Let us expound a little more on this subject of happiness. Let us talk about the growing contagion that aggravatingly puts laughably naïve greedy, selfish pursuit of the unique individual and their false "happiness" -- at odds with contributing to society.
There is a children's book called "The Giver" that is basically "1984" for kids. It is supposed to be another one of those cautionary tales about what happens if we let people that know what the hell they are doing to take too much control over dumbasses' lives. It talked about a ruling dictatorial government that controls every single aspect of people's lives. I admit, there were some weird parts; for example like how biological children were not allowed to live with their birth parents. As a matter of fact, physically-strong, well-balanced women were assigned the role of birth mothers, and then those newborns were taken away by force to be raised by an apparently adoptive couple. That part I take issue with, sure.
But the thing that struck a chord with me was, other than that weirdness, how exactly the authoritarian government controlled people's lives. In this book, if citizens displayed an affinity for some type of job duties, they were then steered into that direction to pursue that particular career path. They were encouraged to study that track of education and training. And they were discouraged from practicing other career paths that they might not be as good at. Or they were discouraged from "following their hearts" and pursing some drippy, dragging, useless job that probably is not very useful to society, but which makes the person "happy."
Erm, maybe it's just me, but I do not see a problem with this. People should pursue careers and life choices that are useful so that they may be productive. So that they can become positively contributing members of society. Rather than just doing whatever the hell they want and inevitably becoming leeches to society.
What is this bullcrap notion that if people are encouraged to [[pursue]]] a future job that they would actually be good at, this somehow comes at a compromise to their happiness? "Oh no I am working in a job I am good at and making excellent leaps and gains; ohhh I'm so unhappy oh woe is me..."" Give me a damn break.
There's that idiotic idea again that a person could not possibly be happy with a job that is useful to society, in which they could probably accumulate a good list of accomplishments because they are good at it.
"How dare you tell this kid to pursue a career for which she displays an affinity!! How dare you encourage them to get a career that would make them actually useful to society such as scientist, fireman, doctor, teacher!! How dare you try to precaution this kid to get a job that would allow them to pay their bills and put food on the table!! How dare you <not> encourage this kid to pursue their 'passions' such as being a starving artist or puppeteer or musician!!"
Let us take a gander at the source material and see if it is any better. That "1984" book is often worshipped as an anthem for so-called "free-thinking" types that claim themselves to be against the "establishment" and think "outside the box." Bluh.
Have any of the people that worship at the altar of George Orwell actually read the book and stopped to truly analyze how incredibly stupid it is? Especialmente when taking into consideration all the numerous permutations of rebel nonsense. We see pop culture drivel on a daily basis where self-proclaimed rebels screw up their lives by having horrible life management, because they rebelled against their parents' advice, their parents being the "evil overlord establishment. Anyway.
This sniveling little wimp is apparently supposed to be the rebel hero of the book who tries to overthrow The evil overlord empire. He is supposed to be the "normal guy" that the reader is supposed to identify with and relate to. You know, how a lot of authors use this as a convenient literary device-- they stick in a character that has no personality nor purpose in the story, and they are present only to advance the author's "radical," "trailblazing" political opinions or whatever. They usually exist in these books that try to rebel against some evil government.
Let us take a closer look at this character. He is a sick ahole that fantasizes about raping and murdering a woman who has sworn some sort of celibacy. He is generally useless, has a useless life, has a useless job. He was probably put into that job because he had displayed some affinity for it, and therefore because he does a job he is good at, the evil overlord is to blame and this somehow makes this excuse-for-a-human's rppee fantasies okay.
This is the person that is supposed to be a hero??? This is supposed to be the spokesperson for average hard-working people??? This is no replacement for a genuine leader that is supposed to guide and usher the common people to the dawning of a new era. This pathetic sop, that for no apparent reason is a sick misogynist, is a sad sorry excuse. Screw this. I'd rather rule over him as the overlord.
There is a children's book called "The Giver" that is basically "1984" for kids. It is supposed to be another one of those cautionary tales about what happens if we let people that know what the hell they are doing to take too much control over dumbasses' lives. It talked about a ruling dictatorial government that controls every single aspect of people's lives. I admit, there were some weird parts; for example like how biological children were not allowed to live with their birth parents. As a matter of fact, physically-strong, well-balanced women were assigned the role of birth mothers, and then those newborns were taken away by force to be raised by an apparently adoptive couple. That part I take issue with, sure.
But the thing that struck a chord with me was, other than that weirdness, how exactly the authoritarian government controlled people's lives. In this book, if citizens displayed an affinity for some type of job duties, they were then steered into that direction to pursue that particular career path. They were encouraged to study that track of education and training. And they were discouraged from practicing other career paths that they might not be as good at. Or they were discouraged from "following their hearts" and pursing some drippy, dragging, useless job that probably is not very useful to society, but which makes the person "happy."
Erm, maybe it's just me, but I do not see a problem with this. People should pursue careers and life choices that are useful so that they may be productive. So that they can become positively contributing members of society. Rather than just doing whatever the hell they want and inevitably becoming leeches to society.
What is this bullcrap notion that if people are encouraged to [[pursue]]] a future job that they would actually be good at, this somehow comes at a compromise to their happiness? "Oh no I am working in a job I am good at and making excellent leaps and gains; ohhh I'm so unhappy oh woe is me..."" Give me a damn break.
There's that idiotic idea again that a person could not possibly be happy with a job that is useful to society, in which they could probably accumulate a good list of accomplishments because they are good at it.
"How dare you tell this kid to pursue a career for which she displays an affinity!! How dare you encourage them to get a career that would make them actually useful to society such as scientist, fireman, doctor, teacher!! How dare you try to precaution this kid to get a job that would allow them to pay their bills and put food on the table!! How dare you <not> encourage this kid to pursue their 'passions' such as being a starving artist or puppeteer or musician!!"
Let us take a gander at the source material and see if it is any better. That "1984" book is often worshipped as an anthem for so-called "free-thinking" types that claim themselves to be against the "establishment" and think "outside the box." Bluh.
Have any of the people that worship at the altar of George Orwell actually read the book and stopped to truly analyze how incredibly stupid it is? Especialmente when taking into consideration all the numerous permutations of rebel nonsense. We see pop culture drivel on a daily basis where self-proclaimed rebels screw up their lives by having horrible life management, because they rebelled against their parents' advice, their parents being the "evil overlord establishment. Anyway.
This sniveling little wimp is apparently supposed to be the rebel hero of the book who tries to overthrow The evil overlord empire. He is supposed to be the "normal guy" that the reader is supposed to identify with and relate to. You know, how a lot of authors use this as a convenient literary device-- they stick in a character that has no personality nor purpose in the story, and they are present only to advance the author's "radical," "trailblazing" political opinions or whatever. They usually exist in these books that try to rebel against some evil government.
Let us take a closer look at this character. He is a sick ahole that fantasizes about raping and murdering a woman who has sworn some sort of celibacy. He is generally useless, has a useless life, has a useless job. He was probably put into that job because he had displayed some affinity for it, and therefore because he does a job he is good at, the evil overlord is to blame and this somehow makes this excuse-for-a-human's rppee fantasies okay.
This is the person that is supposed to be a hero??? This is supposed to be the spokesperson for average hard-working people??? This is no replacement for a genuine leader that is supposed to guide and usher the common people to the dawning of a new era. This pathetic sop, that for no apparent reason is a sick misogynist, is a sad sorry excuse. Screw this. I'd rather rule over him as the overlord.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment