TOLERANCE IS A ONE-WAY STREET...

      A friend of mine posted a link to this anecdote on Tumblr. The rough story is the allegedly homophobic dad who fears his son may be gay based on his desires to buy an "unmanly" videogame and play said videogame with a purple controller. The father would rather his son play a more "manly" shooter game with a regularly colored controller, threatening to hit him if he kept insisting over his father's objections. The older brother to this boy who was buying the game for his younger brother as a gift stood up to his father telling him that he was buying this game and controller as a gift for his brother because it's what he wants and if he (the father) was going to hit anyone, then it should be him (the older brother). At this point, the father leaves in disgust and the boy is assured by a girl that she likes the blue controller and shooter games (that is, atypically of other girls) and that "[t]here’s nothing wrong with what you like. Even if it’s different that what people think you should."

      Now, this is what I'm left thinking (aside from the desire to call bullshit on this story...it feels too perfectly crafted...like propaganda), why is tolerance always a one-way street? I really get the feeling that calls for tolerance are more like softened bullying tactics rather than genuine appeals to humanity.

      For those of you who must know, my personal opinion of this is that I do not support the father of this story...but I also don't support the girl in this story either. She's just as douchey to me. And the thing is you can't really give me the line about how the father's intolerance is worse because of the threat of violence or because it makes his son feel bad. The father's behavior only seems worse, I think, because its destructiveness is more immediately apparent. The girl's behavior only seems better, I think, because its destructiveness is more abstract.

      Instead, I try to look at this anecdote by its generalities. The mind becomes clouded and biased when presented with such specifics. The anecdote seems to boil down to conformity versus nonconformity and schooling behavior versus individualism and like any advice, each side can be both positive and negative depending on context.

      The father superficially seems to represent the conformist/schooling angle, urging his son to be a part of the group. Evolution readily enforces these behaviors and they are entirely appropriate in stable environments. Outward expressions of nonconformity are bad in fairly uniform areas. It can make you a target. After all, the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the mower: it's the price of standing out. Individualistic self-expression is a risky choice if you are not prepared or able to defend your choices. I think of nature videos. The hawk goes after a flock but can't attack the flock directly without getting pummeled by collisions with the other birds. However, harassing the flock long enough eventually causes one of the birds to make a mistake and get separated. The separated one can now easily be targeted and killed. One could argue in support of the father (despite his alleged methods) that he is warning his son that this decision will result in him being separated from the flock leaving him exposed to bullies or ostracism. You could argue he is being protective and not necessarily homophobic. Maybe the father has misjudged his son, but he might also know that his son is not strong enough (emotionally and/or mentally and/or physically) to defend himself for making the choice, intentional or not, to leave the protection of the flock with his nonconformist behavior.

      The older brother defending his younger brother and the girl offering support seem superficially in the right and certainly would be in unstable environments where adaptation to change is rewarded rather than punished. Their rectitude, however, is dependent on their local environment. This is the unknown from this anecdote. Will this boy be the trendsetter (or another participant in an already-changing trend)? Is he a reflection of changing times and the passage of the "old way" into history? Is it necessarily a good thing to present this boy with the idea that the world is wrong and he is right? I think it's a good thing to try new ideas in light of the failure of the old. But trying new things when the old way is still working just fine or when there is only a hint that it is ultimately unsustainable opens oneself up to ridicule and being ignored because the issue isn't pressing. Think of our use of fossil fuels for instance. No matter how logically one may argue that changing slowly now would be cheaper in the long run, it comes across more as inconvenience because it's not a pressing issue. This idea that exists in our minds that does not let us change until we have to. As smart as we are, we don't have the influence over the older parts of our brain to overcome this.

      I'm not less guilty of this. I'm tolerant of variation within a society during stable times, but in times of chaos, expect us to conform and act as a whole against that threat. I want a balance of our competitive and cooperative natures. I want us to learn about both so that either way of doing things is comfortable as the times demand. Let's be supportive and play uncompetitively just for fun, but I also want to know that when the shit hits the fan, that we're capable of playing to win. Superficial variation is a luxury afforded to times of peace.

      So the message the writer of that anecdote concludes with, "They check out and leave, and all I can think is how awesome big brother is, how sweet little brother is, and how Dad ought to be ashamed for trying to make his son any other way." is wrong in my opinion. It's sweet, I don't deny that but I don't think that's the message we should be taking from this story. There's a missing element to what was going on in it: context. If the boy will suffer no consequences for his self-expression, if he is merely one more drop of water in a flood of change, then the father should indeed feel ashamed; but if the boy will face consequences, if he is indeed the tallest blade of grass, the older brother/girl should feel ashamed for effectively feeding him to the lions, the girl especially since she is least likely to be there to protect him from the negative results of her encouragement (whereas his brother may be able to defend him...at least for a time).

