically translated into 'understanding', and to truly understand someone that hates you, requires the humility and self esteem to acknowledge your flaws, and why they might bother someone. It also requires the courage not to harp on your own flaws, empathize with someone else and come up wit ha solution. That's not simple, it has no logical, mathematical steps you can follow. It's not a dance you can choreograph. That's a map created by thousands of gibbons on acid attempting to crochet their first unity quilt.
I have never tried to love an internet troll. I have never spoken in protest to people who spew bigotry. The only thing I have done, and the only thing I can do, is to attempt to understand what it is they are protecting, and treat it as delicately as they do. That's all I needed, when I was my most wrathful, was someone who simply wanted to try and understand what I was going through. That's it.
Bringing this back to the idea of trolling on the internet, I see a major flaw; there's no way for the person spewing bile to be seen or to see someone genuinely trying to connect with them. Our relationship with technology, and by the same logic our relationship to anonymity, changes the way we communicate. You can't feed a troll empathy and expect it to cough up some common sense. Maybe the best route is to ignore it, and let these ideas blister in the expanse of the comments section, untouched by any other communication.
Whenever I sit down to write, I always hope on some level to reach someone, to communicate something. It's hard for me to think that other people sit down and share something without that goal, whether or not we achieve it. I was hoping to reach some conclusion, some explanation and maybe resolution about this, but unfortunately, I'm at a loss...
I'm bothered by trolls. All I've learned from writing this is that I'm bothered because I don't understand them, and so far as I can tell, that's why they do it. The only recourse, I guess, is to admit the disconnect and move on.
Update: I wrote this about a week ago, but was too lazy to add graphics and post it. Now there’s outbreaks of Measles in Arizona, threats to sue the parents of unvaccinated children, and additional measures of insanity. I’m not really sure how to reflect on it, so I’m just posting my original thoughts because I don’t have the emotional drive to keep up with this shit.
Recently, this labor-of-love has seen some bad press as people have been stricken ill with a respiratory virus you may remember from your childhood as the Measles.
No, The measles aren’t some knock-off Winnie the Pooh characters that spook your children and leave them with the sniffles. It’s a serious viral infection, named Rubeola. And sure, Rubeola sounds like something you order at Olive Garden, and also not that serious, but the virus that broke out at Disney land is neither adorable or delicious. Measles, though rarely, can be fatal, but may lead to blindness, deafness and brain swelling.
Whenever I read the news, I like to scroll down to the comments section so I can immediately lose my faith in humanity. I don’t know why, maybe it just gives me a reason to feel superior because I don’t spew venom all over people I’ve never seen before. Quite honestly though, I don’t know why lurking and reading all of the ignorance and hatred that flows over a comments section somehow deems me morally superior.
The particulars of the story, in short, are these:
An outbreak of measles was traced back to Disney land in California, and at the time of writing, 59 cases have been linked to it in six states. I’ve seen a couple different numbers, however, 59 is the one that I’ve seen repeated across articles which is the closest I’m going to come to verification.
82% of those infected (approximately 48 of the 59) were not vaccinated, either due to their age or beliefs.
There are two major controversial opinions about why this is happening:
1.) Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children (due to the now debunked link to autism) are reducing what is called ‘herd immunity’ causing more cases to surface and spreading viruses like Measles. Many cite religious or health reasons for not vaccinating, and the common mantra, according to the soul-deadening comments section, is often something about how our bodies are better at fighting off diseases if they are free of antibiotics, which is often associated with some vague attachment to our knowledge of superbugs, because all viruses. ‘Anti-vaxxers’ as they are less than affectionately called claim:
2.) Other people claim that our less-than-lethal approach of not murdering what one commenter referred to as ‘Dirty illegal mexicans’ is leading to a slew of new diseases that our delicate, unvaccinated children can’t handle. Here is this logic illustrated in a flowchart:
Here’s the funny thing, most of the parents who aren’t vaccinating their children are likely to be born in the ‘70s or later, which means the measles vaccine was readily available, and therefore they’d never seen any of their friends or family contract the virus and die. Measles, unlike other viruses like the flu, which goes through a mutagenic makeover every year, is relatively stable. The vaccine they came up with in the 70s, unlike polyester summer wear and the bowl cut, remains just as effective.
Another moment of disclosure: I am wary of vaccines, mostly because of their close association with doctors, of whom I have stories about I will tell later. Viruses are prone to mutation and a vaccine for one virus won’t necessarily be effective for a different strain, and no one wants a bunch of injections in exchange for a percentage point or so of guarantee. Is that a reason not to get them? Hell no. It’s a reason to be informed, to ask your doctor questions and understand what you’re putting in to your body, and why.
Any virus can come back. Do you remember what I said about herd immunity? Essentially, if enough people do get vaccinations, there is a much smaller likelihood that the virus can spread quickly, as most people will have developed enough immunity to stop them from passing it on to people who don't have that immunity. But if that number starts declining, there are fewer people who are immune, which will cause the number of people capable of spreading the number to rise.
Suck up and take your medicine.
The part of this that I find heartbreaking is the fact some people still cling to the assumption that this virus emigrated here from South American countries. If you didn’t see my previous flowchart of circular logic, here it is again:
Unfortunately, the idea that disease is racially related isn’t new. Tuberculosis was once linked to Jews, and Cholera to the Irish. Ebola is only one of many diseases we assume Africa came up to kill people far away, firstly by infecting themselves. All of these are easily disproven, and for the current example, here’s why:
For measles, the disease in question people are worried is being tracked across the border on unsanitary foreigners, the vaccination rates are high. Mexico has a 99% vaccination rate, as do Nicaragua and Cuba. Guatemala has a 93% vaccination rate. The United States is at 92%. It is much less likely that people coming to our country is welcoming a slew of diseases.
When I was first reading these comments on the internet about why illegal immigrants were the source of the outbreak, I was confused. People appeared to be falling back on the historical cautionary tale of smallpox that was brought by Spaniards to central America, which happened before vaccines were a thing, by the way. This is not an issue of illegal immigration, or any immigration for that matter. This is an issue of a group of people being wrong and who should take some accountability. I respect your beliefs, but exercising any belief in a way that will kill children is unacceptable. I’m not saying that as a liberal bias; Quinoa is ruining the environment for example, so stop eating that shit you hemp wrapped hypocrites. (Digression)
Not ever decision you make in your life should be a competition with everyone else. You don’t need to be more right. Actually, no one needs to be right. More than once in my life I’ve realized how stupid I am or how bad what I did was, and after awhile I learned it was better to be wrong so I had a gauge of what the right thing was. Changing your mind doesn’t make you a hypocrite; refusing to despite all evidence against you (and even possibly your beliefs) very well might.
About A Blog
I'm a Denver Comedian, occasional cartoonist and person of interest to someone, probably. These articles are really too long.