Stylistic Superiority: Thoughts on Approaches to Writing

It's funny to me, that there would actually be people out there who would shit all over so-called "pantsing", IE "Writing by the seat of your pants", not doing a ton of planning, just sitting down and letting the story flow out of you, and evolve as you write it. Why? Because SO many writers, including a whole hell of a lot of very well known and successful writers, are "pantsers".

I can't tell you how many times I've read successful writers say that "my stories write themselves", "this is this character's story, and they're just telling it to me", or expressing how their own stories, even though they may come up with the core concepts and put a lot of thought into the overall story, will regularly surprise them, as they're writing it. That the story will go in directions or create moments that they had never even thought of. I know for a fact that this has happened to me in my own writing. I've written chapters and gone on entire arcs within a story, that I had not originally foreseen, but that just came out as the story was unfolding.

But here's the thing. There is nothing wrong, at ALL, with "pantsing". In fact, to be perfectly blunt, I'd go as far as to say that that is the more traditional, artistic approach to writing. Meaning, that I'd also be willing to wager that MORE of the most well known, most successful authors of all time than not, people like H.G. Wells, or Mary Shelly, or Mark Twain, or Ray Bradbury, or Stephen King, etc. etc. etc., have been "pantsers".

That isn't to say that there is anything at all wrong with being a "planner", someone who sits and meticulously plans and plots out a story. JK Rowling, at least to some extend, did that with Harry Potter. But I do not think that one approach or "style" to writing and story-building, is "superior" to the other. Being a "planner" is NOT better than being a "pantser", any more than being a "pantser" is better than being a "planner". It's all about you, the person, the creator, and what feels write to you, and what works best for you. And frankly, I feel if someone is trying to sell you on one way being "inferior" to another, they're full of shit. 

There are writers, I guarantee you, that couldn't "write by the seat of their pants" to save their lives. But there are probably also "pantsers" who simply couldn't bring themselves to sit and elaborately plan. Because it doesn't work that way for them, just as the opposite is likely true. A certain amount of planning is good for ANY story. But then again, some of the very best, and likely most famous stories of all time, were sat and wrote spontaneously, with zero planning whatsoever.

And if you ask me, someone who would shit all over planning because they happen to be a "pantser", or conversely a "planner" who shits all over "pantsing", is just an asshole. Just because Bob Ross had a very specific, and successful, way of painting, didn't mean that he would ever dream of telling painters of OTHER styles that their way is shit, that you HAVE to paint like him if you want to paint good pictures, and if you don't paint like him you're doing it wrong. Why? Because he wasn't an asshole. And if you're a writer, who actually wastes your time trying to tear down other writers, and other styles and approaches than your own? You're an asshole. Because no self-respecting artist, of any field, should waste their time and energy, let alone show such enormous disrespect. Art is intensely personal, it is literally self-expression, first and foremost. And especially with something as personal as art, what works for one person, may not work for another.

The best approach to writing, is literally whatever works best for YOU, the individual writer. There is no "secret sauce" or magical technique to becoming a great and successful writer. The core of fiction writing is one thing, as far as I'm concerned: being able to tell a good story, and CARING about the story you're telling. Everything else is secondary to the story, and anything that doesn't serve the story, is extraneous. Yes, it is absolutely essential that you have your fundamentals down, know how to competently and clearly write, how to properly form sentences and paragraphs, how to spell words, etc. It also doesn't hurt to have an idea of HOW to tell a good story. But there is no secret formula to telling a good story. You're either able to, or you're not. So if you feel you have a story to tell, and feel strongly enough about telling it? Then take your shot, take a crack at it. Are there ways to refine and improve and evolve your art, your ability to tell that story? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, approach and style are just details. One approach is not superior to another. It's whatever works for you, whatever serves your story best, whatever helps you TELL that story best. 

Jamal Lewis: More Than Worthy of the Hall

It is ridiculous how much Jamal Lewis gets overlooked as a Hall of Fame candidate, even though he clearly belongs. Here's another article, talking about 12 RBs who have "cases" to be enshrined someday, and Lewis is not listed among them. Even though he has the one thing that, by my count, NONE of those listed ever got: A ring.

Not only did Jamal Lewis win a Super Bowl, but he did so as the featured back and primary offensive weapon of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. As a rookie. In fact he set an NFL Record for first rookie to have 100 yards rushing in a Super Bowl. And if he hadn't suffered a freak injury in the 2001 offseason, he might very well have helped the 2001 Ravens repeat as SB Champs, with that same D largely intact.

In addition to his SB rookie record, and the fact that he actually HAS a ring, Jamal Lewis also has 10,000+ career rushing yards, which believe it or not puts him in pretty exclusive company. A little over 2000 of those yards came in 2003, when he won Offensive Player of the Year, on the back of a 2000+ yd. rushing season, which saw him come just 39 yards shy of Eric Dickerson's single season rushing record. He surpassed the likes of OJ Simpson, Barry Sanders, and Terrell Davis. Until Adrian Peterson surpassed him in 2012, he held the #2 single season record. He is still #3, and is one of only 7 RBs in NFL history to rush for over 2000 yards.

