I am, it has been well documented, a bizarre person leading an interesting life (or, at least, a boring life that I hype up). This, alongside my severe laziness and lack of commitment to writing adventures, explains my lack of posting in the past...several months. However, there is another factor that has a hand in this, and that is my employment status. As you may know, I previously earned my keep doing menial, unenjoyable tasks at a hairdressing salon. This job was ripped away from me in a fashion I'd rather not delve into, and suddenly I was left with free time, improved eating habits and lowered stress levels. Unfortunately, thanks to my unavoidable need for money, and my grandmother's meddling, I have been working for the past two months in a new job, at a small skincare shop.
This job has many things causing it to trump my last - for one thing, I love the people I'm working with (and I am actually working with other people, which is always a bonus). I have endured many an emotional time with the girls, and really, we're all very close. I love the products we sell, and the freebies are always a bonus. It's convenient, the pay is better, I actually get lunch breaks, the clientele are less commonly miserable and/or irritable. As with all jobs, there are some things that are less fun than others, but I tend to make the most of even the menial things - using the hot glue gun is always more fun when pretending it's a real gun. In general, though, it's a great place to work. That being said, there are certain things about the mere having of a job that fall into both positive and negative categories.
Pros
- Less of the "sitting on my arse and doing nothing". Having a job gives me a reason to get up, put on nice clothes, actually try and make myself presentable, go out and be forced into social contact with people. I just in general feel better about myself when I'm working.
- More money - because who wouldn't welcome that? More money also generally means more freedom, and nicer things. I welcome nicer things whenever possible. I can support my lavish lifestyle more freely.
- A sense of superiority over my jobless friends. I'm the first to admit that I'm a terrible person.
- Relationships with people I haven't seen every single day of my life. It's the ability to be myself (and tell all my old stories) to a completely new group of people, without the effort of throwing myself into terrifying new social situation.
Cons
- My eating habits go to hell, even with an overly health-conscious coworker who refuses to allow me to eat unhealthily. This tends to lead to a great deal more sneaking around with chocolates and cans of coke, discreet skittles and more.
- As does my social life.
- As does my self-esteem - I'm sensitive, okay?
- As does my confidence in my ability to function normally around other people.
I'm pretty pathetic.
On another note, my mother has plans to make a blog. I suspect that she intends to do this in order to beat me, because I suspect it is my mother's goal to be more liked on the internet than I am, hence her dedication to Twitter. It's only a matter of time before she's responding to creepy non-questions on Formspring or gaining a legion of Tumblr followers. I know that she also believes she would be a better blogger than some she reads, and this is probably true - I have inherited my skewed, strange view on the world from her.
However, despite all this, I do love her, and will direct you there when this blog comes into being.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, October 2, 2010
In which I discovered that there are good people in the world
Of course, the title is slightly exaggerated. I'm not stupid, but I'm also not one of those intellectual, "humanity is doomed; the earth is in danger because humans are by nature greedy and selfish and evil" kind of people, because I know that there are good people, who will do things I could not even imagine doing. Do I necessarily count myself as one of those people? Eh, I try to, I think we all do, but in reality, I sometimes struggle with the whole "good person" tag. However, I'd like to reach back to an entry I wrote a little while back in response to an anti-Semitic article in the local magazine. It was an article that filled me, as someone considered to be a part of a minority - and even simply as a human being - with anger at the complete lack of consideration and awareness of other cultures in this modern "multicultural Australia".
I'd like to mention that I am not an avid reader of the Beast (the magazine in which the original article was found); it can be trashy, but on occasion I do find articles of interest or entertainment when I have nothing else to read. When the original article was published, I was sick, and I was going through a period of being extremely reactive to anything that offended me in the slightest. This article succeeded in ruining my day, and for a while, my faith that we were making progress in the terms of acceptance of religion and different cultures. The author, Duncan Horscroft, is probably a lovely guy, but when an author, do you really want an article that has such thinly veiled (possibly unintentional) racism in it? For a while, I actually toyed with editing my response and sending it into the magazine, but by then we had thrown it away and I didn't have the address and the by and by is that regrettably, I wasn't able to have a word in an issue very close to my heart. I thought that was the end of this issue being discussed, however luckily, it was not.
I don't know who Brett Chester is, but I'd like to personally thank him for the letter he wrote into the Beast, which was selected as the Letter of the Month for the October 2010 issue. He didn't have the same open-ended forum as I opted to vent on, but his response actually went and did something (an area in which I have often had trouble) - I sincerely hope that everyone who read the original article and used that as the only means to form their opinion on the issue reads his response and takes on the points he has made, which I would argue are more valid and even far more neutral than the original article. What the article initially failed at was keeping both sides of the story in equal consideration - religious necessities were pushed aside to make way for the views from some expensive house - and while I am not saying the points raised in Horscroft's article are wrong, or even necessarily unimportant, I would have liked to have seen an article that entertained both points of view and perhaps did not have such a blatant bias in a way which I feel expressed nothing but a level of ignorance and intolerance.
Chester made a lot of good points, which I won't go into (several points were ones that I tried to make, but failed, because I got quite caught up in the anti-Semitic bias of the subject matter alone, rather than simply the way the author handled it inappropriately). He caught the caption to the picture, which I had not even noticed, and cleverly commented on the soundness of the points raised towards the end of the article. None of this is what really matters, though - I think the most important thing is that the original article was not left as the be all and end all of the issue. I am actually relieved that someone else got to fight back, to voice their opinions on the issue, and did it so eloquently and efficiently (in a way that I wish I could do, but I'm too much of a rambler).
So good on him, and I'd like to see more active responses next time something offensive to you comes up - as a Jewish girl, I'm going to fight forever to have racism gone, as well as from the media (along with other things), but I don't hold any power by myself. My issues lie solely in the fact that surely everyone deserves the right to lead their life the way they have decided to, and to do this without critical judgement from people with no authority on the subject, and I think this is a statement that can be widely agreed with. I want to see more stands taken because everyone has a right to an opinion, and these opinions should be voiced alongside others. There are people who will take action, and that's a great thing. I might be lazy, I might never actually get around to do anything, but I'm not going to stop voicing my thoughts when I see something suss going on, and as long as there are other people doing that as well, then I'm reasonably proud to be part of this society instead of ashamed that articles like the original one are what is accepted as fact.
(Sidenote: a lot of good people do things through other means. If you're a good person, go on doing that, however you choose to)
(Sidenote two: I actually think we are all inherently good and bad. I'm not going to go on and on about my "are we good people?" opinion because, trust me, I've had that conversation before and it takes hours)
(Sidenote three: Apologies for my rambling, several sidenotes and occasionally fading away from the topic - sometimes I just write and don't actually realise what I'm doing.)
(Sidenote four: sorry about the infrequent posting, I've been busy and I've gone through a lapse in ever actually having anything to say. Which is out of character.)
I'd like to mention that I am not an avid reader of the Beast (the magazine in which the original article was found); it can be trashy, but on occasion I do find articles of interest or entertainment when I have nothing else to read. When the original article was published, I was sick, and I was going through a period of being extremely reactive to anything that offended me in the slightest. This article succeeded in ruining my day, and for a while, my faith that we were making progress in the terms of acceptance of religion and different cultures. The author, Duncan Horscroft, is probably a lovely guy, but when an author, do you really want an article that has such thinly veiled (possibly unintentional) racism in it? For a while, I actually toyed with editing my response and sending it into the magazine, but by then we had thrown it away and I didn't have the address and the by and by is that regrettably, I wasn't able to have a word in an issue very close to my heart. I thought that was the end of this issue being discussed, however luckily, it was not.
I don't know who Brett Chester is, but I'd like to personally thank him for the letter he wrote into the Beast, which was selected as the Letter of the Month for the October 2010 issue. He didn't have the same open-ended forum as I opted to vent on, but his response actually went and did something (an area in which I have often had trouble) - I sincerely hope that everyone who read the original article and used that as the only means to form their opinion on the issue reads his response and takes on the points he has made, which I would argue are more valid and even far more neutral than the original article. What the article initially failed at was keeping both sides of the story in equal consideration - religious necessities were pushed aside to make way for the views from some expensive house - and while I am not saying the points raised in Horscroft's article are wrong, or even necessarily unimportant, I would have liked to have seen an article that entertained both points of view and perhaps did not have such a blatant bias in a way which I feel expressed nothing but a level of ignorance and intolerance.
Chester made a lot of good points, which I won't go into (several points were ones that I tried to make, but failed, because I got quite caught up in the anti-Semitic bias of the subject matter alone, rather than simply the way the author handled it inappropriately). He caught the caption to the picture, which I had not even noticed, and cleverly commented on the soundness of the points raised towards the end of the article. None of this is what really matters, though - I think the most important thing is that the original article was not left as the be all and end all of the issue. I am actually relieved that someone else got to fight back, to voice their opinions on the issue, and did it so eloquently and efficiently (in a way that I wish I could do, but I'm too much of a rambler).
So good on him, and I'd like to see more active responses next time something offensive to you comes up - as a Jewish girl, I'm going to fight forever to have racism gone, as well as from the media (along with other things), but I don't hold any power by myself. My issues lie solely in the fact that surely everyone deserves the right to lead their life the way they have decided to, and to do this without critical judgement from people with no authority on the subject, and I think this is a statement that can be widely agreed with. I want to see more stands taken because everyone has a right to an opinion, and these opinions should be voiced alongside others. There are people who will take action, and that's a great thing. I might be lazy, I might never actually get around to do anything, but I'm not going to stop voicing my thoughts when I see something suss going on, and as long as there are other people doing that as well, then I'm reasonably proud to be part of this society instead of ashamed that articles like the original one are what is accepted as fact.
(Sidenote: a lot of good people do things through other means. If you're a good person, go on doing that, however you choose to)
(Sidenote two: I actually think we are all inherently good and bad. I'm not going to go on and on about my "are we good people?" opinion because, trust me, I've had that conversation before and it takes hours)
(Sidenote three: Apologies for my rambling, several sidenotes and occasionally fading away from the topic - sometimes I just write and don't actually realise what I'm doing.)
(Sidenote four: sorry about the infrequent posting, I've been busy and I've gone through a lapse in ever actually having anything to say. Which is out of character.)
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The People's Solution - A Proposal
Members of parliament, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today to present to you an idea that I wish to be considered at the present time of governmental upheaval. As I am sure you are all aware, the Australian government is “hung” at the moment – neither of the main political powers have secured the seventy-six required seats in the house of representatives to take over as Australia's governing party. This is where I propose to input my solution. In case you weren't aware, my name is Sara, and I am the head of Marketing Australia, and we have been employed by the government to come up with a way to resolve the conflict for power and end this constant waiting endured by the people of Australia.
After much thought from all across the company, we have come together to develop our plan, which we call “The People's Solution”. Instead of calling for another election, which would only tire the people and lead to further unnecessary waiting (excluding the obvious issue that the outcome would most likely be identical to the current one), or handing the power over to those inside the government to decide, which would inevitably incorporate elements of political bias and corruption, we envision to give the public power over the overall result, while still ensuring that there will be a clear outcome by the end of the campaign, and also exhibiting the powers and ideals of each prospective party in a practical and accessible way.It is well known that Australia is fast claiming it's stake at the title of “Fattest nation in the world”, due to an increase in portion sizes, fast food, and of course, the popularity of activities such as television and computers. It is practically the 'Australian way' to sit by the television at night watching Masterchef. Yet it has been noted by my researchers that current point in time, surrounding the election, prime time television is considered unsatisfactory by the vast majority of Australian viewers. Our solution aims to solve this problem simultaneously with the parliamentary battle, and focus groups have found that the public almost unanimously agrees that our solution is not only the most viable, but will also be the most entertaining and efficient,
7:30 at night will no longer be a time dreaded by fans of compelling viewing, for this is where or solution will find itself. Each night, a challenge will take place between the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and leader of the coalition, Tony Abbott, and will be nationally broadcast on whichever free to air channel has the highest bid (which will be a huge economic benefit as well, as the bids should be astronomical considering the amount of extra viewers that will be tuning into their televisions per episode), as well as live streamed over the internet for those who prefer. Each night will draw inspiration from the most successful television shows of the past, and the growing trend in reality television specifically, and will exhibit policies and ensure that each of the candidates are accessible and relatable to the average Australian viewer. To make sure the concept doesn't “tire out” the nation, we will not air the show each night, but rather alternate – Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays will all feature an episode of this show, which will go down in the history books.
At the end of each night, the Australian public will be given the opportunity to vote for the candidate who they believe performed the best, and each night the votes will counted. Each episode will have a winner, and after a few weeks the wins will be counted and the candidate with the most overall votes will be named Australian Prime Minister. While the waiting aspect of this hung parliament situation will not be eradicated, it will be a much more enjoyable process and time will fly by far more quickly for those who become avid watchers – and I can ensure the channel that does take this on board that viewers will be in the millions, and revenue will be increased dramatically. Not only will the overall winner win the coveted position as Prime Minister, but also win the hearts of the nation in the process.
How, you ask, do we propose to juggle all of these vital aspects while also promising to demonstrate policies and ideas to the public? Each episode will be themed, and the candidates challenged to not only perform the best but also to incorporate and put in practice their ideas about all of the election hotspots – what does the party intend on doing about the growing issue of obesity, the environment, health, broadband, boat people...after the series has run its course, the largely ignorant public will be enlightened as to what exactly will happen when the winner begins their governing.
You may claim that this idea is good in theory, but wonder how effective it will be when implemented. Allow me to share a few preliminary examples of episodes that we have plotted out. Take, for example, the issue of obesity. Prime Ministerial candidates will be put into a Biggest Loser type scenario, but they will be given the role of trainers, forced to put their ideas into viable exercise and health plans, while sharing their policies with the country in side interviews. The candidate who Australia deems as the most successful in this area will be the winner of the night. The candidates will also be forced to cope with high stress situations, and become more and more comfortable with cameras being privy to their lives, which is essential if they intend on one day being in the highest position of power Australia can do.
How each government will handle indigenous affairs is something of a grey area at the moment, but in this show each candidate will be forced to convey these ideas to an audience and a panel of judges – through interpretive dance! So You Think You Can Dance has been a ratings smash not only in Australia but also in the United States of America, and this challenge would serve not only as quality entertainment, but would also be informative and enlightening to the viewer, and would give each Prime Ministerial candidate the chance to express themselves in a new, on-trend fashion that they would otherwise never look into.
Environmental issues have been largely avoided by the Prime Minster and leader of the opposition, with their focuses being steadily fixed on other areas. However, by leaving the competitors on a beautiful tropical island in the Pacific, and being forced to fend for themselves (in an environmentally friendly fashion, of course), and also to compete in challenges that would set the opponents face-to-face with the nature being directly affected by our carbon emissions and unethical practices, akin to the long running, smash hit show Survivor. This would also draw International attention the the Australian television industry as our last attempt at Survivor is seen by America to have brought shame on our country.
The competitors could show how knowledgeable they are about international affairs and trade links by creating dishes that represent a wide variety of countries Australia share close ties with, in order to create an internationally spanning meal to be judged by an experienced panel, and then again by the Australian public, as per the shock success, Masterchef. They will be challenged to demonstrate the benefits of their broadband plans by composing songs to be performed in front of large audiences and knowledgeable judges, bringing to mind the long running talent show Australian Idol. They will even be forced to show off their true character and social skills by being forced to live in a large room together alongside some of our most famous and infamous politicians, a la Big Brother, in which their true colours are almost definitely going to be exposed. The real real Julia Gillard may even be exposed.
