I found this in my browser cache or whatever. It's probably from like 6 months ago, and I even make a joke about how the Pittsburgh Pirates suck, even though they are doing quite well this season. Whoops!
-Sports. I'll admit it, I've never been a huge sports fan. Oh sure, I'll watch the hockey game every now and then, but that's about it. So, if I'm in the company of other males and the topic turns to sports, I will most certainly space out for the next thirty minutes. If I do, by the miracles of God, interject into the conversation, it will undoubtedly be a smart assed remark about how the Pittsburgh Pirates are going to win the World Series this year.
Personally, I think that these people who know all these sports statistics and analyze games and whatnot are geeks. That's really all they are, just a bunch of geeks, but they pursue sports instead of typical "geek" hobbies. Despite what some may think, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I say embrace it. Of course, some people are just too damn uptight and get offended by that shit.
-Your children. I don't mean to be rude, I really don't, but I don't care if little Aiden shit in the toilet for the first time yesterday. I've been shitting in the toilet for over 15 years now. I've been there. Now I know that when you have an entirely new human being that you created, getting it to shit in the toilet is kind of a big deal. To you, that is. Your kids poop just doesn't really hold much interest for the rest of us.
Maybe I'm the one with the problem, because I don't have kids and don't want any. Whatever. Point is, I don't want to hear about what minor milestones your children are reaching. Talk about them to me all you want, but don't be offended when I have no idea what you are talking about because I started daydreaming about martians or some other shit.
-Celebrities. I don't know who nine out of ten of these god damned people are. I don't really watch movies at all, I only watch a few things on television, and I don't follow mainstream music too closely. Besides, who cares what these ego-inflated twits have to say?
-Anything involving alcohol. Personally, I am a teetotaler, so this topic in particular has absolutely zero interest for me. Unfortunately I am currently in college so apparently drinking is a big deal to people, and once the subject comes up, it seems to take an eternity for the conversation to continue on to another topic that I actually give a quarter shit about. Personally I don't see the appeal. I mean, how many ways can there possibly be to get totally fucked up? I find these moments are a good opportunity to get significant tasks completed, like staring at the floor, or counting each individual hair on your head.
-Any topic whatsoever if you don't speak up, dammit! You know, my hearing isn't the best in the world. It's not like I'm half deaf or anything, but I'm willing to bet all that god damn rock music over the years has taken at least a minor toll on my hearing. That said, I cannot stand people who speak with extremely low volume. I usually feel like a moron asking these people to speak up after about the fifteenth time, so I just give up and go along with it, trying really hard to listen to what they have to say. I've also noticed that many people who don't speak loud enough also speak rather quickly, making it even harder to follow them.
Eventually I either get lost or give up altogether, and this is when I stop listening and start daydreaming about pointless things, such as what it would be like if I were Galactus. Then I would wonder what planets taste like, and whether or not they are any good with A1 steak sauce.
I don't mean to be an asshat with this list; rather, I'm trying to be honest. I normally would consider myself a good listener, but if the conversation revolves around something I have absolutely no passion or interest in, my mind can't help but wander away. For the love of God, have something interesting to say, tell me something I don't already know.
wishyouwerehere
The big list of conversation topics that bore the living shit out of me.
No aaaaaaaaaaaaas - aaaaaaaaaa
A quick observation on advertisements.
Yes, I know this is kind of untimely, what with the Stupor Bowl advertising extravaganza being last weekend and everything, but something kind of struck me. Maybe I'm slow, but whatever.
Over the last few years I've come to know TV advertisements as extremely obnoxious. That's all they really are, just obnoxious words and pictures arranged in an obnoxious sequence in between a television program. I have also found that the obnoxiousness of a company's advertisement has no correlation with my willingness to purchase from the company.
So in a way, what is the point? Why do people strive to make these advertisements more and more goofy, outrageous, and, in some cases, just plain annoying? It doesn't really have any effect on whether or not I'm going to financially support the company making the advertisement. I will hazard a guess and assume that most others do not purchase something simply based on the creativity of the company's advertisement.
I mean, if I want to go grab a cheeseburger, I'll just get in my car and find a place that sells cheeseburgers. And if I like the cheeseburger I get, I'll remember to go back to the same place in the future and get more cheeseburgers from them. It doesn't really matter whether or not the place is a small business, or a large one that spends millions on a single Super Bowl advertisement. If I like the food, I'll come back.
