Sunday, December 28, 2014
* Trolls on internet threads are fun to read, but their cyber sniping is clearly just divertissement--it can have no purpose other than to pass/waste time and reinforce one's pre-existing opinions. I read comment threads like I listen to debates: to be amused by the idiocy of those I disagree with (makes me feel superior) and to be impressed by the wit/reason of those I agree with (makes me feel superior). I also like to note mistakes in English usage and spelling (makes me feel superior).
* Both Paul Ryan and Prince Harry are rather handsome men, but they have horribly deformed noses. This may be the result of being born with a silver spoon in the wrong orifice.
* People seem to need, indeed, cannot survive without, a certain amount of pure escapism--fantasy--relief from reason. Reason--that quality that humans cherish above all others as the characteristic that makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals--is also a burden, a prison, a pain in the ass, something that we sometimes MUST escape into the irrational.
* Depending on how much of our being we give over to escapism we are either Republicans (lots of escapism) or Democrats (less escapism). People who have involuntarily lost their reason are known as lunatics. People who have voluntarily renounced their reason are known as Tea Partiers. (This isn't really a paradox, is it? Just a fact. The paradox is that the Tea Partiers--who have so clearly lost their minds--so often denounce their adversaries as lunatics who have lost their minds.)
* Slot machines are like right-wing politicians: the more noise they make about big payouts, the less they actually pay out. But the more likely they are to attract suckers.
* My 39-year-old nephew, unwilling to assume adult responsibility in any domain (holding a job, maintaining a relationship, living independently), is clearly a sociopathic parasite for whom my entire enabling, bailing-out family functions as a host (he lives, intentionally unemployed and blithely uncaring, with his parents). Some of us have at last understood that he is unlikely ever to change (especially given the familial cocoon in which he lives) and that we can do nothing beyond trying to protect ourselves from being used, trying to isolate ourselves from him, endeavoring to shake him off (or "up") without actually destroying either him or our family unit. But others (like my sister, his aunt) seem to derive actual satisfaction from being exploited and emotionally mistreated on a fairly regular basis. What accounts for this? What makes a host "need" its parasite? Is this some sort of "co-parasitism"? Would my sister be unhappier long-term if our nephew stopped making her unhappy short-term? Are we all nuts?