As you can clearly see, there really is only one way of drawing this never ending election battle to a close that will manage to be informative, entertaining and effective, and that is ours – The People's Solution. If you thought you had seen everything there was to see about the people in the running to be the leader of your country, you were more wrong than previously conceivable. In a world where “reality television” is no longer a reflection of real life, and the word “government” can scarcely be spoken without bringing to mind the word “corruption”, The People's Solution seeks to break this mould and show Australia a side of the governing politicians that they did not even know existed. I plead that you take this proposed solution on, in an aim to maximise the enjoyability and double the effectiveness of the campaign in one easily implemented step. Thank you for your consideration.
Note: This was written for an assignment, and is purely satirical. It was a satire assignment. Clearly. Also, if you plan on stealing it (for your own obscure reasons), reference me and my genius etc etc.
Also note: My mother wanted me to put this up. You know how she gets.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A rant about Judaism, racism, and magazine article that drove me insane
Okay, look. I'm quite an open-minded person, but I'm also very opinionated - in my opinion, you don't have to be one or the other, and it is very possible to be both. I have certain values that I hold particularly high, and personally am very rights orientated. To me, it's of utmost importance that people have the right to free speech, the right to life, the right to feel loved, etc. Cheesy, but I'm like that. So I was reading an article in the free magazine for the Eastern Beaches of Australia, and I've got to say: Offence? Taken. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that the author is a great journalist, or a kind-hearted, tolerant person, but the fashion in which this article is written just strikes a chord with me.
Next thing: I'm Jewish. It's not a big deal, don't get racist on me, but it's the way I've been brought up, the belief system I've come to accept. I'm not exactly what you'd call observant, but I go to Synagogue on major festivals and have Friday night dinners with the entire family. If you want to post nasty comments, go ahead, but haters should stop hating - I know that people practice all different religions, are perfectly entitled to, and I know plenty of wonderful people from all across the spectrum. So, again, this.
On first glance, the article's not to bad. There are moments that are genuinely interesting, and border on nice - "Australia is a multi-cultural nation that accepts all races and religions and the majority of people hold no grudge against anyone for practising their own beliefs" - and I appreciate that, because it's true. Even now, anti-semitism isn't something I experience on a regular basis, and people in general are more curious than rude. However, I feel these moments of "acceptance" are purely there in order to cover up the rest of the racist undertones of the article.
The main point of the article centres around the positioning of the Jewish eruv (an eruv, just to clarify, is a way of "closing in" an area so Jews are able to carry - things like strollers, keys, handbags - on Shabbat, Saturday, our day of rest), and our disregard of the laws when we took it upon ourselves to reconstruct a pole to hold the eruv together. I don't personally observe Shabbat (I should, I know, don't shoot), but it's an essential of Jewish, observant life. If an observant Jew wishes to attend synagogue on Saturday, who are you to deny them the right to push their baby's stroller, or to carry their keys in their pocket? You preach religious acceptance, and then you attempt to shine a negative light on something that actually helps Jews integrate into modern society? Excuse me, but that just doesn't seem right. We start off with a nice little tale of a Muslim cab driver who pulled over to do his afternoon prayer on the street. We get the obligatory "Now, I'm not one to bag anyone's religious beliefs..." statement, but the very nature of the rest of the article only serves to contradict that statement.
I know that from reading what an eruv is, you might possibly nod your head along and go "Oh, yes, well I can see how that could be confining for people of other cultures within the area, just because some minority are Jewish, doesn't mean everyone has to be..." etc. But an eruv? The eruv on the Eastern Suburbs is a wire, more common than not hidden amongst the mess of electrical wires atop our telegraph poles. Along beach fronts, it runs through railings, and if you weren't aware it was there, you would have no idea it even existed. No eruv had ever troubled you before, why should it now?
Well, apparently when the wealthy people living with their beautiful views of the coast found all of the telegraph poles along the coastal walk an eyesore, and had them placed underground (the author notably stresses that "the residents went through the proper channels , received permission from the council and the job was done without any problems"), in the process causing the eruv to be incomplete. And then, shock horror, the Jews had to ruin everything and go - without permission - put up an ugly pole to complete their eruv again. I know, how dare they! Jews from across the area able to make the trek to their synagogue with their babies in strollers and their water bottles in hand so that when heading uphill they can save themselves from dehydration? Despicable. Ah, but the author argues that his point is not this, but "when the rules are blatantly flaunted and proper processes are not respected, all for the benefit of one particular group, it does become a bit hard to accept". Why? Why is that any harder to accept than anything that other people do? I oppose to your problem with Muslims publically participating in their daily prayers. You appear to have issues with this, contradicting laws that allow us the freedom to our own religion, for the benefit of only one group - ignorant people who don't accept the cultures of others. So maybe think a bit more before making such bold statements.
Another issue that is clearly a contributing factor to all of this nonsense is ignorance. "Maybe when the new pole is in place we can get our Muslim taxi-driver mate to come down at 4:30 one afternoon to bless it!" I'm not even going to go into the many ways that phrase offends me, or fails to make sense at all. We're all just scum, anyway.
So even though this rant has poor grammar and even poorer structure, I urge you to next time take crap you read about other religions and their customs with a grain of salt. We're not doing everything possible to ruin your life, we're just trying to live ours the best we can. Racism is a hateful, baseless thing that I wouldn't be able to justify in any circumstance. And while I accept that this author is writing to cover an issue, whether or not controversial, maybe next time both sides of a story should be explored. I get that you don't want your beautiful Bronte views obstructed by some pesky telegraph poles, but I don't want my beautiful religion obstructed by someone who doesn't want to take everyone's perspectives into account.
I apologise if that was terrible, I was angry. I get like that sometimes. End rant.
Next thing: I'm Jewish. It's not a big deal, don't get racist on me, but it's the way I've been brought up, the belief system I've come to accept. I'm not exactly what you'd call observant, but I go to Synagogue on major festivals and have Friday night dinners with the entire family. If you want to post nasty comments, go ahead, but haters should stop hating - I know that people practice all different religions, are perfectly entitled to, and I know plenty of wonderful people from all across the spectrum. So, again, this.
On first glance, the article's not to bad. There are moments that are genuinely interesting, and border on nice - "Australia is a multi-cultural nation that accepts all races and religions and the majority of people hold no grudge against anyone for practising their own beliefs" - and I appreciate that, because it's true. Even now, anti-semitism isn't something I experience on a regular basis, and people in general are more curious than rude. However, I feel these moments of "acceptance" are purely there in order to cover up the rest of the racist undertones of the article.
The main point of the article centres around the positioning of the Jewish eruv (an eruv, just to clarify, is a way of "closing in" an area so Jews are able to carry - things like strollers, keys, handbags - on Shabbat, Saturday, our day of rest), and our disregard of the laws when we took it upon ourselves to reconstruct a pole to hold the eruv together. I don't personally observe Shabbat (I should, I know, don't shoot), but it's an essential of Jewish, observant life. If an observant Jew wishes to attend synagogue on Saturday, who are you to deny them the right to push their baby's stroller, or to carry their keys in their pocket? You preach religious acceptance, and then you attempt to shine a negative light on something that actually helps Jews integrate into modern society? Excuse me, but that just doesn't seem right. We start off with a nice little tale of a Muslim cab driver who pulled over to do his afternoon prayer on the street. We get the obligatory "Now, I'm not one to bag anyone's religious beliefs..." statement, but the very nature of the rest of the article only serves to contradict that statement.