So if advertising is irrelevant to whether or not I'll like a restaurant, then what is the point of spending so much damn money on it? Couldn't that money be put to better use? I realize that a lot of radio stations, websites, and television networks depend on advertising to stay in business, but really, why do they have to be so obnoxious and off-putting? Whatever happened to plain old "Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine!"?
Over the last few years I've come to know TV advertisements as extremely obnoxious. That's all they really are, just obnoxious words and pictures arranged in an obnoxious sequence in between a television program. I have also found that the obnoxiousness of a company's advertisement has no correlation with my willingness to purchase from the company.
So in a way, what is the point? Why do people strive to make these advertisements more and more goofy, outrageous, and, in some cases, just plain annoying? It doesn't really have any effect on whether or not I'm going to financially support the company making the advertisement. I will hazard a guess and assume that most others do not purchase something simply based on the creativity of the company's advertisement.
I mean, if I want to go grab a cheeseburger, I'll just get in my car and find a place that sells cheeseburgers. And if I like the cheeseburger I get, I'll remember to go back to the same place in the future and get more cheeseburgers from them. It doesn't really matter whether or not the place is a small business, or a large one that spends millions on a single Super Bowl advertisement. If I like the food, I'll come back.
So if advertising is irrelevant to whether or not I'll like a restaurant, then what is the point of spending so much damn money on it? Couldn't that money be put to better use? I realize that a lot of radio stations, websites, and television networks depend on advertising to stay in business, but really, why do they have to be so obnoxious and off-putting? Whatever happened to plain old "Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine!"?
No aaaaaaaaaaaaas - aaaaaaaaaa
Why being a responsible person sucks.
To start, I would never argue that being a responsible person is ever a bad thing. I completely support people being taking some responsibility in their lives. I believe that life would be a hell of a lot easier on all of us if everybody did what they were supposed to do.
But they don't. And that's where the problems start.
It seems quite often that the good, responsible people are often exploited by the lazy, irresponsible idiots. I have a feeling that there are more of the former than the latter, so hopefully most people can relate. Perhaps you've had to take on extra hours/responsibilities at a job because a co-worker called off for the forth time this month, or flat out didn't show up at all. Maybe you've had to complete some sort of project in a group, and had to do the majority of the work because your group-mates were lazy twits. There are more examples, and I'm sure most of us have our own.
I've always been taught that taking responsibility and doing what you are supposed to do is a good thing. However, whenever you're the one taking responsibility for something that some other idiot blew off, being responsible is crappy. When you're stuck at work for 8 extra hours while the idiot in question is likely off having fun somewhere, the virtues in being responsible become nil.
Of course, I often wonder what the hell is wrong with these people. I could not, in good conscience, act in the same way that some of the less responsible people I've encountered have acted. Why? Well, guilt is a pretty big factor for one. Sure I could screw over a co-worker, or take credit for work that I really don't deserve, but I'd feel terrible about it. The way that people perceive me is also a pretty big deal. Sure, in the long run, it probably doesn't matter if my boss thinks I'm a screwball idiot, because I'm going to eventually graduate from college and find employment elsewhere. But I couldn't really be a screwball idiot at work. Why not? Probably because I know that I'm not a screwball idiot, and I'd feel like an asshole for being one when I know that I'm better than that.
In regards to whether or not a person takes responsibility or not, I think it all comes down to who that person is, and how the person processes these kinds of things. Sure, I don't want people thinking I'm a lazy bastard, but others might not care about being perceived in such a way. Sure, I might feel guilty for not doing everything I'm expected to do and leaving the responsibility in the hands of someone else, but maybe other people don't experience the same amount of guilt that I do.
In turn, maybe the difference is not in whether a person is responsible or irresponsible, but in who the person is, how his/her mind works and perceives situations. Of course, a person can cannot change the way that his/her mind works, so can we really blame these people for what they do? Of course not. Their actions are not a result of neglect for their duties, but rather an innate part of their personalities which they cannot control. Therefore, we need to accept these people for who they are, even if their actions sometimes inconvenience us.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nah, forget that last part. Lazy twits can go to hell.
But they don't. And that's where the problems start.
It seems quite often that the good, responsible people are often exploited by the lazy, irresponsible idiots. I have a feeling that there are more of the former than the latter, so hopefully most people can relate. Perhaps you've had to take on extra hours/responsibilities at a job because a co-worker called off for the forth time this month, or flat out didn't show up at all. Maybe you've had to complete some sort of project in a group, and had to do the majority of the work because your group-mates were lazy twits. There are more examples, and I'm sure most of us have our own.
