"I don't care"

Saying ‘I don’t care’ is the biggest insult. Even bigger than calling someone a moron, which is very hurtful.

First of all, you’d never call an actual imbecile an imbecile. Imbeciles already know that they are imbeciles. Reminding them of the circumstances of their birth makes you an imbecile. (And an asshole.) The purpose of calling someone who isn’t an imbecile an imbecile is to humiliate them to the point where they reconsider their actions that you considered imbecilic. It is a terrible way to motivate someone, though it works in some circumstances.

But saying ‘I don’t care’ to someone is far worse.

It means three things:

• I don’t understand
• I don’t want to understand
• You don’t matter to me

At least saying in saying ‘I don’t know’ a person can admit to not having thought about the topic, and not having thought about it, they have no educated opinion of it and have nothing further to say. It also serves as a conversational signal that the subject is becoming stale and could be changed.

Many, many times in our life do we have conversations with people about topics we don’t understand, and as the conversation continues, we realize we cannot understand. Not far from this boundary do we find ourselves flirting with the new understanding that we ’don’t care.’

This is how I feel when I speak with my Ph.D candidate brother about the work he does in his lab.

I listen, and I try to follow along, but I am not equipped with facts or interest to do so for very long. I care about him, but I do not care about the subject matter. Therefore, if I uttered the selfish phrase ‘I don’t care’ it would be like saying ‘I don’t care about you.’

That would be more rude than calling him dumb. Other lab mates might be smarter than him, which might make him self-conscious, but that doesn’t make him dumb.

He engages with me about topics he doesn’t know or care about, and because he is very smart, he usually knows a little something about it. (Usually more. His brain is a sponge. Mine is a bucket with a hole in it.)

Intelligence is no reason to be tactless: he would never say ‘I don’t care’ because he is not a rude asshole. With lesser intelligence and equal tact he might admit that he just doesn’t know. An acceptable, polite alternative.

A friend of mine has been saying ‘I don’t care’ as an unfunny joke for years. Muttering this demonic incantation, even in jest, he has produced a staid life of nihilism. Out of shape, filthy, lonely, and having committed to not caring about anything but himself, he is also unattractive.

Saying ‘I don’t care’ is unattractive because being rude is unattractive. We don’t have to care about everything, but we also don’t have to say it.

Mafia Nation

Three things make a nation: a border, a common ancestry, and a common culture, helpfully based in religion.

The thirteen original colonies that would one day make up the empire of the United States were once mini-nations. Each had a border, a common ancestry (English Anglo Saxons) and a common religion (a different sect of Protestantism). Their cultures differed predominantly from their religious differences.

Each colony had a mutual political interest in separating from England. They wanted to safeguard their political sovereignty (border, culture, language) and hold onto the spoils of their economic prosperity.

The amalgamation of the nations into a larger State, while maintaining their own sovereignty, was not without setbacks. The Articles of Confederation needed to be scrapped in favor of a stronger Constitution, and eighty years late, there would still be regional economic and political culture clashes resulting in a Civil War between North and South.

The states, and the union, were preserved following the outcome of the war. Slavery, the economic lynch pin of the south, was also abolished.

The United States was officially a nation with two types of citizens: ancestors of Protestant Anglo Saxon settlers and former slaves of African descent. So long as the borders were respected, the religious cultures similar, and the language consistent, the nation could grow and thrive.

'Manifest Destiny' and the Industrial Revolution were factors influencing what was essentially 'unAmerican' immigration policy.

Mass legal and illegal immigration complicated ancestry and culture within the border of the United States. Though it brought ready, willing and able labor, it diluted the nation's demographics, inviting a new people, and their culture of crime.

Nations that open their borders to people of other cultures will suffer from ensuing invasion; it is as human as Apple Pie is American.

The U.S at the turn of the century allowed waves of Sicilian, Irish and Italian immigrants to enter the country. Though the majority of them were honest and hard-working, there were many with criminal backgrounds. Sicily was a criminal state. Constantly conquered by invading armies of various empires, Sicilian culture was untrustworthy of government, which changed too frequently for it to be reliable. Criminals in Sicily were forced to create their own infrastructure to defend themselves from government enslavement and corruption.

In New York City, the Catholic Irish and Catholic Sicilians formed nations by staking out entire neighborhoods. In a new, foreign country, it was natural for them to stay close to their familiar countrymen. They could speak their own language and practice customs from the cultures of their homelands.

Within these enclaves criminals were able to organize themselves and exploit the wealth and prosperity of New York. Bonding over shared heritage, they created a secret, criminal society. The Sicilians, using a code of honor and silence called omerta, were so successful in their schemes that it took close to three decades for the federal government to even admit that there might be a clandestine criminal enterprise operating as an invisible layer of government.

The authorities never dreamed that organized criminals could last for generations and wreak so much havoc on so many innocent, well behaved tax payers. They had little understanding of what it would take to destroy this infestation, as a result the mob would thrive for decades.

Admitting this problem didn't make it any easier for the government to prosecute these criminals. They were so organized, and so secretive, that the government needed to write new--but constitutional--laws to catch them. The best method for catching the leaders of these criminal organizations were wiretaps. Previously illegal, wiretaps needed to be made legal for special uses investigating criminal enterprises.

Even with these new laws for the new citizens, it took years and years for the top bosses of these crime "families" to be jailed, so entrenched were the organized crime families in the infrastructure of government.

At their most powerful the mafia controlled courts, unions, casinos, phony shell companies. Siphoned gas taxes, engaged in narcotics trafficking, loan sharking, hijacking etc. And it was all a direct result of immigration.

The United States, in allowing the entry of innocent, hardworking people from corrupt countries, consequently allowed the entry of violent criminals into the country.

This is how nations are conquered. From within.

Mob recruiters, wanting to keep it's ranks pure, kept non Italians from being 'made' members, alienating otherwise good soldiers of mixed blood. American blood. They were forced to relent when certain bosses changed the rules for their sons. Sicilian ancestry no longer mattered in America.

Ironically, the more American the mob became, the weaker it became. Generations of could be mobsters became the new American middle class. Italian and Sicilian youth, once interested in the flashy, dangerous lifestyle of the mafia, were ethnically removed from it; they were suburban Americans now.

This quest for unattainable purity, combined with the government's quest for destruction meant the end of the mafia, itself a mini nation of criminals lurking between the layers of money and power.

A border is a nation's first line of defense. When those borders are breached illegally or legally by dissimilar cultures, it is an invasion. In the case of the mafia, the US government legalized this invasion, and suffered the consequences of crime for generations.

With invasion, a new demographic "invades" the nation and changes the current demographic: ancestry, language, culture. They bring the culture of their old country, and cling to it's customs for generations. Customs take generations to stick, and generations to dissipate.

As it transitioned to empire, the American nation risked collapse by importing the labor of dissimilar ethnicities. The penchant of the United States for maintaining law and order kept it from being completely corrupted. But not every nation or empire has the resources to defeat migration. Just ask the Romans, the Palestinians, or the Native Americans what happens to nations after mass migration.

Addiction Thoughts 1

Thinking about the psychology of my addictions is a new-ish hobby of mine. Honing in on the micro thought process in the moment of substance subjugation has been a very recent observable phenomenon. In other words, consuming past the normal limit of sugar with a new voice in my head--a conscience?--advising against it.

Massive over-consumption is unreasonable and results in immediate pain, and eventual shame. The conscience is reasonable, but reason is not as persuasive as pleasure. So another new voice must be cultivated within the moment of temptation: the voice of reasonable temperance. This voice is strengthened by the will, and the will is supported by God. True addicts need to channel a higher power to win the war against temptation.