Again, that exclusive company, the 2000 yd. club, the 10,000 yd. club, the rookie SB record, being one of only so many RBs who have ever actually WON a SB ring, and more, should have already put Jamal Lewis in the HoF. He was a big player, who was an absolute wrecking ball on the field, with a hard and punishing running style that not only hurt his opponents, making him one of the hardest men in the NFL to bring down, but it also took its toll on his own body. Jamal Lewis gave his body and future health to the sport, as this Bleacher Report article illustrates. 

His straight ahead, bulldozing style, caused him to get numerous concussions over the years, and that's not including ones he got before the NFL. Jamal Lewis is a man who fights everyday, struggling with very real brain damage, and the very real possibility that it will only get worse over time. He's a man who gave his all, everything he had, to the NFL, to the sport of American Football. And that, along with his accolades, should make him worthy of enshrinement. 

So why isn't he in the Hall yet, when he retired in 2010? Why wasn't a 10,000 career yd., 58 career rushing TD, 2000+ yd. Offensive Player of the Year, former Super Bowl Champion, a so-called "First Ballot Hall of Famer"? Meaning getting voted into the Hall the first year you're eligible (players are eligible five years after retiring from the NFL). Why isn't a player who is, as the stats show, literally one of the best and most dominant running backs in NFL history, already enshrined with the league's most prestigious honor? Lesser players, without his accolades, without his ring, are already in. Other players who lack his accolades and ring, including some in that NFL.com list, will almost assuredly one day get in. And to me, the real question isn't just "WHEN will Jamal Lewis ever get put in the HoF?", but rather "WILL he ever get put in the HoF?"

It surely isn't a matter of deserving or having earned it. He did, in spades. As far as I'm personally concerned, the only thing that even slightly diminishes his career, is the fact that he wasn't able to play his entire NFL career as a Baltimore Raven. Ironically, he spent his final three seasons, from 2007-2009, with the very same AFC North rival Cleveland Browns that he made history against. In his 2003 OPOY season, He gashed the Browns for 500 of those 2066 yds., setting the single game rushing record of 295 yds. in one of the two contests. That mark also stood until Peterson surpassed it by one yard in 2007. And I say that in light of his unfortunate 2004 suspension and jail-time, stemming from what essentially was a case of entrapment, and a crime Jamal has vehemently denied ever committing. Even in the face of that four game suspension, he still rushed for over 1000 yds. in 2004. 

I'll admit, that as a long-time Baltimore Ravens fan, having watched that 2000 Super Bowl that he (and the team) dominated, the only offensive shut out in Super Bowl history in point of fact, I am a tad biased. But the fact that Lewis is one of my favorite players of all time, doesn't diminish what he accomplished in his career. In his prime, he was easily one of the Top 3 best RBs in the entire NFL, next to the likes of Ladainian Tomlinson and (former Raven and fellow 2000 SB winner) Priest Holmes. In 2012, the same year they finally won a second Super Bowl, the Baltimore Ravens put Lewis into their own Ring of Honor. An honor that he absolutely deserved, being their franchise All-Time Rushing Leader. Now it's time to put him in the NFL Hall of Fame where he also belongs. 

The 2019 class has already been picked, and Jamal isn't part of it, though fellow Raven Ed Reed is (as a "First Ballot" inclusion, which Reed deserves). But in the next few years, I hope the 48 member committee responsible for choosing players for enshrinement each year, will do the right thing, will get beyond any possible league politics or anything else that could be holding him out from inclusion, and put one of the game's best players, where he so rightfully and deservedly belongs.      

Scary Times...

It certainly is a very scary time for girls growing up. But let's not pretend it isn't also a scary/hard time for boys growing up. It's a scary time for EVERYONE. Harassment and assault are very real for girls. But it also exists for boys. And FALSE accusations happen a lot more than people seem to want to think. I've written about it before, but just in my life alone, I have known MANY people, including close friends and my own father, who were falsely accused of SOME manner of abuse, and in at least two cases, yes rape.

Frankly, I'd be just as terrified to be raising a girl in this time, as I would a boy. It's equally dangerous for both. Acting as if ALL boys in our society have it easier because of in-born "privilege", simply because they ARE boys, is not only bigoted, it's intellectually and morally bankrupt. And while the threat of a girl being harassed or assaulted is VERY real, and horrible, that threat also exists, and is often diminished/dismissed for boys. In fact, even by many feminists and so-called victim advocates, boys are often derided or even shamed for coming forward about abuse or assault (often at the hands of girls/women).