I've always been taught that taking responsibility and doing what you are supposed to do is a good thing. However, whenever you're the one taking responsibility for something that some other idiot blew off, being responsible is crappy. When you're stuck at work for 8 extra hours while the idiot in question is likely off having fun somewhere, the virtues in being responsible become nil.
Of course, I often wonder what the hell is wrong with these people. I could not, in good conscience, act in the same way that some of the less responsible people I've encountered have acted. Why? Well, guilt is a pretty big factor for one. Sure I could screw over a co-worker, or take credit for work that I really don't deserve, but I'd feel terrible about it. The way that people perceive me is also a pretty big deal. Sure, in the long run, it probably doesn't matter if my boss thinks I'm a screwball idiot, because I'm going to eventually graduate from college and find employment elsewhere. But I couldn't really be a screwball idiot at work. Why not? Probably because I know that I'm not a screwball idiot, and I'd feel like an asshole for being one when I know that I'm better than that.
In regards to whether or not a person takes responsibility or not, I think it all comes down to who that person is, and how the person processes these kinds of things. Sure, I don't want people thinking I'm a lazy bastard, but others might not care about being perceived in such a way. Sure, I might feel guilty for not doing everything I'm expected to do and leaving the responsibility in the hands of someone else, but maybe other people don't experience the same amount of guilt that I do.
In turn, maybe the difference is not in whether a person is responsible or irresponsible, but in who the person is, how his/her mind works and perceives situations. Of course, a person can cannot change the way that his/her mind works, so can we really blame these people for what they do? Of course not. Their actions are not a result of neglect for their duties, but rather an innate part of their personalities which they cannot control. Therefore, we need to accept these people for who they are, even if their actions sometimes inconvenience us.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nah, forget that last part. Lazy twits can go to hell.
No aaaaaaaaaaaaas - aaaaaaaaaa
I don't get the whole "women making men sandwiches" thing.
Wouldn't a real man be able to make his own sandwiches?
The concept of art, and why it's a bunch of baloney.
Or "The concept of art, and why it's a bunch of jumbo", for those of you in the Pittsburgh area.
I recently had the pleasure (ha) of being spectator to a conversation regarding art. What art is, whether or not a certain medium is art, or should be considered art. My mind hearkened back to a class in high school in which similar subject matter was discussed. Write down your definition of art. What mediums should be considered art and why? What makes something art? Is everything art? Is whether or not something is art decided by the person viewing the medium? If a god created the universe, is the universe art?
As I look back on that particular class, I realize that my reaction back then is the same as my reaction to the more recent conversation. And that reaction simply is: "Wait a minute, why the hell are we talking about this?"
Does it really matter whether or not your trade is considered art? Why does one feel the need to defend themselves as "artists", and their work as "art"? If you consider what you do to be art, and someone else thinks otherwise, what is the point of arguing over it? If you enjoy what you do, or you are good at it, (or you're lucky enough that both of these statements apply to you), why should it matter whether or not what you are doing is art?
For example, I'll use video games, the artistic merit of which is often scrutinized. Some people such as Roger Ebert claim that video games are not art. Others, namely a lot of people who play video games, will argue against Ebert's position. I submit that both parties are engaging in a waste of time. I play a lot of video games, but I'm not going to be upset when Roger Ebert thinks that they aren't art. Meanwhile, I'm not going to spend any time or energy arguing over anyone else's opinion on the matter, especially when the opinion belongs to someone I will never meet in person. It doesn't matter, because I'm going to keep playing video games anyway, regardless of whether or not they have artistic merit.
Here's another example: I'm a computer programmer. Should programming be considered art? Most people would probably say "no". After all, what do programmers even do? Manipulate a bunch of numbers into doing something? There's no art in that, obviously. But wait! Aren't there certain creative aspects of software design? After all, we're using graphics based operating systems, aren't we? Aren't there visual aspects to every program? Don't the basic principles of design still apply?
Even looking beyond the obvious visual aspects, isn't there a certain degree of artistry in programming itself? There are plenty of ways to program a computer into performing any task. One has to consider all the different ways to do what needs to be done, choose the one that he/she thinks is best, and even then, who's to say that the method the programmer chose is the best method? Is there really such a thing as a "best method"?