The voice of temptation passes in a flash. Only when it is allowed to linger does it become stronger, and start to burn in the addict's mind. The burning is painful, and a weak willed addict will extinguish it by indulging in the temptation. Extinguishing the fires of temptation for immediate pain relief gives in to the satisfying pleasure of the temptation. It is counter intuitive to let oneself burn, allowing addictions to develop slowly, invisibly...

But this 'burning' is imaginary. A strong will of the conscience can withstand this burning of temptation. And yet, the withstanding of the burning itself does not result in an equally immediate (fleeting) pleasure. A prolonged journey of freedom from addiction is the reward. Well spent time, the most valuable and limited resource, is the reward.

Having suffered through numerous types of addictions, I can assert that every addiction is different for every person. It becomes a matter of taste. For instance, any drug that is not a socially consumed liquid, but a smoke-able purple crystal, or an inject-able beige powder is considered icky and dangerous by normal folks.

Living in a society of abundance enables addiction, because that same society furtively encourages it: Netflix, fast food, cigarettes, pornography, legalized weed, bars, MMOs, casinos....there is no shortage of possible addictions available while living in "freedom."

The temperance movement erroneously sought to cure individuals of addiction to alcohol, and succeeded with a 13 year ban, but policy itself also cannot cure individuals of addiction. Only individuals can cure themselves of addiction.

Heroin, crack and meth are not sold over the counter like alcohol. An addict will always be tempted by the reminder of the good stuff every time they enter a gas station, or pass a bar, or watch TV. Alcohol’s cultural acceptance makes its subsequent addiction detection rather difficult. “He’s not an alcoholic, he just likes to party!” is a common excuse for binge drinking among the immortal youth. This makes alcohol the most difficult substance for addicts to quit because it is readily accessible everywhere. (And its withdrawal is lethal.)

Becoming drunk on alcohol is like being wrapped in a warm blanket. Time ceases to exist. There is no fire, just a warm blanket. The fire begins to burn after the blanket fades away, and a desire for the safety of the warm blanket returns. There are many ways that this desire can come from within oneself, and externally from society.

Alcohol is inherently repulsive, but when the taste has been acquired it becomes pleasurable. At its worst it causes the common folk to act repulsive at times: sloppily pissing on the side of a building, humiliating themselves by passing out on the sidewalk, or inappropriately touching strangers. These are signs to normal folk that consuming alcohol irresponsibly could lead abusers to misbehave uncontrollably. The majority of users are not abusers, and stop themselves before abuse is taken too far. Thus alcohol is prohibited at work celebrations in exchange for sugar, the other socially acceptable addiction. Sugar cannot be avoided. It is in the air we breathe.

Whereas alcohol has an acquired taste, sugar and salt are immediately pleasurable. Children don't need to be taught to like it, and it serves as a useful reward for good behavior. Because of its social acceptability, these sugary snacks can be purchased everywhere, and are often provided in offices for midday dopamine. Like the warm blanket of alcohol or heroin, the snack can pretend to control a person's mind through the nerve endings in their mouth. Halting mid-snack causes immediate discomfort. Rarely does a conscience stop an individual from snacking until they have had too much snack, and risk spoiling their appetite, or having a stomach ache.

Sugar does not have the same safeguards that accompany safe alcohol consumption. Though less dangerous inherently, sugar is an extremely addictive substance in part because it is socially accepted.

(Masturbation is not a socially acceptable addiction.)

Dropped the ball

A close friend of mine moved to South Korea three years ago for a “real job” in “finance.” He returned last week to the United States for a month long visit.

He is opinionated, eloquent, and knowledgeable, has an active imagination and great taste in toilet humor. He is very handsy with his friends, and flirtatiously trolls strangers. When he does this in my presence, I turn my face to the floor to hide my bashfulness. I can’t buy a coffee with the guy without engaging in some kind of forced small talk with a cashier I usually treat like a robot.

We argue philosophically about the existence of God because he is an atheist. However, he is probably a 3.1 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale of non-belief. At this moment he will only admit to “believing in one God” with the threat of imminent death. It would be miraculous for him to be persuaded to believe in "the father, the almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible.”