Furthermore, this cute little trend of basically mocking the idea that "It's a scary time for boys", ignores the flat-out BLEAK reality that many boys do actually face growing up today in America. Yes, there are MANY awful threats and challenges that girls today face, INCLUDING the very real and very evil possibility of being assaulted. But when deciding to mock "This is a scary time for boys", you might try knowing a few very cold hard facts first, including but not limited to:

*Boys/men have a FAR lower rate of ever reporting abuse or assault, because they are often not only dismissed, but sometimes they are even mocked and humiliated further for doing so. Because "men don't get assaulted", etc.

*Even when many boys/men DO seek help, they are often turned away, either because facilities aren't set up to HELP males, or else the facilities that exist simply aren't INTERESTED in helping males. So they are left to face their problems on their own, in silence.

*Boys have a higher high school drop out rate today.

*Boys have a lower college attendance rate today.

*In conjunction with this, there are far more organizations and structures in place today, helping girls in education and even getting into certain work fields, that in many cases simply do not exist as options for boys.

*Boys/men have a FAR higher chance of being met with physical violence, and are far less likely to receive sympathy or care for being the victim of violence.

*Men have a higher unemployment rate.

*There is a FAR higher homelessness rate in men, it's not even close.

*There is also a FAR higher suicide rate in boys/men. Something like 80+% of suicides worldwide, across ALL cultures, are male.

*There is also a FAR higher incarceration rate for boys/men, even for lesser offenses. The vast majority of U.S./World prison populations, are men. The vast majority of kids in juvenile facilities, are boys. It is a statistical fact that girls/women often get lesser sentences or even no sentence for the same offenses. U.S. law tends to be more lenient on women, across the board.

*Boys are legally required, by penalty of SEVERE punishment (up to 5 years in prison or a huge cash sum), to sign up for "Selective Service" (essentially a precursor for any possible future military draft). If they do not sign up for SS, they cannot get things like Financial Aid for college, etc. Girls are not legally required to sign up for SS at all.

The list could honestly keep going, but these are all horrible realities, in today's America, that boys face growing up. Which flies directly in the face of these intellectually hollow "Privilege Theory" ideals, stating that someone has automatic "Privilege" if they are born a certain gender. Is there SOME piece of truth in that? Sure, in some cases. But the reality of "Privilege", is far more along economic lines, and kids being born into wealth, or even cushy Middle Class living, versus kids who are born into working class families, or relative poverty, as I was.

The truth is, YES, it IS a scary time for girls. But to act like it isn't ALSO a scary time for boys, and mocking or dismissing that fact, as if being born with a penis automatically gives you a "Golden Ticket" to life? That is just being an ignorant asshole, spitefully unaware of harsh life facts. The truth is, it's a scary time for EVERYONE, particularly children of EITHER gender, or ANY ethnicity. I very much want to have children some day, but I know that, regardless whether they are boys or girls, they are going to be born into a MUCH darker, scarier world than the one I was born into (and that's saying something). It's not a contest, as to "who has it worse, boys or girls, men or women". We're all human, and face HUMAN problems. 

How about we all focus on that, and try to make the future brighter and safer for ALL of them, instead of continuing to divide ourselves along these ignorant, childish, petty, manufactured lines?  

The Cult of Superiority

First a disclaimer: I do not have anything personal against vegans who aren't obnoxious, belligerent, bullying assholes about their lifestyle choice. There ARE vegans are totally chill, reasonable, rational, respectful human beings. It just so happens that there are a LOT of vegans out there, who have absolutely earned their negative reputation as snotty, confrontational, entitled, self-righteous assholes. The following is addressed to THEM.

A few reasons why, even though not ALL vegans act/think this way, that veganism at large is a cult:

1. They truly believe that their dietary choice makes them better people, in fact, superior people, to those who choose to use animal products, especially those who eat meat.

IE They believe they have the One and Only Truth, and knowing it makes them the best people on the planet.

2. They genuinely believe that it is impossible to love animals, or care about Nature/The Planet, if you eat meat. They also believe that eating meat essentially makes you an ignorant, even bad/evil person.

IE People who do not follow their doctrines are "sinners" and "heathens", who either need to be condemned, or "saved".

3. They genuinely believe that veganism is THE only way to go, and THE only thing that is going to save the world. They believe this so much, that they constantly proselytize it, and actively desire to keep on spreading veganism until everyone on earth is vegan.

IE It isn't merely a dietary or lifestyle choice as far as they're concerned, they believe it is "The Way", and they wish to spring this "One and Only Truth" to the masses, to "save" us from our own ignorance and evil.

Even one of those things, let alone all three, are textbook examples of a cult. Many vegans literally worship at the altar of veganism, and consider everyone who is not part of their elite group, lesser beings. None of this is hyperbole or fabrication, because I've based it 100% off of vegan propaganda and sentiments I've seen expressed across various internet and social media forms.

Word to the wise: Your dietary or lifestyle choices do not make you "superior" to anyone. And while farming practices do absolutely need to change/improve, no, you don't need to spread your "superior" ways to anyone else. And yes, people can care VERY much about the planet, in fact likely far more than you claim to, while also choosing to eat meat. Keep your bullshit to yourself, and respect those who don't choose to live that way. Otherwise, you don't deserve an ounce of respect yourselves.  

Thoughts of Death

As someone who has dealt with depression, loneliness, misery, and yes, even suicidal thoughts, for over half my life, I've gotta say....a lot of the things that are said and proliferated about depression and suicide really bother me.

For one thing, NOT everyone who is depressed, or even deals with LONG-term depression as I have, is "mentally ill". NOT everyone who has ever wanted to die, or to kill themselves, felt so because they "couldn't help it", because they had some chemical imbalance or mental "disease".

YES, some people genuinely have that, and it's awful. But NOT everyone who suffers these things does. Sometimes? Sometimes life just fucking sucks. Sometimes, the world is a cold, harsh, lonely, and shitty place to live, and the experience if LIVING in it, makes you so miserable, that you see no other way out of the perpetual hell, than to die. That isn't ALWAYS just some psychological issue. Sometimes, you're just hurting that much, and you want it to stop.

NOT everyone who has ever found themselves teetering on the edge of suicide, found themselves there because of "mental illness", or because they "couldn't help it". Just because that is the case for SOME people, does not make it the case for ALL people. And this notion that "suicide is just the final symptom of the disease called depression", is such an absurd, condescending statement that it actually makes me want to punch someone in the face.

AS someone who has very much wanted to die, at times BADLY, countless times in my life, I find it dismissive, insulting, and diminishing of what I was feeling and what brought me there to that place, to claim that my depression and my pain were "mental illness", I just "couldn't help it", and thoughts of suicide were a "symptom". No, thoughts of suicide were me NOT wanting to be miserable, hurting, and alone anymore.

And yes, suicide was 100% a CHOICE. Want to know how I know that? Because ultimately, I CHOSE not to kill myself. Weather it was being too chicken shit to do it, or some deeper part of me simply realizing that "Hey, look, if you go out like this, then your death will mean exactly what your life has: nothing. If you take your own life, alone, for nothing, your life WILL have been a lonely, pointless failure, just as you fear it already is, and you will have proven yourself right, that your life is worthless and not worth living." I don't want that for myself. I HATE being alone, and miserable, and sad, and angry, and depressed. It's gross, and if you've never truly BEEN there, you have absolutely no idea just how dark, and cold, and scary a place that is to actually be.

I told a friend once, when talking to me about the concept of "Hell", that I know "Hell". I know what it's like, because I've lived it, in some ways STILL live it, every day of my life, for well over half my life. I know "Hell", because, as I put it, it's a state of being, not some mythical place you go. When you're lonely, and angry, and frustrated, and hurting, and depressed, and miserable in your life? That is "Hell". There is no better or more apt way to describe it. And these are things that I usually don't talk to most people about, because quite frankly, it's not any of anyone's business, unless I choose it to be. And frankly, most people don't deserve to hear it.

But I choose to talk about it today, just like I've CHOSEN, countless times in my life now, NOT to kill myself, even though I was right back there, teetering on the edge of the good ol', familiar gaping Abyss. I full well realize that for SOME people, depression IS something that is a mental illness, and for SOME people, perhaps, JUST perhaps, though I still don't agree with the idea, suicidal thoughts are indeed just some "symptom" they can't help. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, suicide, like almost everything ELSE in life, is a Choice.

There is a hell of a lot to be said for the concept of "Mind Over Matter". The concept that the Power of your Will, is ultimately stronger than a lot of things life can dish out at you, yes even many illnesses. This pervading notion in modern psychiatry that people are essentially helpless victims of the things they suffer, and that they truly have no choice, unless of course they're paying for therapy or expensive medication. And while for SOME people, suicide may well be spurred on by some psychological malady that they have no control over, for a lot of OTHER people who have killed themselves in this world, or even simply HAD the feeling of "I want to die" ever in their life? You don't need to be mentally ill for that. You just have to be miserable, pushed that far, and see no other way out. It's not rocket science. It's just a shitty, dark reality of life for some people.

I know this, because I've lived it. And this notion that "Suicide ISN'T selfish", I'm sorry, is not only wrong in my view, it's also damn irresponsible. Why? Because even FOR those that are genuinely suffering from some kind of mental illness that is spurring on their depression, the reality, the TRUTH is, that yes, suicide is STILL a choice. 99% of the time in life, the tired cliche "I had no choice", is flat out wrong. You ALWAYS have a choice. The choices may not all be appealing or preferable, but you STILL always have a choice, in almost any situation you're facing.

