i try to be as honest as i can when i blog. there are many reasons for this. it's a confession; it means if i get feedback it's relevant; and when i come back to read my old entries, i can still get a sense of what i was feeling/thinking/experiencing back then.
but being honest about myself is one thing. being honest about other people is quite another. and this is public domain, after all. some bloggers have lost friends/hurt others through what they've written. it may be satisfying to vent frustration/anger/hatred in public, but it rarely resolves anything. in fact, it shows that you're a coward, because you're secretly hoping someone else will pick your side and be your champion, or that the person in question might read what you've written and suddenly come to their senses. that's of course bullshit. i've always been a fan of honest, direct, one-to-one confrontations. there is no need to imvolve other people, to talk behind people's backs, to back stab, or to scapegoat. if you want something resolved - do it yourself, or keep it to yourself.
on a milder scale, however, is talking about other people. revealing things about them to the very big, very public cyberspace. for example, my post in june 11. in retrospect i can see that my housemate might be annoyed if he ever read that particular entry and took it the wrong way. fact of the matter is - i didn't write to pass judgement on whether or not he should've been upset, or to criticise what kind of person he is to be upset; rather, i was recording what was happening around me and how it made me think about things, in this case, how society uses money as an yardstick for success and happiness.
i've really made a mess of explaining that one, haven't i? anyway, i see the world through my tinted glasses, which distorts my perception with shades of culture, upbringing and experience. and things may not really be what they seem to me. if you don't like what you read - either tell me about it, and i'll be more than glad to try and see things from your point of view. if you can't tell me about it - well keep it to yourself and stick it up your arse =)
7 comments:
It's always about the self-censoring. Like it or not, as soon as you know people you know get there, you do it.
The choice between making it your blood-letting rant ground and being careful and putting up all the walls you would in real life..
Don't worry, we'll make sure to stab you in the front.
The art lies in not being specific so as to put down names, but being direct enough so that if you did have something or some message to say to someone, hopefully they will recognise it and reflect upon it. If they don't recognise it, or at least consider it (seeing it is your opinion), it's their loss - they haven't taken the opportunity to reflect and perhaps grow from it. If they're upset, let them post and express their view.
In any case, unlike many I know, you quite direct, and I know you will say it if that's what you think - face to face. That's one of the things I admire about you.
"i've always been a fan of honest, direct, one-to-one confrontations. there is no need to imvolve other people, to talk behind people's backs, to back stab, or to scapegoat. if you want something resolved - do it yourself, or keep it to yourself."
interesting... that's completely the opposite way of how the MG saga was played out.
you're right. i guess that means i'm a coward. how depressing to find yet another character flaw in myself.
thanks for pointing that out.
"do what i say, not as i do"
even though this isn't strictly what the metaphor means, it's something we all do. we quite often think we apply ourselves by these loftier standards then what we actually live by. it should be no source of shame or disappointment. they're called "ideals", because they;re what we would be doing in an ideal world, but human nature says otherwise. it's something we're all guilty of.
it's exactly the reason why communism failed.
Typical, I use a throwaway line and someone has to construct a diatribe against it. You lose points for including a football reference. If you look at the social/political reasons for why communism was always doomed to fail, it stems back to exactly what i said. Look at the proletariat in marxist communism, the "stateless" society can't exist because people cannot live and function purely within the constraints of their ideals, ergo failure.
i'm not sure how this turned into a debate about why communist ideals failed to materialise into reality - one of my favourite topics, mind you - but here's my two cents' worth:
i think in a way you're both right. the hijacking of marxist ideals by lenin and stalin (both militants, really), and their subsequent corruption of the same ideals, is one reason why it failed. putting theory into practice is always risky. i'm not quite sure "do as i say, not as i do" is the right description of this - it is unlikely stalin had the glory of communism at heart when he ordered the killing of all those people. it's more likely to have been for the consolidation of his power.
that said, i think communism is workable. humanity is just not philosophically mature enough to put it into practice yet. hopefully we will get there, one day.
and pete, i fail to see what your football references have anything to do with anything.
carn the lions!
Post a Comment