I rank him low on the atheist scale because he won’t say that “nothing created everything,” like insane Stephen Hawking, who strikes me as a 7. Instead he will say that “a cause--beyond the realm of understanding--did something." He won’t concede philosophically that this is the concept of God, and prefers to use the comfort term 'cause.' For him, the word 'God' comes with too much historical baggage. He can almost "agree" with me on the concept, but lacks the conviction to say it the word.

"Why?" I asked him, as a friend, hypothesizing that there is a personal reason. “You’re almost there. What is stopping you from admitting it?” Though unintended, he took it as an ad hominem, and by my own standards I lost the debate. But by asking that question, the debate between friends became a conversation between friends. As such, I was suddenly playing therapist, and he did not oblige. It would have done some him some good to be confronted with these criticisms. There is a reason I think deeply and prayerfully about the people I care about: they can’t see themselves suffer.

As flirtatious as he is, he can also catch me off guard as caustic. Our philosophical differences seem to lurk at the corner of every conversation, waiting to pounce like a predator. I cannot remember the context for which I informed him that the word Gospel means ‘Good News’, but he responded by saying that I believe something with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

I informed him that that is not faith, but superstition. He then asked me what the difference is.....and I froze up. I thought about how smart Bishop Robert Barron is for using big words like intrafaith and extrafaith and confused myself. This could have been a slam dunk, a touch down, a goal...but I choked and dropped the ball instead.

It's not like I could have convinced him if I'd answered his question; convincing someone this stubborn takes time. (Though he is nearly there!) In the very least I could have answered the question, and wouldn't have felt stupid for answering it the way I did: "I can show you a video of someone who explains it better than me..." Yuck. So much regret in that answer.

Here is how I should have answered:

Faith is the bridge between philosophy and theology. God's existence cannot be proven epistemologically, but ontologically. We can't see God or hear God, but we can reason God's existence with other evidence...like the existence of everything, and the fact of reality that something doesn't come from nothing.

Philosophically, we can arrive at the bridge of faith, where we understand and agree with the logic for God's existence. Once we arrive at the bridge, we can decide whether or not to cross it, and which bridge to cross, though there is only one correct answer.

My friend knows there is a bridge, but doesn’t believe that there is another side. He recognizes its existence, but turns his back on it. He prefers to stay on this side, where it is safer. Where he can use his senses to experience what is real and what is not. He knows what he can see, and what he has seen has not convinced him that there is any value in crossing to the other side. To him, there might not even be another side.

Philosophy can only take us to God. It is faith in the evidence of the Good News that guides us over the bridge to meet him in person.

Reacting to Bernie Sanders

Readers of this blog will correctly assume that I support the President and find him very entertaining. The same readers of this blog can also correctly assume that I neither agree with Bernie Sanders, support Bernie Sanders, or find him entertaining.

Therefore, I explained to a friend of mine, I would not listen to Bernie Sanders on the Joe Rogan podcast. (I don’t particularly care for haggard Joe Rogan either.) When I tried to reason why, I caught myself sounding similar to a deranged Trump hater. So opposed was I to a man’s personality and policy theories that I didn’t want to hear his voice speak to an agreeable know-nothing for over an hour. But this is a bad reason to avoid the opposition’s unedited viewpoint. If I am going to legitimately oppose—or begrudgingly find common ground—I need to hear more than Bernie Sander’s stump speech.

(Yes, I know that I am trying to play a moderate that doesn’t read the news, but it is difficult to ignore when the news is engaging me everywhere.)

So, in the spirit of Bill de Blasio appearing on Sean Hannity’s show, I decided to listen to OG Bill de Blasio in a much more accommodating setting.

Firstly, I agree with Bernie about the Democratic debates on CNN. They were fun to watch as a type of political reality TV, but they were more about personality than politics, and not boring enough. As soon as the debates started to resemble C-SPAN (answers lasting more than 11 seconds), CNN--sensing my drowsiness before I did--cut answers to 10 seconds to satisfy my attention span. In other words, CNN succeeded in making them entertaining, not informative.