I know that from reading what an eruv is, you might possibly nod your head along and go "Oh, yes, well I can see how that could be confining for people of other cultures within the area, just because some minority are Jewish, doesn't mean everyone has to be..." etc. But an eruv? The eruv on the Eastern Suburbs is a wire, more common than not hidden amongst the mess of electrical wires atop our telegraph poles. Along beach fronts, it runs through railings, and if you weren't aware it was there, you would have no idea it even existed. No eruv had ever troubled you before, why should it now?
Well, apparently when the wealthy people living with their beautiful views of the coast found all of the telegraph poles along the coastal walk an eyesore, and had them placed underground (the author notably stresses that "the residents went through the proper channels , received permission from the council and the job was done without any problems"), in the process causing the eruv to be incomplete. And then, shock horror, the Jews had to ruin everything and go - without permission - put up an ugly pole to complete their eruv again. I know, how dare they! Jews from across the area able to make the trek to their synagogue with their babies in strollers and their water bottles in hand so that when heading uphill they can save themselves from dehydration? Despicable. Ah, but the author argues that his point is not this, but "when the rules are blatantly flaunted and proper processes are not respected, all for the benefit of one particular group, it does become a bit hard to accept". Why? Why is that any harder to accept than anything that other people do? I oppose to your problem with Muslims publically participating in their daily prayers. You appear to have issues with this, contradicting laws that allow us the freedom to our own religion, for the benefit of only one group - ignorant people who don't accept the cultures of others. So maybe think a bit more before making such bold statements.
Another issue that is clearly a contributing factor to all of this nonsense is ignorance. "Maybe when the new pole is in place we can get our Muslim taxi-driver mate to come down at 4:30 one afternoon to bless it!" I'm not even going to go into the many ways that phrase offends me, or fails to make sense at all. We're all just scum, anyway.
So even though this rant has poor grammar and even poorer structure, I urge you to next time take crap you read about other religions and their customs with a grain of salt. We're not doing everything possible to ruin your life, we're just trying to live ours the best we can. Racism is a hateful, baseless thing that I wouldn't be able to justify in any circumstance. And while I accept that this author is writing to cover an issue, whether or not controversial, maybe next time both sides of a story should be explored. I get that you don't want your beautiful Bronte views obstructed by some pesky telegraph poles, but I don't want my beautiful religion obstructed by someone who doesn't want to take everyone's perspectives into account.
I apologise if that was terrible, I was angry. I get like that sometimes. End rant.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
File under "Cry, things that make me"
Caution: I promise that other than things like this, I am quite a well-rounded, likeable person. Ha ha ha.
I probably don't come off as an excessively emotional person. You're probably largely off base. While in day to day life I tend to...overuse humour in the place of getting all emotional...(although humour should be in inverted commas because humorous it may or may not be), I'm going to make a confession here - I'm a ridiculously unstable person, which means I go through ridiculously unstable emotions and phases where I am, basically, a giant cry baby. My mental stability is almost as questionable as, you know, my social life, etc. It's pretty inexplicable but hit a raw nerve when I'm having a bad day and I'll well up, and then get really angry to mask that. I'm good with the sudden bouts of inexplicable anger.
But apart from that, crying is something that is reserved for the home, and it turns out, the movie theatre. When it comes to movies, it turns out I am essentially a giant marshmallow, with the added bonus that the marshmallow isn't just a softie but also prone to bouts of uncontrollable tears. I don't like it, but I tell it as it is. So, because you love me (oh come on, don't be afraid to admit it, the internet is a relatively safe forum when it comes to the heartfelt expressions of our undying love etc), I take it you want to know which movies/television shows/music/etc transform me from a moderately stable, often happy person into a quivering wreck, right? Well you're lucky, because that's what you're going to find out.
Movies: Don't lie. You've watched Marley & Me, you used to own a dog, and you were watching the end bit and in tears, right? Doesn't that sum up pretty much everyone who watched that movie? I've read the book too, but books don't tend to make me go soft - I need the visual attached to the story. But yes, I'm going to come right out and tell you that when I first went to see that movie with three good friends, three of the four of us were blubbering by the end (Note: the one guy not crying, the most likely to cry in any other movie - trust me, has not and has never owned a pet). I watched it again the next year by myself in an English hotel room and yet again, I teared up. Sue me. But it isn't just overly depressing movies about dogs (SPOILER! SPOILER! For the people who have a go at me when I disclose even the tiniest little plot point) getting put down that get me bawling - oh no, there are more.
Have you seen Freedom Writers? Every time I watch that movie, regardless of how much I prepare it for mentally and how little attention I pay to the beginning of the movie, as soon as you reach the middle section with Marcus and Miep Gies and they do the whole Anne Frank scene, I am invariably sitting and crying my eyes at, and trying to work out if everyone else watching with me is as well. What can I say? I'm Jewish, it hits a nerve? To be honest, I'm not sure, but when I first watched it with a hundred other people, I don't think there were many dry eyes.
Of course, when I was younger, I cried at everything. Some movie called Spirit about a horse? I remember crying in that even though to this day I have no idea what exactly the plot was. Turns out, though, that wasn't the only animated movie that could set me off. Just recently, I was bawling like a newborn in Toy Story 3. The cinema - three of us girls who've actually become invested in the characters over the two prior movies; several harried mothers attempting to chain their children to the comfy leather seats (my friends and I are big ole' spenders) and several schools of kindegartners (one of whom, I have to let you know, was wearing a trucker cap, oversized Man United jersey and big ass silver chains - the original six year old gangster?). When it got to the garbage dump, or Andy saying goodbye to Woody, us three were pratically on the floor crying, and all the little kids were laughing and throwing popcorn. Age gap, it's evident.
Music: I go through phases where different things make me cry, because I'm an unpredictable wreck. Music is particularly topsy turvy - when especially emotional periods of my life are around, I'll cry at anything. Judge me all you like (or don't, please don't), but after my grandfather died I couldn't listen to the Charlie Chaplin version of Smile as done by the cast of Glee without bursting out into tears - clearly the song did not achieve its goal. Other songs that have made this elite list include Superman by Five For Fighting, Together We'll Ring In The New Year by Motion City Soundtrack, Caught In The Crowd by Kate Miller-Heidke, You and Me by Lifehouse...Can you tell that I'm probably in need of some form of medication? I'm joking. That was a joke.
This is why I've not gone into comedy.
Television shows: So far you've gathered that I'm massively overemotional in select situations, and television shows are no different - you sit me down with a finale of a show that I have loved for years, or a character that I've become really attached to dying, or any given episode of Cold Case that has to do with the death of a child, and BAM, I'm in that same state. Did I cry in the Scrubs finale? Maybe - mind you, not the Med School series, because that was ... a whole different animal. This is why I avoid most hospital shows - too many characters I like would die (I watch ER sometimes and I really shouldn't), or shows where people dying is an everyday event. Really, it's quite alarming that I got into Lost, considering the amount of death that show carries with it.
Now I'm finished this post.
Oh...I'm going to cry.
I'm JOKING YOU WEIRDOS.
I probably don't come off as an excessively emotional person. You're probably largely off base. While in day to day life I tend to...overuse humour in the place of getting all emotional...(although humour should be in inverted commas because humorous it may or may not be), I'm going to make a confession here - I'm a ridiculously unstable person, which means I go through ridiculously unstable emotions and phases where I am, basically, a giant cry baby. My mental stability is almost as questionable as, you know, my social life, etc. It's pretty inexplicable but hit a raw nerve when I'm having a bad day and I'll well up, and then get really angry to mask that. I'm good with the sudden bouts of inexplicable anger.