And that includes killing yourself. So yes, I'm sorry, it may be a painful thing to hear, for those who have considered or even attempted suicide, as well as those who have suffered the suicidal death of someone close to them, but suicide IS a selfish CHOICE that people make. There is no two ways about it, as far as I'm concerned. I can't tell you how many times in my life I've told myself that "If I die or disappear tomorrow, no one I know will truly care, and my death would not really affect anyone I know, because no one I know honestly cares for me all that much." The bottom line was, I was trying to convince myself that if I killed myself, it wouldn't hurt anyone that I knew, that the only person I would be hurting was ME, except even THAT wasn't true, because I would be "Freeing myself from the pain of life". Which, you know, there IS some truth to that. But at the same time, how do I know that the few people in my life, WOULDN'T be hurt by my suicide? How do I know that there isn't at least even ONE person out there who knows me, who would not only be hurt, but permanently affected by my choosing to end my own life?

The truth is, I DON'T know that. Which means, that like ALL suicide, hell, like a LOT of depression, it is a very selfish head-space to be in. Why? Because you're not thinking about ANYONE else but you. You're focused on your pain, your loneliness, your misery, whatever. It's 100% about you. And trust me when I tell you, deep depression, the kind where you are SO low you actually think about wanting to die? That's some serious shit. And you can talk yourself into all kinds of stupid shit, whether it's actually true or not. Things like "my family wouldn't care if I died" or "the people in my life would be better off with me gone", etc. When you're in that head-space, you can and WILL tell yourself anything and everything you need to hear, to convince yourself that it would, essentially, be OKAY to kill yourself. That it's NOT going to really hurt anyone else, that it might even HELP them or be "better" for them somehow. THAT is what being in that head-space is like.

And this is not about shaming anyone. This is not about dismissing the seriousness and severity of depression and suicide. TRUST me on that. I don't personally know a single soul who knows living with pain and loneliness and anger, and just being trapped in your own headspace, wrapped up in your own misery, where ALL you want to see is that Darkness, than I have. There was a time, when I was on a home school field trip, at the age of 17, to go to Yosemite National Park. We climbed up Half Dome, to the top, and were hanging out, resting, and there I was, standing at the edge, looking over. And while the people around me, kids, families, even a couple of my own friends, were all just chilling out and having a good time, do you want to know what I was doing? I was thinking about jumping off. I was thinking about getting a running start, and leaping straight off to my death, because in my own words "I'll never have a better way to go, and I'll never be any closer to feeling like I'm flying".

I gave no real thought, in that moment where I was really considering it, to how it would ruin those families' day, or week, or month. I gave no thought to how it might scar those poor kids for life, even. I certainly gave no thought to how it might hurt my friends, because remember, they won't really miss me too bad, they'll get over it, and their lives will likely be better without me around. And all of that? That was SELFISH. It was me, wrapped up in my own pain and despair, which I usually kept all to myself, both because I didn't want to bother people with it, and because in many cases, people just didn't understand, or didn't want to hear it (because it's hard to hear, or deal with). But there it is. In that moment, I was only thinking of myself, and how I wanted to end MY pain, practically romanticizing Death, and seeing it as some grand release from all of this. I didn't think one bit, about all that it might do to the other people there, who would see someone kill themselves. Or to my friends who actually knew me. Or to the fun, innocent weekend everyone was having, that would be utterly destroyed because some teenager in pain thought it would be romantic, and ideal, to jump off of Half Dome.

There was a time that I actually considered killing myself in the kitchen of my first real job, with a knife. I gave no thought to how that would affect my co-workers, some of whom I got somewhat close with. How it would ruin their day, their week, perhaps the rest of their lives, to come in and find a dead body in a pool of blood in their work break-room. I gave no thought to how it might hurt or affect anyone but myself. Because, again, suicidal thoughts, and the act itself, ARE SELFISH.

There are so many other countless stories I could tell, of times I thought of dying, or trying to convince myself that no one really cares about me, and that my death would be just as unnoticed and meaningless as my life is. You try to convince yourself of the dumbest fucking horseshit when you're hurting and depressed. But like I said, anything and everything you have to tell yourself, to make it "ok" to do the deed. And for some people, is that the result of mental illness? Sure it is. But that doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. And that CERTAINLY doesn't mean that suicide is something that we, as survivors of it, or survivors of someone else who DID it, can't get mad at. Can't feel hurt by. Can't hate with all our hearts. Because guess what? Other people have that right too.

I KNOW only too well how horrible and awful living with pain and loneliness and depression really is. Because those things have been old friends of mine since I was at least 16 years old, perhaps in some respects even younger. I have not had, to be blunt, a very good or easy or happy life. It has been full of hardship, and pain, and many other very unpleasant things. I have more often than not felt isolated, alone, angry, and hurting, somewhere down deep. But in spite of all of that, I'm STILL here. Because I have made the CHOICE to be here, even in spite of how much it sucks.