So, the Joe Rogan interview gave Bernie a platform to spew his rhetoric without Democratic or Republican opposition. He could finally be informative, not entertaining.

He is neither.

Joe Rogan is no Sean Hannity; he doesn’t have any real interest or knowledge of politics. His only true interests are similar to those of his 18 year-old viewers: weed and fights. Bernie Sanders is perfect for his know-nothing, hyper passionate male audience.

Though Joe Rogan has money to lose if Bernie’s policies ever pass, he isn’t motivated to oppose him. He is motivated by views and likes on his podcast. He is motivated by the show in the present, not disastrous policies of the could-be future. He is rich after all; no matter what happens, he will be fine. (So long as he doesn’t become a billionaire.)

Meanwhile, Bernie fans only make minimum wage, so they want $15/hour for minimum wage. They can’t afford healthcare, so they want it for “free.” They are in debt, and want someone to take them out of it. Life was hard, and not fair, and they want to be given a break. Bernie promises to give them that break by promising to restore their “right” to healthcare (a genius phrasing I might add). They could go to the doctor more often. (The healthy youth only need the doctor in an emergency.) The cost of this mediocre benefit to the young and healthy would devastate the middle class that these young people will eventually become.

Bernie isn’t honest with them about this fact either. He purposely excludes the only methodology for providing this “right”: raising taxes, followed by an eventual government takeover. Even Joe Rogan listeners, without making much money yet, would notice a lighter paycheck to receive the “right” of universal healthcare.

For his ideas to seem feasible he has to scapegoat corporations as “evil” and “greedy.” Those words are also used to justify government takeover of an entire industry. (Socialism also comes to mind.)

It is not well meaning to “break up Big Pharma” as antidote to grant the “right”of universal healthcare. Such action will displace people of jobs, cause millions to go without healthcare and disrupt the economy. No moderate Democrat would ever vote for it.

I do agree with him that kids are overmedicated, and go to expensive, private colleges that they don’t need; but it is a stretch for me to imagine that breaking up an entire industry for the government to control comes from a well meaning place. Even regulations, which I oppose on principle, make doctors responsible, and is a more appropriate Congressional response. We can make changes while keeping the country stable.

Joe Rogan then switches gears and asks an extremely stupid and loaded question: “How are we going to protect kids if we keep drugs illegal?”

Joe Rogan always tries to bring the conversation back to weed. First of all, he doesn’t need drugs to be legal: he is a rich celebrity who can afford to obtain illegal drugs safely. It is the working poor that spend their precious money on useless drugs and risk unjust prison sentences if they are caught selling drugs. Joe Rogan is a dangerously influential advocate for marijuana, and his bias affects the choices of his naive viewers.

(Good guy Bernie doesn’t bite. He has grandkids. He doesn’t want them smoking weed.)

This interview is a fun, but pointless exercise. The questions are too massive for a single brain to come up with a reasonable solution, and Sanders offers opinion based on ideology, not fact. (Joe Rogan's audience doesn't need a  be difficureasonable solution either.)

“How do you solve the opioid crisis?” Rogan stupidly asks at one point. (This issue, like the issue of the city of Baltimore, would have been ignored had it not been for Trump's exposure.)

“Why do people turn to drugs and alcohol?” Bernie responds. “These are diseases of despair. Nothing to look forward to when your job is in China. Why is this happening? How do we restore hope and optimism?”

With a welfare state! Healthcare! Jobs! Education! Free stuff that makes people more enslaved to the government by taking more of their hard earned money away to pay for it at inflated prices. This is Bernie’s response. They are more empty promises to get votes he needs to get into power.

The solutions to these problems are not a politician’s responsibility, and it is precisely Bernie’s ideology that influences people to make these terrible life decisions in the first place. The welfare state that Bernie promises cannot protect people after they have made bad decisions. Only faith in God can prevent people from making bad decisions.