But apart from that, crying is something that is reserved for the home, and it turns out, the movie theatre. When it comes to movies, it turns out I am essentially a giant marshmallow, with the added bonus that the marshmallow isn't just a softie but also prone to bouts of uncontrollable tears. I don't like it, but I tell it as it is. So, because you love me (oh come on, don't be afraid to admit it, the internet is a relatively safe forum when it comes to the heartfelt expressions of our undying love etc), I take it you want to know which movies/television shows/music/etc transform me from a moderately stable, often happy person into a quivering wreck, right? Well you're lucky, because that's what you're going to find out.
Movies: Don't lie. You've watched Marley & Me, you used to own a dog, and you were watching the end bit and in tears, right? Doesn't that sum up pretty much everyone who watched that movie? I've read the book too, but books don't tend to make me go soft - I need the visual attached to the story. But yes, I'm going to come right out and tell you that when I first went to see that movie with three good friends, three of the four of us were blubbering by the end (Note: the one guy not crying, the most likely to cry in any other movie - trust me, has not and has never owned a pet). I watched it again the next year by myself in an English hotel room and yet again, I teared up. Sue me. But it isn't just overly depressing movies about dogs (SPOILER! SPOILER! For the people who have a go at me when I disclose even the tiniest little plot point) getting put down that get me bawling - oh no, there are more.
Have you seen Freedom Writers? Every time I watch that movie, regardless of how much I prepare it for mentally and how little attention I pay to the beginning of the movie, as soon as you reach the middle section with Marcus and Miep Gies and they do the whole Anne Frank scene, I am invariably sitting and crying my eyes at, and trying to work out if everyone else watching with me is as well. What can I say? I'm Jewish, it hits a nerve? To be honest, I'm not sure, but when I first watched it with a hundred other people, I don't think there were many dry eyes.
Of course, when I was younger, I cried at everything. Some movie called Spirit about a horse? I remember crying in that even though to this day I have no idea what exactly the plot was. Turns out, though, that wasn't the only animated movie that could set me off. Just recently, I was bawling like a newborn in Toy Story 3. The cinema - three of us girls who've actually become invested in the characters over the two prior movies; several harried mothers attempting to chain their children to the comfy leather seats (my friends and I are big ole' spenders) and several schools of kindegartners (one of whom, I have to let you know, was wearing a trucker cap, oversized Man United jersey and big ass silver chains - the original six year old gangster?). When it got to the garbage dump, or Andy saying goodbye to Woody, us three were pratically on the floor crying, and all the little kids were laughing and throwing popcorn. Age gap, it's evident.
Music: I go through phases where different things make me cry, because I'm an unpredictable wreck. Music is particularly topsy turvy - when especially emotional periods of my life are around, I'll cry at anything. Judge me all you like (or don't, please don't), but after my grandfather died I couldn't listen to the Charlie Chaplin version of Smile as done by the cast of Glee without bursting out into tears - clearly the song did not achieve its goal. Other songs that have made this elite list include Superman by Five For Fighting, Together We'll Ring In The New Year by Motion City Soundtrack, Caught In The Crowd by Kate Miller-Heidke, You and Me by Lifehouse...Can you tell that I'm probably in need of some form of medication? I'm joking. That was a joke.
This is why I've not gone into comedy.
Television shows: So far you've gathered that I'm massively overemotional in select situations, and television shows are no different - you sit me down with a finale of a show that I have loved for years, or a character that I've become really attached to dying, or any given episode of Cold Case that has to do with the death of a child, and BAM, I'm in that same state. Did I cry in the Scrubs finale? Maybe - mind you, not the Med School series, because that was ... a whole different animal. This is why I avoid most hospital shows - too many characters I like would die (I watch ER sometimes and I really shouldn't), or shows where people dying is an everyday event. Really, it's quite alarming that I got into Lost, considering the amount of death that show carries with it.
Now I'm finished this post.
Oh...I'm going to cry.
I'm JOKING YOU WEIRDOS.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A rant in which I defend Canberra
I am going to admit straight off that within the people I know, Canberra is seen as a bit of a hole. Essentially, us proud, sheltered (that one refers specifically to us) Sydneysiders have our beaches and our multiple shopping centres and more people than you can poke a stick at, and we tend to look down on Canberra. After all, the ACT is essentially an island in the middle of New South Wales as far as we're concerned. We all think we're better off, and more privelleged than if we lived in Canberra, or one of the surrounding little towns. But having just returned from Canberra, I'd actually like to say a few words in its defence.
Though we've been brought up on a diet of looking down on tiny little Canberra, I actually quite like it there. I've been there so many times now that when my family drives around I can point at nearly every hotel and recall the time I stayed there. I like a lot of things about Canberra, and I'll list them in my little rant, which is kind of going to be a rave, in retrospect. It just frustrates me. If there's anyone from Canberra reading this, are you as bitchy about us as we are about you? Because I'd hate to think that we give that bad of an expression.
But before I get into my minor little love affair with Canberra, I'd like to point out that I am and will probably always be a big city girl. I might not live right in a CBD, but I love the constant exposure to different people and loud noises and interesting sights and catching busy trains and eating out and going to shops with giant groups of people and dominating entire movie theatres etc. If I'm not in a city environment for a very long period of time, you have to give me a beach, at the very least, so I can occupy myself with the sun and the surf and a trashy book. I spend my summers on the beach, but that's about as relaxed as you get with me. And while I love and appreciate a short little weekend in the country, if I was to move there, I'd be kicking down the walls. My grandparents used to take me to a little country town every summer, and if I lived in a town like that for more than a week, I would be bored out of my mind.
That being said, by rights, Canberra is a city. Sure, there's no beach, which is kind of sad - I am ridiculously spoilt when it comes to where I live - but when you're actually in the city (which takes up quite a large amount of the state), Canberra's actually quite excellent. I know that probably sounds quite derrogatory, but I mean it in the best possible way. I love that if you're staying near the city centre, you're spoilt for choice when it comes to nice little restaurants. Where I stayed, I could walk to several all-night supermarkets, a Korean BBQ restaurant, a shopping centre, a Baskin & Robbins, a gym, an Irish pub, an Oportos (score)...ideal.
You know what else I absolutely loved? Despite this probably occuring in most cities, there was a place within walking distance where you could shop for shoes (ridiculously heeled, glittery, buckled up shoes, alongside Converse and Skechers, and green flats which have thousands of tiny swear words covering them) whilst getting your newest body piercing (you're spoilt for choice here too). I loved that you can drive to the snow in a couple of hours, that the staff at the national park were extremely friendly, that when you need desperately to kill time you can drive around the embassies, that the woman behind the counter of a place I was buying presents at had a discussion with me about Rocky Road...I love a lot of things about it. Sometimes small isn't automatically bad.
Sure, the Sydney CBD may or may not be the size of pretty much the entirety of Canberra, but there are things about that place that are just great, despite the negative hype. Okay, the road names aren't very original, and the consistensy of signage in the area is ridiculous (Michelago? Micelago? I don't know what's right and what's wrong, but c'mon guys, spellcheck!), and the sign for speeding on the way into the city reads "Drive N Text, U B Next"...but don't judge a city that can't do anything to shake off that reputation. It's actually not that bad.
Though we've been brought up on a diet of looking down on tiny little Canberra, I actually quite like it there. I've been there so many times now that when my family drives around I can point at nearly every hotel and recall the time I stayed there. I like a lot of things about Canberra, and I'll list them in my little rant, which is kind of going to be a rave, in retrospect. It just frustrates me. If there's anyone from Canberra reading this, are you as bitchy about us as we are about you? Because I'd hate to think that we give that bad of an expression.
But before I get into my minor little love affair with Canberra, I'd like to point out that I am and will probably always be a big city girl. I might not live right in a CBD, but I love the constant exposure to different people and loud noises and interesting sights and catching busy trains and eating out and going to shops with giant groups of people and dominating entire movie theatres etc. If I'm not in a city environment for a very long period of time, you have to give me a beach, at the very least, so I can occupy myself with the sun and the surf and a trashy book. I spend my summers on the beach, but that's about as relaxed as you get with me. And while I love and appreciate a short little weekend in the country, if I was to move there, I'd be kicking down the walls. My grandparents used to take me to a little country town every summer, and if I lived in a town like that for more than a week, I would be bored out of my mind.