      I know this story is being used as a parable against shaming homosexuality, but I think it far more important to remind those who intend to buck the trend (or who are acting in a way which will buck the trend) that the road will not be easy for them. They may get lucky and have it easy, but if they are on the forefront of a seachange, then expect to suffer though your sacrifice may make the road easier for those who will follow. Pretending that it will be otherwise when encouraging another is a shitty thing to do to someone who wants to be different.

ONE MORE AND THEN I WILL GET TO WHAT I SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE THREE HOURS AGO...

     OKCupid is doing a Christmas-themed gimmick sending me "12 Matches of Christmas"...one per day for twelve days. I was stunned...stunned I tells ya, that this site for the first time actually recommended someone for me whom I am interested in meeting, immediately attracted to, and within distance of - the trifecta. Usually I have found such women through my own searches. She's also the first woman on this site in my five months of being on it who made me go, "Whoa..." Thank goodness I liked her profile too :-)

There's no ID so it's okay to post this, right? :-P

      I hate when I'm put in a position where I would actually be saddened, even if only somewhat, should she not respond to my message cuz, well...goddamn. I need some good news because I am clearly very attracted to Number Twelve and I know I shouldn't be because despite the present benefit of her pulling me away ever so gently from Digby, it will come at the ultimate price of emotional doom. It grows inside me, manifesting as an evil* patience this time. Some days I really hate that my Heart is so patient. My Heart is entirely unable to understand that I will one day grow old and die. So...fingers crossed :-)


ADDENDUM: She did not respond to my message.

________________________________________
* I tend to use "evil" as a synonym for the kind of selfishness which requires the suffering/sadness of another in order for me to be happy. I have trouble accepting that a good relationship can be born of knowingly desiring to benefit from the misfortune of another. In this example, it would be one thing to ask out a girl who's single because her singledom is innocent from your perspective, but to wait for a girl's relationship to sour and end like a kind of vulture before making a move seems inherently wrong. I'm not explaining it well, but I'm hoping you get the point.

WHAT HANDWRITING IS THIS

     I overkern my handwriting...sometimes to the point of no spacing at all between the letters in the words I'm writing in manuscript. I checked out The Complete Idiot's Guide to Handwriting Analysis to see what it meant. The booklet offers this explanation:

Letters crammed together reveal an impetuous person who rushes to judgment and overreacts. Impulsive and often confused about what she feels and what others feel, her need to fit in with a social group can push her to behaving inappropriately. She desperately wants acceptance, so she'll do anything she thinks will help her fit in. This is the type of person who will give in to either internal emotional pressures or external peer pressure.

Besides the suggestion that I may not have been the target audience of this booklet, I wonder what it says about me when the handwriting sample offered comes from the "killer mom" Susan Smith. Except for her letter Ws and Vs (which are pointy whereas mine tend to be rounded) and her Ys (which are pointy whereas mine are rounded), her handwriting is also very similar to mine. Very familiar looking though actually reading this booklet would be necessary to further analyze my handwriting. For example, what does it mean my obsessive need to connect letters in a word? I do this in an alphabet I created in school as well and it was never designed with cursive handwriting in mind.What do my excessive loops on my Gs mean or the fact that in my hurried writing, they look like Ss that dip below the line? Fun, grain-of-salt stuff :-)

      My narrow word-spacing also suggests that I have "an extreme need to surround herself with other people" and that "[l]ike a puppy always on the heels of whoever walks into the room, she needs constant attention and approval. She acts purely on instinct. Without continual reassurance from others she gets anxious, and the moment she's not getting attention, her self-esteem plunges." My line-spacing cannot be judged because I wrote my sample on ruled paper which is a no-no for overall handwriting analysis.

      Later in the booklet, they go back to Susan Smith's writing and describe it as having a "weak drive" and that her writing "just sits on the page, unsure and depressed" as opposed to the counterexample of Dean Koontz's "vigorous writing" revealing a "strong drive" and "stamina and enthusiasm for life".

      Caveat lector...

HEY! IT'S A CHRISTMAS-THEMED ENTRY...

      I think quite possibly the dumbest gift one could give to someone is a credit card sponsored gift card. Actually, I despise all gift cards as gifts for two main reasons. One, you're trading good money in for what amounts to irredeemable "fun money" and irredeemable in the sense that once your money has been transmuted into gift card form, it will not be returned...even trivial amounts like a few cents. Even on paper food stamps, you still got real money for any part of the change which was less than a dollar. And two...the sheer sad obligation it represents. It would seem better to receive nothing at all than to get what a gift card represents which is the gift-giver's admission that s/he knows not enough about you to buy you a gift with even the hint of the personal touch that a real gift carries. But whatever...one can rationalize store-sponsored gift cards somewhat, but I cannot rationalize the credit card sponsored ones for one simple reason:

      Activation fee. The $25, $50, and $100 gift cards come with a one-time $3.95 activation fee for the $25 card going up in one dollar increments for each successive version. The intention behind these gift cards is that "They can be used anywhere Visa/MasterCard/American Express are accepted." Yes, that's the lure...but you're paying money for money. How idiotic is that?

--- Hey honey! I just spent $28.95 on $25 for you!

--- Aw, you shouldn't have! No, really...you shouldn't have.

SOMETHING TO REMEMBER

      My nose is never not stuffy. I don't think I've breathed clearly since I was in high school. I saw this post by Current-C on Reddit offering a temporary solution. I tried it and it does do as advertised. I'm on the verge and have probably already crossed the line for having another sneezing fit. I do breathe through my mouth a lot. I imagine it has been exacerbating the problem. Even breathing through my nose-only these past couple of minutes feels like a mild suffocation. Yeah, it's that bad. But doing this does temporarily open the sinuses. I've noticed that terror does cause the body to reprioritize :-)

Do this now: Hold your breath until just before it starts to really become uncomfortable. Then slowly take a couple shallow breaths, preferably through the nose, then hold your breath again. Did your sinuses open up? If not repeat the above, only try to hold your breath a little longer. After this you should be able to breath easily through your nose. You should only breathe through your mouth when speaking.

      If I avoid this bout of non-allergic rhinitis (which I can only conclude I have since I have not been able to pinpoint an allergy to anything over the years), then I will have to remember this technique of holding your breath until your body genuinely starts to fear for itself causing it to release its stranglehold on your airways. And no, taking anti-histamines is a no-go because they make me drowsy to the point of being non-functional and I'm not a fan of having to take a medication for weeks-on-end because it doesn't tell me if it's working as advertised. If the drug alleviates allergy symptoms, it should work when I take it for the current spell. I remember the allergist I used to see giving me Nasonex to try. I didn't want to use it until I had an attack to test it. Turns out I would go almost a full year before my next attack so what if I had been taking it? Would we have incorrectly concluded that the medication had been working and that my one attack was an anomaly or cause to increase the dosage? I don't know why that year was so nice to me and the year before I was getting one to three attacks a month. They're infrequent and random which is why I have self-diagnosed myself as having non-allergic rhinitis. I can't imagine a real allergy being so random especially when I live so static a lifestyle.

      Already I want to breathe through my mouth and I am sure it will resume absent-mindedly. I haven't sneezed though (have come close though) and I've been sneezing a lot in the three hours I've been awake thus far. And I still feel like I'm being suffocated very slowly. If not breathing through my mouth is a part of the solution, I need to cover my mouth with tape that sticks fast to an oily face and removes with a minimum of pain :-)

SIN TAXES

      The amount of pens I find cleaning up at work almost offends me. It's so wasteful, all that plastic and unused ink. When was the last time you used a pen up? I know I've done it, but it takes a long time unless you're writing a lot. But there's no incentive to use up pens; no incentive to make sure you don't lose them. A package of ten at work sells for $2.49 (plus tax) so basically, 25¢ a pen. That's practically nothing and inflation shows it. 25¢ is the penny of the modern age.

      Sometimes I think items like pens, pencils, paper, staples, paper clips, etc....all things which are available cheaply and in what seems to be endless supply, should have artificially inflated prices to discourage waste. There are taxes on gasoline ostensibly to maintain roads, taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (ostensibly) to cover the costs of the health associated with their abuse, etc. so why not a comparable sin tax on items which have become ridiculously cheap and use that money to let's say, fund education or job retraining since I've only named school/office supplies. Actually I'll go with job retraining given how quickly the job market has been evolving in the past thirty years.

      Nothing obscene but given their cost, even if they were all sin-taxed 100%, thus doubling their prices, the aforementioned items would still be quite affordable and it may have the added benefit of people not wasting what they have and making sure people displaced by the ever-changing job market have a means to remain competitive.

UNDERSTANDING IS A THREE-EDGED SWORD...

      Anthony of the Opie and Anthony Show is going on another of his rants about taxes and I love the myopia of it all. He's quoting a statistic that 1% of working New Yorkers pay 43% of all the taxes and he cites this solely as overtaxation.

      Now, I'm not going to say that taxes in the state of New York aren't higher than perhaps they need to be. I agree with Opie when he says he wants to know where the money is going because clearly there is much waste going on that is not being addressed. He even said that he would pay more in taxes if he knew it wasn't being wasted. However, waste isn't the sole issue that taxes are so high on the wealthy and it's the one point that he never addresses: the spread between the highest and lowest incomes.

      I think, back in the 1960s when the top 1% of this country made about 10% of the nation's income, the pay differences between a CEO and his lowest salaried workers was about 24 to 1  meaning the top earner earned twenty-four times what his lowest paid employees made. Nowadays, when the top 1% earn over 24% of the nation's income, CEOs make over 275 times what their lowest paid workers make (and that number would be even higher if their contracted labor - the cleaning crews - were factored in).

      The wealthy pay more in taxes not only because they make more money, but also because they make a lot more money than the people below them. If the income spreads were evened out to be more like the 1960s, the top 1% would still pay more in taxes as a whole number, but less as a percentage...but God forbid they look at that part of the equation.

      So...his side and my side...now what's the truth?