And as I've said before, IF I had love in my life, IF I had the wife and children, the family, that I've craved and dreamed of since I was literally a little boy. Things that to this day I believe at my core, even in spite of how broken I am inside, how broken life has LEFT me inside, that they would make  me as close to happy as I am capable of being. And IF I had that love in my life, no matter HOW broken and hurting I might still BE inside, I would never desire, let alone CHOOSE suicide. Because here's the reality: perhaps on some level, I've been right in the past, up till now. I have "no one" in my life, I have no wife, no kids, no family. If I killed myself tomorrow, there is a VERY very small handful of people that would probably affect, and who knows how much. But they would, in all likelihood, even if it did hurt them, find a way to move on. It would STILL be selfish of me, but less so. But if I had a wife and kids? Or even JUST a wife? And to kill myself THEN? My God. How fucking self-involved, self-absorbed and how much of an outright colossal, callous DICK would I be, to hurt her THAT much? To do THAT to her?

Because THAT is the reality of suicide. For the person who killed themselves, it's over. It's done. It's sad, but they're gone now. And whatever comes after, IF anything comes after, well all of that is going to sort itself out whether you want it to or not. But just like ANY kind of death, what matters once the death has occurred is NOT the dead. They are gone. What matters are the LIVING, who are left behind. Period. And with respect to that, yes, when you have people who LOVE you, even NEED you, in your life, and you kill yourself? That was a selfish choice. The ULTIMATE selfish choice. Because you were only thinking of yourself. If I were to do that to my wife, my kids, were I to have them, it would destroy their whole world, it would flip everything upside down, and they would be permanently hurt and scarred from that, for the rest of their lives. How absolutely self-centered do you have to be, in THAT selfish of a state of mind, to willingly hurt people you claim to love and care about, THAT much?

Yes, there is something to be said for mental illness, and being in THAT much pain and "not being in your right mind". I know a bit about that too, whether I consider my depression "mental illness" or not. And as I said earlier, NO one should be shamed, while they're still alive and hurting, about feeling like they want to die. This isn't ABOUT shame. But it IS about being honest, and telling ourselves the Truth. The TRUTH about suicide. It is not some "final symptom" of depression. It is an ultimate and final act, that we DECIDE on, that we CHOOSE, no matter what frame of mind we're in.

Yes, people who are depressed and hurting DO need help. They absolutely need help, if nothing else just in the form of people who will stick with them, and stand by them no matter what, while they weather their own private storm, their own private hell. Depression and THAT kind of emotional pain, it's hard as FUCK to live with, especially for a very long time. And I have every bit of sympathy and empathy for people who are suffering with it, because I KNOW exactly what it's like. But even so, I'm sorry, but don't even TRY to tell me, that suicide isn't a choice. That it ISN'T selfish. Because it absolutely is.

It is entirely possible, to be sensitive and empathetic to someone's pain and despair, and the sensitive, very dark and very real nature of depression and suicide. And to STILL also not sugar coat shit, and not try to tip-toe around the unpleasantness, and outright EVIL of it, at its core. Let's be honest about what this shit is, and what it MEANS, not just for the people suffering it, but for those people in their LIVES as well.

Love, REAL love, is when you care about someone else, MORE than you care about yourself. And believe me when I tell you, I KNOW what it's like to feel like you aren't loved, that you've NEVER truly tasted love. I know what it's like to feel like you don't really have anyone. And that's a shitty, empty, scary place to be. I know, I live there, and have pretty much all of my life. So in that frame of mind especially, it's easy to convince yourself no one cares, and that your death will mean nothing, and hurt no one. But again, IF I finally had that love that I crave, that I NEED, in my life? I would never, COULD never do that to them, even if I hurt inside for the rest of my days. Why? Because they would matter far more to me than I would to myself. My love for THEM, would mean far more to me than my own selfish pain and brokenness. I would literally choose to live for them, because even if I'm somehow incapable of ever being TRULY happy, they damn sure would make me as close to that as I could possibly get. I would want to live as long as I could, as a matter of fact, to get as much time with them as I possibly could, and that means that much more coming from someone who has lived the better part of 40 years of life feeling utterly alone. And I CERTAINLY, would not ever make that selfish choice, to end my life, to hurt them and smash their lives apart like that. For what? So my pain can end? And I can leave them with the sadistic, selfish "gift" of lifelong pain because of what I chose to do instead?

I know this is a very touchy topic, and my blunt views on it seem to rub some people the wrong way. But I still feel like these are things that need to be said, that I have to say. Even if only a few people read them. Depression and thoughts of suicide are SUPER serious, and deserve to be treated and taken so. But that doesn't mean we coddle people who are in that space, or make suicide out to be some tragic, unavoidable thing some people just couldn't escape. Because that is incredibly untrue. AS someone who has dealt with depression and thoughts of death for over half my life, I refuse to believe that suicide is something some people "just can't help, that they had no choice". I'm sorry, but bullshit.

