Personally, I'm sick of all the stereotype shit that's running around the globe these days. Every emo wants to kill him or herself, and every goth is a neofashistic killer. Not to mention the fact that everyone with long hair who likes dressing in black is a goth. And you know why? Because one emo who commited suicide, or one guy in a long, black coat (please note how it is constantly repeated that he wore a long black coat) killed a foreign girl and her nanny. I mean, puhlease! I dress how I like to dress, you dress how you like to dress. So what?
The way I see it, there are these two simple rules: 1. You bow to noone. Do not let other people have influence on who you are, or how you behave without you wanting to.
2. Do not make others bow to you. They are their own masters as much as you are yours. Introducing someone to a lifestyle, dresscode, hobby, whatever is fine. Forcing someone in it is not.
I like long hair, you do not. So what? If we can get along well, I don't really see a problem. If we don't get along well, well... Then I suggest we leave each other alone.
You would be surprised by the sheer amount of conflicts that would be prevented if everyone read this and gave it a good thought.
Good day
Ty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I don't fully agree.
I don't think it should be a "rule", not to bow to others. Bowing is not only a way to be submissive, which is negative, but also a way to show respect, and sometimes mutual respect.
On clothes: you are completely right. I couldn't agree more.
I mean, I've been dressed as a 1920's mob enforcer, as a punk, as a geek. and (except for being a geek) I'm none of those things.
I love black, but I'm not a Goth. I just think black is more aesthetically pleasing than any other colour, concerning clothing, and art.
Clothing can affect your behavior, but it shouldn't affect the way people talk to and about you. A mans clothing says a lot about him, but doesn't give away the way he is in company.
Snappy dressers are not per se good dancers.
People in wooly sweaters and big glasses aren't always socially incapable.
For the record:
'To bow' was meant as a metaphor. With 'bow' I meant 'change because other people want you to change.' I make a bow every time I greet your father.
For no aparent reason whatsoever...
I know you meant it as a metaphor. so did I. But bowing is not a metaphor for changing.
But never mind that.
Should Steve Jobs ask every mac user to buy a dvd he made, I'd do it!
Because I respect him. You change for those you respect and/or love.
Perhaps, but there is a difference between buying a dvd and changing (part of) who you are.
Should mr. Jobs ask you personally to stop listening to whatever music you like, and start listening to music you hate, for the rest of your life. Would you do it?
Or, even worse, should he ask you to wear tiny pink dresses from that moment on, would you do it?
Besides, if that person loves or respects you in return, he or she would most likely not ask you to change, at all...
If they don't like or respect me, I don't see why I should bother changing for them in the first place. I won't buy anyone's love. Either I have it, or I don't, which is what the original post was about. If you don't like me, leave me the hell alone.
Or get to know me better. But don't change for me, or don't expect that I'll change for you.
Also note that we are discussing lifestyles, and tastes. When you have done something wrong, like say, committed a crime, it is ok to change because others (in this case, society, through courts) ask you to...
And I'll save you my view on love for a future post... Maybe.
As for the metaphor, it means whatever the writer of the metaphor wants it to mean. I can write 'fluffy pink bunnies' while I am talking about huge, carnivorous beasts (or cement mixers, maybe computerchips?) It's up to the reader to find out what it means, and up to the writer to make the metaphore clear enough to see what it means...
Bowing is a metaphor for changing in that way that if you want to bow, you change your posture, making yourself smaller. You can do it out of respect, but originally, bowing was done to indicate you put yourself below the person you were greeting. The deeper the bow, the lower you were to the other person.
When you change ways for a person, you put yourself under that person by showing he has power over you, because he can make you change ways.
Good night
I do not say that I would change if a person I love or respect asked me to do it, or not right away anyway. But I'd change for them.
Should I realise I have, for example, let my mother down, in any possible way, I'd try to change, even if she should try not to show her discontent.
About bowing an metaphors: If we continue to look at things the way they were a thousand years ago, where would we stand?
I guess that's wat bowing meant in the middle ages, but I doubt that it means that now. There'd be a lot less bowing in Japan.
I guess that, instead of saying that you submit yourself to someone, that you feel yourself lower, it's a question of saying you're not bigger.
About your Steve Jobs examples: Those are over the top. I would not change those traits by myself, and neither with his help. Should he publicly announce that he does not like, hate and dispise gamers, I would very much reconsider my gaming lifestyle.
Ok, now you are contradicting yourself. You say you won't change if another person asks you, and in your next sentence, you state that you would change for them... Excuse me for finding this confusing. The example for your mother is different. If the way you are is directly or indirectly hurting someone else, then indeed, it is advised to adapt. But I repeat myself when I say the original post and discussion was about who and how you are. If who and how you are hurts someone else, maybe it is up to them to adapt...
As for your question, most likely somewhere in your school... No offense.
And again, it's a bloody METAPHOR! If I say a new rage will flush over the countrey like a tidal wave, it doesn't mean we will all get very wet...
'To bow' was a metaphor for 'to submit' indeed.
Should he publicly announce that he dislikes, hates and dispises gamers, purely for the reason they like gaming, I would most likely concider him a bastard because in my opinion, judging someone by what he likes to do, or how he likes to dress, or whatever, is a form of discrimination, and lines up very well with judging people for what colour of skin, or what religious background they have.
If you would stop gaming, because, and only because one person, even if the person himself is a genious, asked you to, then you are lost...
I did not contradict myself, in any way. Read the sentence very closesly, and you notice that the difference is "for".
Should my being who I am, directly or inderectly, hurt the one I love, I would change myself: after all, the cause of the hurt lies with me.
And I know very certain that, should that person really love me, they wouldn't say it did.
For the rather irrelevant remark on my school (which is also dead wrong: my school specializes in quoting 1000 year-old people wrong), Could you tell my why you said that? It was a rethorical question.
You're right about the metaphor, about the fact that we shouldn't take metaphors literally, but still, metaphors and their meanings change. However: I didn't know your intention. You're right: your metaphor is right when you designate the meaning, which is how metaphors are used.
Point taken.
Of course, I am no fool, nor a religious fanatic. I would stop gaming, given a good reason.
Generally, if someone asks you to do something, and you do what they ask, you do it for that someone...
Or with the other person, who is apparently incapable of mustering the respect needed to take you the way you are...
If the person really loved you, they would not HAVE to tell you, as it would either not bother them, or they would take you and love you the way you are, respecting the 'lesser' sides of you.
I'm Ty. Master of continuing pointless discussions and answering rethoric questions just for the sake of annoying the one asking...
Good, that's settled then...
And... One person claiming he dislikes (/hates/whatever) gamers is a good reason? Poor, poor you...
Ty,
you just seem inable to grasp the idea that you can hurt people unintenionally, regardless of your lesser sides.
What if my way of acting at home would give my mother a daily migraine. She wouldn't say anything about it, because she loves me. But still, my way of acting hurts her.
Now, about Steve Jobs.
I would really like you to stop deriving pure nonsense from what I've said.
I have not said that disliking/hating gamers is a good reason. I would wonder what his reason was.
How narrow-minded do you think I am?
Post a Comment