To wrap up I’m going to respond to selected soundbites:

“We are not great when we have people in poverty, when people cannot go to a doctor.”

Jesus knew even he couldn’t prevent poverty, and government provided healthcare should be a State issue only.

“We will build affordable housing!”

This is just more government overreach.We don’t need to pay for a federal NYCHA. It was hard enough to build a wall to protect the border, and a wall does one thing, keeps people out. Now we have to meet the needs of the people with actual housing? Where will we get the money if we are paying for their health insurance too? Never heard this one before, maybe he just threw it in to cover all his bases, since Joe Rogan has a huge audience.

Fear mongering: “We have 12 years to transform our energy industry, or there will be irreparable damage. You cannot continue to produce a product that is destroying the world.”

Bernie talks about fossil fuels like they are cigarettes. Fossil fuels are useful, and there is no scientific agreement that they are finite or our use of them is irreparably destroying the environment. So again, he wants to eliminate an entire useful industry without offering an alternative, just to “save the environment.” He is appealing to the conscience of people by asking for their vote to help him save the indefensible environment from "greedy" corporations.

Bernie wants to be in power, and he wants their vote to put him in power, so he makes radical promises to receive that vote. Every politician needs to do this, which means that they must be held accountable by unsatisfied constituents when they are in office. Building a wall is much more possible than “breaking up Big Pharma.” Just sayin.’

It goes without saying that both Bernie and Joe Rogan with both profit from this interview. Their supporters will continue to live their squalid lives, begging for welfare. Sadly unAmerican. Not a chance he gets the nomination and runs against Trump. Young people eventually grow up to become Trump supporters.

I’ll give Bernie the benefit of the doubt by concluding that he is actually well meaning, though very misguided, as history has proven his radical ideas are bad for humanity.

Unsolicited Advice 11

In keeping with recent trends of racism...

DEAR AMY: I am a retired college professor who did years of research about American slavery and slaveholders. 

I own a set of very racist 19th-century books that were part of my research. 

It is now time for me to reduce the size of my library, but I am afraid to sell these books because, given the mood in our country today and the rise of white supremacy, I’m afraid these books will be bought by people who will be reinforced in their racist ideologies. 

I know they can get the books in other ways (if they knew about them), and I don’t believe in burning books. I have offered them to several libraries but to no avail. I am very worried about what to do. 

Concerned Ph.D.

Wow...if this is what worries you, you are watching too much CNN.

You have a good heart, but a gay heart. What do you really expect these white supremecists to do with this material? Masturbate?

It is as illogical to believe that white supremacists would find this type of material arousing as it is that they would find it useful.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that white supremecists are a threat to this nation’s black population. You are concerned that innocent blacks are going to be the subject of violence by racist terror groups. They are planning terrorist attacks on housing projects, night clubs, black owned businesses in black owned neighborhoods. What could this historical information possibly provide them from a standpoint of the logistics of a terror attack? 

If that is what you are truly worried about then give the books to the FBI, or the local police so they can laugh at you/donate/burn the books.

If all you care about is people being reinforced in their racist ideologies you’ve done enough harm by teaching history for 30+ years. People will cherry pick what they want from history, and burning your books will not undo that facet of the human condition. People will always think what they want.

Racist Classism

This thought just came to mind: there is no such thing as racism anymore, just classism.

‘Racist’ is a smear that has been repeatedly spewed for political malice. For many outside of California and New York, the accuracy of the term has expired because everything is racist. The new term, ‘White Supremacist’ has become the political label for hatred, which, we all agree, cannot be tolerated.

Regardless of how much money or power someone has, functioning eyes will observe physical differences. When there are no other qualities left to compare, racial differences can be compared, and racist thoughts can occur. They are harmless. The vast majority of violent crimes are not race motivated. The fact is that everyone is racist, but not everyone is a racist.

Because everyone has racist thoughts at some point, in some capacity, the term shouldn’t be used anymore. A more accurate term for discrimination is classism.