Plus, isn't there a certain a bit of art in the presentation of code? There are lots of creative liberties there. Are you going to keep well organized code, or sloppy code that is difficult for others to read? How are you going to describe what your program does in your comments? What names will you choose for your classes, methods, variables, and so on? This might not seem all that important to many, but when other people are going to look at your code, these things should be taken into consideration. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they code; in fact, a person's code is a reflection on who he/she is. Expression of the self. If that doesn't sound like art, I don't know what is.
So I've proven that you can argue for programming being an art. Would I actually want to, other than for this example? No I wouldn't. Whether or not programming is "art" is irrelevant. Programming is just a thing that I do. I enjoy doing it, and I'd like to think that I'm somewhat talented at it, so I will continue to do it. Of course, my field is not seen as an art traditionally, and perhaps some in fields that are considered arts will feel differently. In my thought process, however, I don't normally gauge something in whether or not it is art. To me, there are simply things that are good and things that aren't. If I think something is good, it will be good regardless of its implied status as art.
In closing, I've used the word "art" 31 times in this post, and I now plan to refrain from typing that particular word again for the next 37 years or so.
I recently had the pleasure (ha) of being spectator to a conversation regarding art. What art is, whether or not a certain medium is art, or should be considered art. My mind hearkened back to a class in high school in which similar subject matter was discussed. Write down your definition of art. What mediums should be considered art and why? What makes something art? Is everything art? Is whether or not something is art decided by the person viewing the medium? If a god created the universe, is the universe art?
As I look back on that particular class, I realize that my reaction back then is the same as my reaction to the more recent conversation. And that reaction simply is: "Wait a minute, why the hell are we talking about this?"
Does it really matter whether or not your trade is considered art? Why does one feel the need to defend themselves as "artists", and their work as "art"? If you consider what you do to be art, and someone else thinks otherwise, what is the point of arguing over it? If you enjoy what you do, or you are good at it, (or you're lucky enough that both of these statements apply to you), why should it matter whether or not what you are doing is art?
For example, I'll use video games, the artistic merit of which is often scrutinized. Some people such as Roger Ebert claim that video games are not art. Others, namely a lot of people who play video games, will argue against Ebert's position. I submit that both parties are engaging in a waste of time. I play a lot of video games, but I'm not going to be upset when Roger Ebert thinks that they aren't art. Meanwhile, I'm not going to spend any time or energy arguing over anyone else's opinion on the matter, especially when the opinion belongs to someone I will never meet in person. It doesn't matter, because I'm going to keep playing video games anyway, regardless of whether or not they have artistic merit.
Here's another example: I'm a computer programmer. Should programming be considered art? Most people would probably say "no". After all, what do programmers even do? Manipulate a bunch of numbers into doing something? There's no art in that, obviously. But wait! Aren't there certain creative aspects of software design? After all, we're using graphics based operating systems, aren't we? Aren't there visual aspects to every program? Don't the basic principles of design still apply?
Even looking beyond the obvious visual aspects, isn't there a certain degree of artistry in programming itself? There are plenty of ways to program a computer into performing any task. One has to consider all the different ways to do what needs to be done, choose the one that he/she thinks is best, and even then, who's to say that the method the programmer chose is the best method? Is there really such a thing as a "best method"?
Plus, isn't there a certain a bit of art in the presentation of code? There are lots of creative liberties there. Are you going to keep well organized code, or sloppy code that is difficult for others to read? How are you going to describe what your program does in your comments? What names will you choose for your classes, methods, variables, and so on? This might not seem all that important to many, but when other people are going to look at your code, these things should be taken into consideration. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they code; in fact, a person's code is a reflection on who he/she is. Expression of the self. If that doesn't sound like art, I don't know what is.
So I've proven that you can argue for programming being an art. Would I actually want to, other than for this example? No I wouldn't. Whether or not programming is "art" is irrelevant. Programming is just a thing that I do. I enjoy doing it, and I'd like to think that I'm somewhat talented at it, so I will continue to do it. Of course, my field is not seen as an art traditionally, and perhaps some in fields that are considered arts will feel differently. In my thought process, however, I don't normally gauge something in whether or not it is art. To me, there are simply things that are good and things that aren't. If I think something is good, it will be good regardless of its implied status as art.
In closing, I've used the word "art" 31 times in this post, and I now plan to refrain from typing that particular word again for the next 37 years or so.
No aaaaaaaaaaaaas - aaaaaaaaaa
Profile
Calendar