That being said, by rights, Canberra is a city. Sure, there's no beach, which is kind of sad - I am ridiculously spoilt when it comes to where I live - but when you're actually in the city (which takes up quite a large amount of the state), Canberra's actually quite excellent. I know that probably sounds quite derrogatory, but I mean it in the best possible way. I love that if you're staying near the city centre, you're spoilt for choice when it comes to nice little restaurants. Where I stayed, I could walk to several all-night supermarkets, a Korean BBQ restaurant, a shopping centre, a Baskin & Robbins, a gym, an Irish pub, an Oportos (score)...ideal.
You know what else I absolutely loved? Despite this probably occuring in most cities, there was a place within walking distance where you could shop for shoes (ridiculously heeled, glittery, buckled up shoes, alongside Converse and Skechers, and green flats which have thousands of tiny swear words covering them) whilst getting your newest body piercing (you're spoilt for choice here too). I loved that you can drive to the snow in a couple of hours, that the staff at the national park were extremely friendly, that when you need desperately to kill time you can drive around the embassies, that the woman behind the counter of a place I was buying presents at had a discussion with me about Rocky Road...I love a lot of things about it. Sometimes small isn't automatically bad.
Sure, the Sydney CBD may or may not be the size of pretty much the entirety of Canberra, but there are things about that place that are just great, despite the negative hype. Okay, the road names aren't very original, and the consistensy of signage in the area is ridiculous (Michelago? Micelago? I don't know what's right and what's wrong, but c'mon guys, spellcheck!), and the sign for speeding on the way into the city reads "Drive N Text, U B Next"...but don't judge a city that can't do anything to shake off that reputation. It's actually not that bad.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
One reason I can't live in Queensland
Caution: Yet another rant, and there's probably going to be some foul language. You know, if you're into that kind of thing.
Oh, shit. I'm sure you've heard of this by now (I'm extremely slow when it comes to venting my annoyance at news articles, have you noticed?), but apparently in Queensland as of the 18th of June or so, swearing is a big problem. So to cut down they've introduced a new ban, and along with it a fine - if you get caught swearing in public in Queensland, you could get slapped with a $100 to $300 fine on the spot. What? Swearing is...the Australian way, sometimes! Let's hope no one goes to a football game, or the outside of a school where frustrated parents hang out. Stay away from shops, plenty of swearing there, and definitely keep your heads out of pubs. Schoolies week? Hell no. I know a three year old child whose favourite movie is The Hangover (yeah, I know). If that kid grows up and moves to Queensland, he's in trouble. Well, allow me to tell you that my Summer holiday has now been cancelled. Me and my foul mouthed friends are going to stay well away.
Even though I really have no desires to go to Queensland - I've been heaps of times in the past, it's beautiful, nice beaches and all, good shopping, etc, etc - I actually take this matter quite close to heart, for a few reasons. My most major beef with it is that swearing is looked at as "inappropriate behaviour" in public. Silly politicians and police folk. I don't swear because I'm drunk, have a crap vocabularly or am too lazy to think of better ways to phrase things. I swear as a means of self-expression. I'll swear when I'm frustrated, but don't we all? I'll swear when my football team are doing rubbish, I'll swear with my friends at an extremely high rate because that's just what we do. I don't think my behaviour is inappropriate - I actually think my behaviour is quite reasonable, and like almost every other person I know. I understand the whole desire to rationalize this, but how do police justify dealing out a fine to someone like me when there are fifteen other people within a ten metre radius that swear equally as much in public as I do.
What even constitutes as swearing, nowadays? Do police officers have a checklist of offensive language that they can fine people for? Because I call things and people "bitches" all the time, but I think it's become such a common part of the usage of the English language that we've all been desensitized. "Bitch" doesn't register on my list of offensive words. And if you say, for instance, "fuck", can you get fined if you're using it in context? Is it still considered offensive? I say it a hell of a lot, to the point where it's just not a swear word in my dictionary (well, it is, but I'm very liberal with my use of swearing). Or are they going all old school with us? If I go to Queensland and tell someone to "piss off", am I going to cop a fine or just some nasty glares? If I refer to something as "shit", or use my current favourite word, "shitstorm", is that going to land me in court?
What I think they need to do is publish a list of words that count as offensive, and when they fine someone, they need to make it very clear what exactly they said wrong. This isn't because I swear so much that I would be confused as to why I'm being fined, but more because I've become so desensitized to some words that I honestly would not know I was swearing. I'd still probably not have figured out, even after the fine. That's just the culture I live in.
Look, I understand that it's not always pleasant to walk around and hear people swearing. I know I should be keeping my language cleaner, and using less offensive slang terms. I know I should probably indulge in actually using my vocabulary in conversations, but by force of habit, I can't. I swear, shoot me. A fine won't stop swearing, it will increase the dangerous appeal of swearing that has vanished along with our desensitization, and it'll making swearing something the cool kids do - you swear in public and get away with it? You legend! Or maybe we should all just do what my friend Liora has been doing for years, and go on a non-swearing kick (the girl says "fridge" and "fudge" so much that it just breaks my heart), and move to sunny Queensland, while everyone else moves down to the cool states that aren't opposed to your average language every once in a while.
Oh, fuck it. No way am I doing that.
Oh, shit. I'm sure you've heard of this by now (I'm extremely slow when it comes to venting my annoyance at news articles, have you noticed?), but apparently in Queensland as of the 18th of June or so, swearing is a big problem. So to cut down they've introduced a new ban, and along with it a fine - if you get caught swearing in public in Queensland, you could get slapped with a $100 to $300 fine on the spot. What? Swearing is...the Australian way, sometimes! Let's hope no one goes to a football game, or the outside of a school where frustrated parents hang out. Stay away from shops, plenty of swearing there, and definitely keep your heads out of pubs. Schoolies week? Hell no. I know a three year old child whose favourite movie is The Hangover (yeah, I know). If that kid grows up and moves to Queensland, he's in trouble. Well, allow me to tell you that my Summer holiday has now been cancelled. Me and my foul mouthed friends are going to stay well away.
Even though I really have no desires to go to Queensland - I've been heaps of times in the past, it's beautiful, nice beaches and all, good shopping, etc, etc - I actually take this matter quite close to heart, for a few reasons. My most major beef with it is that swearing is looked at as "inappropriate behaviour" in public. Silly politicians and police folk. I don't swear because I'm drunk, have a crap vocabularly or am too lazy to think of better ways to phrase things. I swear as a means of self-expression. I'll swear when I'm frustrated, but don't we all? I'll swear when my football team are doing rubbish, I'll swear with my friends at an extremely high rate because that's just what we do. I don't think my behaviour is inappropriate - I actually think my behaviour is quite reasonable, and like almost every other person I know. I understand the whole desire to rationalize this, but how do police justify dealing out a fine to someone like me when there are fifteen other people within a ten metre radius that swear equally as much in public as I do.
What even constitutes as swearing, nowadays? Do police officers have a checklist of offensive language that they can fine people for? Because I call things and people "bitches" all the time, but I think it's become such a common part of the usage of the English language that we've all been desensitized. "Bitch" doesn't register on my list of offensive words. And if you say, for instance, "fuck", can you get fined if you're using it in context? Is it still considered offensive? I say it a hell of a lot, to the point where it's just not a swear word in my dictionary (well, it is, but I'm very liberal with my use of swearing). Or are they going all old school with us? If I go to Queensland and tell someone to "piss off", am I going to cop a fine or just some nasty glares? If I refer to something as "shit", or use my current favourite word, "shitstorm", is that going to land me in court?