If I’m in the hood in the inner city at night, a place I don’t normally frequent, I am a target for robbery. The thieves responsible for robbing me are most likely black, but much more likely, poor. They will be robbing me not because they are black, but because they are poor. (And criminals.)

Likewise, (and so I am not labelled a racist lol) if I am walking in a trailer park at night, a place I don’t normally frequent, I am also a target for robbery. The thieves responsible for robbing me are most likely white, but much more likely, poor. Again they will be robbing me not because they are white, but because they are poor. (And criminals)

I think I had a racist thought today while driving to work, which I suppose, makes me a racist. A black man, who was dressed like he lived in the projects, pulled into the intersection while his light was still red as I made a left turn while my light was still green. It was very early in the morning, and he probably didn’t think that traffic lights mattered that early. His inconsiderate driving spooked me, and I looked askance at him and thought, “He probably stole that car.”

Was I being racist? Or was I being classist? It will be a question that even I cannot answer, but those indoctrinated by the media will answer for me: racist.

Suggesting classist actually makes me less racist, while suggesting racist makes one more racist. In their case, color is linked with class. In my case, class stands alone. Poor people steal cars. Criminals steal cars. Thieves steal cars. Race has nothing to do with it.

I am assuming by his dress and the color of his skin that he was from the projects, and that the car was stolen. Not all black people live in the projects or dress like they live in the projects. Where I live they do, for reasons that will take too long to explain. The point is I made a snap judgement based on a variety of factors, race being the least important one; his reckless driving being the most important.

If I’d just looked at that man and thought, “He must have stolen that car,” then I would have been equal parts harmless and racist.

Classism cuts deeper. A person’s class can change, unlike their race. It reflects the poverty of their resourcefulness if they are content to accept their impoverished circumstances. It makes them useless and lazy, and not by racial association, which is racist. That individual looks useless and lazy. I think it is more offensive to insult an individual’s class than their race by association.

The circumstances that can affect how a person can improve their class, and their life, is usually controlled by an elected official calling their political opposition ‘racist.’ I wonder why....

Don’t. Play. Games.

Fun is the reason why all games are bad for you, and there isn’t a game invented that is not supposed to be fun.

Every game, every time.

Fun is the same reason why birth control is bad. It makes sense. You can trust me, but I’d rather tell you in this short digression:

All of our parts have functions. The purpose of our sexual function is procreation. The purpose of the butthole is for poop to come out. The purpose of the toes is balance, probably. The purpose of the appendix is....we are still trying to figure it out. Why do men have nipples? I don’t remember, but someone found a function—or a reason—-for every part of our bodies, even if it is just cosmetic.

Preferences are not the same as functions. Yes, we can throw up from our mouths if we are nauseous, but our fingers were not created to go into our mouths to force ourselves to throw up if we want to lose weight. Ok.

Sex is the greatest sensation in the universe. But! Such an immense and satisfying sensation cannot come for free. In a world that is not fallen sex also spiritually links two people, and procreation is the result of this spiritual and physical connection. Love is born of this connection, and love nurtures this new life. It is not always easy to love, and it is not always fun to love. Life was never supposed to be purely easy or fun.

(Games make life easy and fun.)

But allow me to finish my digression: birth control removes the procreation aspect of sex. Lovemaking becomes fucking. Babies are conceived by accident, without love, and aborted. Sex needs its function or it risks losing meaning, making humans soulless robots. Sex becomes emotionally rote and spiritually meaningless when it is only done for pleasure. For a man it becomes about conquest. It becomes a game.

Remember, games are only designed to be fun. They are not without challenge, and sometimes they become tedious, or frustrating. But even when they are boring, they are still ‘fun’.

Robert Iler famously played AJ Soprano on The Sopranos. He has barely acted since.
Why?

Maybe he played the role of a lifetime, and producers never hired him because they knew he couldn’t match it. Maybe he lost interest in acting, and could only play the spoiled teenage son of a mafia boss.

Or maybe, he made enough money from acting that he could afford to sit around all day and gamble. Maybe he decided that if he had the choice, he would rather sit around all day, playing poker, than doing anything else.

Why?

Games are competitive and winning feels good because humans are naturally competitive creatures. There doesn’t even need to be money involved. Winning at anything strokes the ego. Winning at a job could take years, and there is stress involved all the way to the top, and beyond.

But a game is straightforward. It ends, and there is a winner, and a loser. And if you lose, you can always play again. And you can always possibly win. You never know...until you play.

Gaming has no purpose, other than entertainment and pleasure. Humans are thinking creatures; games are challenging and require thought. This challenge makes games fun to play. Fun can be addictive. When money becomes involved in fun, it becomes financially sustainable, which turns the pleasure of occasional gaming (and fun) into a life of obsessive leisure.

Pleasure is fine in small doses, but it is also addictive in small doses. Minutes can turn to hours playing games...chasing that win, that thrill, that feeling….

Games are a quick fix of pleasure from a stressful life, and that is not necessarily bad in itself. It is when all other good is neglected to chase that fun of winning. This makes it bad. Like birth control, this is what games were designed for: fun.

It is sad but common for games to replace sex. And it is also sad when sex becomes a game. That is a topic for another post.

Insults and Social Media

I saw it last week, so I thought he said it last week, but in June Pope Francis

lamented the “culture of insults” enabled by social media. “Lack of harmony has lead to stark divisions,” he said. We tend to cling to “our little group, to the things and people we like...Nowadays it is fashionable to hurl adjectives and, sadly, even insults.” He recommended responding “to malice with goodness, to shouting with silence, to gossip with prayer, to defeatism with encouragement.”

This doesn’t just go for social media, but all relationships, all the time. Social media gets the attention because it allows people to be the worst version of themselves, and due to anonymity, suffer no consequences. Like a vehicle it can be both a useful tool, or a weapon. It is only “deadly” in the hostile and hateful ideas it can spread.

Political debate is the reason for the insults. Our culture of insults is linked to an economy of insults. People with massive social media followings are expected to creatively insult their political adversaries for their audience’s entertainment. They get money, likes and views, and this contributes to their egomania. It inspires other to take up “the cause” in their own way: starting their own YouTube channels, or making scathing comments on Facebook.

That is the reason I will never permanently rid myself of Facebook: there is an unmatched thrill in debating with tangible people I once knew, as myself. On Twitter I can get involved with divisive conversation with strangers, as a stranger; I can be completely insulting and acerbic in my response because we are nothing but a picture on a screen to each other. On Facebook my inclination is to be disagreeable, but kinder, to the people I once knew, though still asserting the political point of view I am debating. Facebook is much more personal because I once knew these people, and once cared what they thought of me. Now that we are memories to one another, I need to let them know how my opinions have changed, and to a larger extent, how I have changed. This is ego. If we still mattered to each other, we would still be in each other’s day-to-day life. Or at least be in touch in a more personal way. We can go our separate ways without being unemotionally in touch with those we pretend to care about. But I digress.

It is my natural inclination as a hypocrite to both agree with The Pope and defend my own actions.

This blog isn’t really social media because nobody comments on it. And I don’t try to insult people for its own sake here. (Though that could be another form of mental exercise.) People are offended very easily now; even when comments made are not personal, people take them that way. I am not insulting on social media, but I never contribute goodness. I think goodness can only be lived, but I’ll get back to that in another post probably.

Debate is a form of sport, and any insult during a debate is an automatic loss. But people do it anyway, and lose the real value of debate: to be civilized and avoid violence. Then insults themselves become the sport; being vicious has always been entertaining. That was part of the purpose of the Roman Coliseum.

Only in Christ are we moving towards greater civility and love for one another, though there is still a very long way to go. 

Ultimately, The Pope is being a good father. He is reminding us not to judge one another, and instead to be forgiving and kind.