What I think they need to do is publish a list of words that count as offensive, and when they fine someone, they need to make it very clear what exactly they said wrong. This isn't because I swear so much that I would be confused as to why I'm being fined, but more because I've become so desensitized to some words that I honestly would not know I was swearing. I'd still probably not have figured out, even after the fine. That's just the culture I live in.
Look, I understand that it's not always pleasant to walk around and hear people swearing. I know I should be keeping my language cleaner, and using less offensive slang terms. I know I should probably indulge in actually using my vocabulary in conversations, but by force of habit, I can't. I swear, shoot me. A fine won't stop swearing, it will increase the dangerous appeal of swearing that has vanished along with our desensitization, and it'll making swearing something the cool kids do - you swear in public and get away with it? You legend! Or maybe we should all just do what my friend Liora has been doing for years, and go on a non-swearing kick (the girl says "fridge" and "fudge" so much that it just breaks my heart), and move to sunny Queensland, while everyone else moves down to the cool states that aren't opposed to your average language every once in a while.
Oh, fuck it. No way am I doing that.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
A rant about tweeting, Masterchef and the Courier-Mail
I'm really fired up tonight. I'm usually quite fired up, but I'm even more so than usual tonight (see, if you follow me on Twitter, you know this). As you all know, I'm an avid Masterchef tweeter. I'm snarky, there are people I would prefer stayed clear of my television (yeah, I said it). If you haven't already read it, I'd like to alert you to THIS. While it's an interesting read, thank you Karen Brooks, I've got to say, I take it personally.
I tweet without thinking. I bitch about peoples' appearances, about their cooking, their relationships, their sad attempts at "wit", their tendency to overwear ridiculous pink shirts/hideous beanies/far too much makeup etc. Sure, I can come across as nasty if you judged me off that alone, but amongst the people I write with, we all know that it's in good humour. If we've hurt feelings, I'd like to be notified. I'm more than willing to swallow my pride and apologise, but like hell will I censor what I'm writing because one particular person thinks I'm being "vicious" and "spiteful" and "exposing lashes of sexism, racism, size-ism, ageism and homophobia".
I happen to find the Masterchef feed on Twitter hilarious. Whoa, don't shoot me. I can't speak for the entire Masterchef-tweeting population, but please find me one instance of any one of those ism-s or phobias in one of my tweets that isn't in a joking manner. Sexism? Are you kidding? Racism, maybe in jest on the odd occasion, but I rarely refer to it. Size-ism? Never. Ageism? Are you high? Homophobia? Hell no! I tweet jokingly about gay relationships, but hell, I'm all for it. Don't go calling me homophobic. I'm a mad supporter of rights, gay, womens', everything. I might be vicious on the odd occasion, but it's heat of the moment viciousness, and if you want me to issue an apology on behalf of all of the terrible things I say, go ahead. I'll do it.
The article doesn't hesitate to comment on our "foul language" and "comments that have nothing to do with what's on screen". We're people. We judge. You sit at home and watch Masterchef, making witty yet controversial comments in your head, we write them down on a social networking site for the amusement of those who follow us. You want to criticise our language? Oh, because there's no swearing at all on Twitter for the duration of the time that doesn't include Masterchef. God forbid. Are you kidding? HAVE YOU STEPPED OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE IN THE LAST YEAR?
"The fact that these are real people being commented on, and in a public forum that their friends and family never mind children can access, escapes those posting or, worse, they don't care". My friends and family read my tweets. They laugh, they enjoy, they join in. Masterchef viewing has become a ritual in the circles I run in, and we find constant amusement in the next day debriefs. I post my thought the night before, instead of keeping the discussion within my friends the day after. Call me deluded, but I tend to think that people have come to accept, maybe even look forward to my Masterchef craziness. Children can access it? You don't think children say even worse things? I think our crudeness is pretty tame next to a twelve year old boy's idea of humour.
Apparently I'm a "bully and a coward" now, because I hide behind a false identity. Yeah, why don't you say that to my face and see who's a coward? But seriously, I'm not hiding behind a false identity. I keep my details private, but that's for security reasons, not because I'm scared of what people would do to me if they found out about my shocking tweets. And a BULLY? So, Karen Brooks, what about you? You are perfectly content to tell us that we're hurting the feelings of the oh-so-precious Masterchef contestants (who, might I add, signed up for this when they opted to be a part of a reality television show), and yet you're fine to hurt the feelings of, say, me, an emotionally fragile Masterchef tweeter? You've really hurt me, Karen. Don't think you'll be getting a Christmas card this year.
"It could be argued that this is a healthy outlet for what's a loathsome tendency of human nature." Hey, maybe it's good that we have a healthy outlet like this. While I object to that part of my nature being loathsome (again, Karen, why so mean? Couldn't have softened that up a bit?), would you rather we said all our crap and vented our rubbish on a platform like Twitter, or to you, on the street? To the contestant's faces? To each other? I mean, I think that would be fun, but maybe it's me. It's usually just me.
"But it's also an indication of how, when given the right forum and circumstances, the members of humanity won't necessarily defend each other on the contrary, they'll look for the weakest among them and attack in a pack" I really, really hate this. I think it's pretty self-explanatory why. It's derogatory to what I do, and I feel like I'm being compared to some form of predatory bird or something, but still, it's the 'picking on the weakest' idea that gets to me. I see your point, and raise you the fact that I actually pick on the stronger contestants - clearly, if they've got this far. Another thing I'd like to point out is that I admire all the contestants' cooking abilities. I'm jealous, actually, because as a chef, I'm pathetic. I can't heat up a pop tart without getting it stuck in the Toaster. I've admitted on many an occasion that I'm an extremely bitter person, so I think in a backwards way, the contestants should take this into account (are they offended). I'm bitter, twisted, envious and I think they've all done amazingly so far. Wait, I'm going to backtrack. Something in that last statement must have been sexist, racist, homophobic, offensive to minorities, or just plain rude.
Hey! "As one Tweet posted on Monday, when the site was overloaded because of the World Cup, said: ``I hope Twitter never goes down during MasterChef ever again, it was not quite as fun without the commentary of smart-arses the nation over.''" That tweet sure does look familiar. I'm pretty sure someone may have tweeted, that night that Twitter went down, that "Masterchef just wasn't as fun without the snarky @Sarkata or @benpobjie". Are you talking to me? I'm sure people said that a lot, but I'm going to go ahead and take offence. I feel like you're verging into the realms of taking it too far. However, I suppose I'm taking this too far now. I'm sorry. I promise I'm not that bad of a person. I might make ill-judged comments, try too hard to be witty, often make crude and immature comments and references, crack terrible puns and jokes, and occasionally just fade into being an extremely boring person, but I'm okay. I don't bitch too often, and I try to be the sane one when there's drama everywhere around me. I try to do the right thing. I wouldn't have a go at someone unless they had a go at me first. I might be opinionated, but I won't forced you to adopt my opinions - go ahead, have a varying opinion. Tolerance is what we aim for. I'm trying to spread some here. So...are you?
"It's like watching your favourite show with hundreds of other people only, in this case, you're glad most of them aren't in the room with you" On a different note to end this off, that's rubbish. I can imagine that a mass viewing of Masterchef with the rest of the people on the Masterchef twitter feed (those who aren't, of course, rapists, racists, homophobes, etc) would be one extremely hilarious gathering.
I know this has been one hell of a rant, but I was fired up, and I took extreme offence at that article. I didn't read The Courier Mail (which I keep typing as Male, on a random note), but I'm not going to start now. Actually, maybe I will. I want to see other opinions the author has - after all, it was an interesting read. She's probably quite acceptant of other things, I'm sure. I just think that there was a touch of hypocrisy, and I thought it was often unnecessarily snarky about the people who were supposed to be the nasty ones. Anyway, what's the world come to if we can't say things that are even the slightest bit controversial without coming under fire? Particularly on a social networking site, while having a laugh with some people we don't know, but who share the same views as us and who watch the same shows as us.
Update 22/6: And now on The Today Show with Carl and Lisa? You guys all suck, kind of. The kind of was just for politeness. It's REALITY TV. THERE WILL BE CONTESTANTS WE DISLIKE. I disliked Russell on Survivor and no one had a go at me for that. You guys need to be considerate that I am allowed an opinion, the internet will always be used to this, and you obviously don't understand anything mentioned in my above rant. That being said, I'm really offended I wasn't quoted. If you're going to go all out, do it, but quoting a facebook page? Facebook is tame and pedestrian. Sheesh.
I tweet without thinking. I bitch about peoples' appearances, about their cooking, their relationships, their sad attempts at "wit", their tendency to overwear ridiculous pink shirts/hideous beanies/far too much makeup etc. Sure, I can come across as nasty if you judged me off that alone, but amongst the people I write with, we all know that it's in good humour. If we've hurt feelings, I'd like to be notified. I'm more than willing to swallow my pride and apologise, but like hell will I censor what I'm writing because one particular person thinks I'm being "vicious" and "spiteful" and "exposing lashes of sexism, racism, size-ism, ageism and homophobia".
I happen to find the Masterchef feed on Twitter hilarious. Whoa, don't shoot me. I can't speak for the entire Masterchef-tweeting population, but please find me one instance of any one of those ism-s or phobias in one of my tweets that isn't in a joking manner. Sexism? Are you kidding? Racism, maybe in jest on the odd occasion, but I rarely refer to it. Size-ism? Never. Ageism? Are you high? Homophobia? Hell no! I tweet jokingly about gay relationships, but hell, I'm all for it. Don't go calling me homophobic. I'm a mad supporter of rights, gay, womens', everything. I might be vicious on the odd occasion, but it's heat of the moment viciousness, and if you want me to issue an apology on behalf of all of the terrible things I say, go ahead. I'll do it.
The article doesn't hesitate to comment on our "foul language" and "comments that have nothing to do with what's on screen". We're people. We judge. You sit at home and watch Masterchef, making witty yet controversial comments in your head, we write them down on a social networking site for the amusement of those who follow us. You want to criticise our language? Oh, because there's no swearing at all on Twitter for the duration of the time that doesn't include Masterchef. God forbid. Are you kidding? HAVE YOU STEPPED OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE IN THE LAST YEAR?
"The fact that these are real people being commented on, and in a public forum that their friends and family never mind children can access, escapes those posting or, worse, they don't care". My friends and family read my tweets. They laugh, they enjoy, they join in. Masterchef viewing has become a ritual in the circles I run in, and we find constant amusement in the next day debriefs. I post my thought the night before, instead of keeping the discussion within my friends the day after. Call me deluded, but I tend to think that people have come to accept, maybe even look forward to my Masterchef craziness. Children can access it? You don't think children say even worse things? I think our crudeness is pretty tame next to a twelve year old boy's idea of humour.
Apparently I'm a "bully and a coward" now, because I hide behind a false identity. Yeah, why don't you say that to my face and see who's a coward? But seriously, I'm not hiding behind a false identity. I keep my details private, but that's for security reasons, not because I'm scared of what people would do to me if they found out about my shocking tweets. And a BULLY? So, Karen Brooks, what about you? You are perfectly content to tell us that we're hurting the feelings of the oh-so-precious Masterchef contestants (who, might I add, signed up for this when they opted to be a part of a reality television show), and yet you're fine to hurt the feelings of, say, me, an emotionally fragile Masterchef tweeter? You've really hurt me, Karen. Don't think you'll be getting a Christmas card this year.
"It could be argued that this is a healthy outlet for what's a loathsome tendency of human nature." Hey, maybe it's good that we have a healthy outlet like this. While I object to that part of my nature being loathsome (again, Karen, why so mean? Couldn't have softened that up a bit?), would you rather we said all our crap and vented our rubbish on a platform like Twitter, or to you, on the street? To the contestant's faces? To each other? I mean, I think that would be fun, but maybe it's me. It's usually just me.
"But it's also an indication of how, when given the right forum and circumstances, the members of humanity won't necessarily defend each other on the contrary, they'll look for the weakest among them and attack in a pack" I really, really hate this. I think it's pretty self-explanatory why. It's derogatory to what I do, and I feel like I'm being compared to some form of predatory bird or something, but still, it's the 'picking on the weakest' idea that gets to me. I see your point, and raise you the fact that I actually pick on the stronger contestants - clearly, if they've got this far. Another thing I'd like to point out is that I admire all the contestants' cooking abilities. I'm jealous, actually, because as a chef, I'm pathetic. I can't heat up a pop tart without getting it stuck in the Toaster. I've admitted on many an occasion that I'm an extremely bitter person, so I think in a backwards way, the contestants should take this into account (are they offended). I'm bitter, twisted, envious and I think they've all done amazingly so far. Wait, I'm going to backtrack. Something in that last statement must have been sexist, racist, homophobic, offensive to minorities, or just plain rude.
Hey! "As one Tweet posted on Monday, when the site was overloaded because of the World Cup, said: ``I hope Twitter never goes down during MasterChef ever again, it was not quite as fun without the commentary of smart-arses the nation over.''" That tweet sure does look familiar. I'm pretty sure someone may have tweeted, that night that Twitter went down, that "Masterchef just wasn't as fun without the snarky @Sarkata or @benpobjie". Are you talking to me? I'm sure people said that a lot, but I'm going to go ahead and take offence. I feel like you're verging into the realms of taking it too far. However, I suppose I'm taking this too far now. I'm sorry. I promise I'm not that bad of a person. I might make ill-judged comments, try too hard to be witty, often make crude and immature comments and references, crack terrible puns and jokes, and occasionally just fade into being an extremely boring person, but I'm okay. I don't bitch too often, and I try to be the sane one when there's drama everywhere around me. I try to do the right thing. I wouldn't have a go at someone unless they had a go at me first. I might be opinionated, but I won't forced you to adopt my opinions - go ahead, have a varying opinion. Tolerance is what we aim for. I'm trying to spread some here. So...are you?
"It's like watching your favourite show with hundreds of other people only, in this case, you're glad most of them aren't in the room with you" On a different note to end this off, that's rubbish. I can imagine that a mass viewing of Masterchef with the rest of the people on the Masterchef twitter feed (those who aren't, of course, rapists, racists, homophobes, etc) would be one extremely hilarious gathering.
I know this has been one hell of a rant, but I was fired up, and I took extreme offence at that article. I didn't read The Courier Mail (which I keep typing as Male, on a random note), but I'm not going to start now. Actually, maybe I will. I want to see other opinions the author has - after all, it was an interesting read. She's probably quite acceptant of other things, I'm sure. I just think that there was a touch of hypocrisy, and I thought it was often unnecessarily snarky about the people who were supposed to be the nasty ones. Anyway, what's the world come to if we can't say things that are even the slightest bit controversial without coming under fire? Particularly on a social networking site, while having a laugh with some people we don't know, but who share the same views as us and who watch the same shows as us.
Update 22/6: And now on The Today Show with Carl and Lisa? You guys all suck, kind of. The kind of was just for politeness. It's REALITY TV. THERE WILL BE CONTESTANTS WE DISLIKE. I disliked Russell on Survivor and no one had a go at me for that. You guys need to be considerate that I am allowed an opinion, the internet will always be used to this, and you obviously don't understand anything mentioned in my above rant. That being said, I'm really offended I wasn't quoted. If you're going to go all out, do it, but quoting a facebook page? Facebook is tame and pedestrian. Sheesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