If you've made it this far, and find yourself disagreeing with what I've said, or let's say I've even upset you, well, I apologize. Not for my earnest, from the heart thoughts and feelings on the matter. But sorry you were upset, because that wasn't my intent, or for whatever reasons simply could not see my point of view. However, I do hope that the things I've said, harsh or not, blunt or not, have reached or spoken to SOMEONE. Because these are thoughts and feelings from a survivor, from one who knows exactly what it's like to be there, to feel that. These words are coming from a good place, at least to me. I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, and the power of choice and will. We are free agents, and life is a series of choices we make, moment to moment, day after day. And that doesn't change, whether you're miserable, or genuinely suffering mental illness. You still have a choice.

I think that should be an empowering message. I think people should realize that, embrace it, and spread it. Yes, we need to be there for people and try to help them out of their Darkness. But the truth is, NO one can fully pull you out of that Darkness for you. Everyone has to ultimately choose to lift themselves out of it. Depression is a valley that each of us navigates alone. It absolutely helps, and is perhaps even integral, to have people there to listen to us, to just be there, to be around, to lend their strength, or moral support, or whatever. But it's STILL a solo journey, and a very hard, shitty one. 

But I think the message of "Mind Over Matter" is important. Don't tell people they can't help it. Tell people they CAN help it. Tell them they always DO have a choice, and don't HAVE to die. There CAN, and SHOULD be a tomorrow for them, and they can CHOOSE to wake up tomorrow and greet it. The power of choice, personal choice in our moment to moment lives, is the ONLY power we as humans actually possess. And I think that should be an incredible source of inspiration. On the one hand, realize that by killing yourself, you are selfishly hurting those who care about you, perhaps permanently. Why would you want that? And on the OTHER hand, what could possibly be more powerful, more uplifting, than the knowledge that you always hold within you the power to CHOOSE for yourself. You don't have to let despair and pain and death beat you. Those things don't OWN you, and you owe them nothing. They are not your master, you are theirs, and you can defeat them, day after day, by CHOOSING to live, in spite of everything. You can give yourself the chance at a better tomorrow, by choosing tomorrow for yourself.

Just some food for thought....

Tools of Destruction

Once again, another senseless, tragic (mass) shooting has occurred, and more people who should be alive right now, are dead, because someone had a bad day, or a bad life, etc.

My three cents on the issue:

 1. Yes, people with mental health and psychological/emotional issues DO need help, they DO need people to be there for them, and they DO need healthy outlets.

 2. Having said that, while we do need to understand and confront the PROBLEM, murderers do not deserve empathy or understanding. Even IF someone has a mental illness, and "isn't in their right mind", if they do something awful, if they rape, or kill, it IS still a choice that person is making. That kid CHOSE to bring a loaded gun to that event. He CHOSE to murder innocent people before he took his own pathetic life. That was a choice, whether it was "in his right mind" or not. Shooters like that deserve zero empathy, once they have made that choice. Once you cross that kind of line as a person, IMO, fuck you. Those people then deserve nothing but what's coming to them.

 3. The endless "pro gun/anti-gun" debate, and whether "the problem is guns", or "the problem is mental illness", is honestly incredibly tiresome and gross. All people want to do is argue, and virtue signal (people ACROSS the "political spectrum"), and literally get nothing of any value actually DONE to change things, to save lives. Yes, obviously anyone who would do this kind of thing, IS mentally ill. That's a fact. And if you take all the guns away, ALL of them, yes, mental illness and people being broken inside and committing heinous acts will still exist.

But, as I have been pointing out to people for decades, guns, by simply existing, ARE a problem, no matter how people try to rationalize or argue the issue. Guns have one function: to kill/destroy. They are not a tool, like a knife, or a baseball bat, or a shovel, or a chainsaw, or a CAR, or whatever the hell else that people could care to bring up, that crazies HAVE used, in recent times more than ever, to hurt and murder others, that have some other use. Guns' sole function is to destroy. To fire a projectile through something and damage or destroy it. Period. And yes, that CAN be used to defend your home, or your family, or yourself, in case of attack. But that does not change the fundamental nature of the gun, which is inarguable: that it is a tool to harm/kill.

People like to bandy about cute slogans like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which, on the most base technical level, IS true. But it's absurd and so far beyond the point. Because while PEOPLE kill people, they are doing it WITH guns. Those GUNS are killing people, by being utilized to do the only thing they were ever meant to do. And to reiterate, yes, that IS a massive problem in and of itself. If guns didn't exist, at all, yes, the world could be and likely would still be a totally mental and scary place. But it would STILL inarguably be a less immediately dangerous one. If someone comes at you with a knife, or a bat, or even a car, you have options. You can at least TRY to flee, you can try to get out of the way, or (excluding the car perhaps), you can even choose to fight for your life. With a gun, someone can hurt or kill you in the blink of an eye, before you can even react, without even trying. It takes zero real effort to squeeze a trigger, be it from point blank range, or from a great distance. There is little to no defense against a loaded gun, unless of course you yourself ALSO have a loaded gun. In which case, it becomes a "shootout" scenario, where you HOPE you're a better shot or a better wannabe commando than the other person, and meanwhile, innocent bystanders can STILL get hurt or killed, by either party.

The point being, that while the issue is FAR more complicated than "it's just guns", and mental illness, drugs, bad parenting, and societal failure/sickness in general, are ALL elements to this insanity. That doesn't change the FACT, that guns merely existing, makes it all so much worse, and so much more dangerous for everybody. Is there an easy answer? No, of course not. Because I can't just snap my fingers right this moment, and make all guns disappear. But, while ridding the world of guns at this point WOULD be hard, it is not impossible. It just would take serious work and concerted effort, and the actual will/desire to do so.

Guns are NOT the only problem, but people acting like they aren't even PART of the problem at all, are naive and ignoring simple, fundamental facts. Guns kill, they were MADE to kill, period. And they offer someone holding a loaded gun, a power over the life and death of ANYONE else around them, a power than can be exercised with, again, almost negligible effort. Mental illness DOES play a big part, as do all those other things. But that does not negate or alter the FACT, that so many shootings have happened, because someone was having a bad day, someone cut them off in traffic, someone said the wrong thing at the wrong time,  that was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", and they just so happened to have access to a loaded gun in that moment. And guess what? For a LOT of people, being presented that kind of power, ANY time, is dangerous, because most people with power, cannot handle it. They WILL abuse it, given the right motivations, the right circumstances. But people given that kind of power, to end someone else's life in the blink of an eye, without them being able to defend themselves, without you even having to really TRY to kill them, just squeeze a trigger, boom, they're hurt, or dead? In an irrational moment like that, that MOST of us have, where our day sucks, our week sucks, our LIFE sucks? Where you've had it, and you've just snapped, and here in your hand, in your power, is a thing that can kill people, BOOM, just like that? It's too much. 

There is, IMO, no such thing as a "responsible gun owner". There are people who have a high moral fiber and/or great self-discipline. And then there's most other people. A LOT of people, who are generally not "bad people", given the proper circumstances, and then presented a thing that can allow them to act out or vent in the most extreme or evil way possible? A lot of those people would pull the trigger. Why? Because that power is there, they aren't "in their right mind", and the most compelling reason: because they can. I know for a fact, even though I am a good and rational and moral person, that there have been many times in my life, when I've just fucking HAD it, I'm on the point of snapping, because of shitty neighbors, or a really bad day, or work being dogshit, or having a fight with someone, you name it. Where if I had a loaded gun anywhere NEAR me? Even though I am loathe at the thought of just MURDERING someone? I can't say that temptation wouldn't still be there, and be STRONG, that all I had to do was pick it up and pull that trigger. And even for the most "responsible gun owner" in the world, I don't care who you are, there ARE going to be a set of circumstances,  where that would COULD be true for them too.

 It is incredibly rare, almost impossible to find, to have a person who CAN'T be, in the most extreme scenarios, pushed too far, pushed THAT far. That isn't to say all those people are BAD people. But life can really suck, PEOPLE can really suck, and IMO, the existence of a tool that can SO easily kill, the existence of something that SO quickly and SO easily can give you the ultimate power over someone else, you getting to choose whether they live or die? That is not a power that most people should ever have. That isn't spoken from a PRO or ANTI gun "stance". That is just, at the end of the day, practical common sense.

 And yes, I have personally thought out the scenario: "What if my home was attacked by someone with a gun?/ What if I was out somewhere and attacked by someone with a gun?/ What if I HAD a wife and family, and they were threatened by someone with a gun?" And that's a tough, shitty question to ponder. I WOULD want to be able to defend myself, and CERTAINLY would want to be able to defend my family. In fact, if somewhere were threatening me with a gun, much LESS a prospective mate and children, I can tell you right now, if I ALSO had a loaded gun in that scenario? I'd be extremely tempted to empty the goddamn clip into them, not just to stop them, but for having the audacity to threaten MY life or the lives of people I love, in the first place. That is how I would feel, even though I am generally AGAINST guns and AGAINST killing, in that moment.

I DO get that mentality, for sure. But that still doesn't change the nature of the gun. And frankly, human society is NEVER going to progress, until we actually make the conscious CHOICE, to progress past our paranoia and obsession with weapons, with guns, and bombs, and vile, evil things like man-made viruses and chemical weapons, etc. Is that "pie in the sky"? Sure, you can say it is. But it's also the Truth. Humanity will NEVER experience meaningful progress as a race, until we are actively willing to let go of our tools of destruction, and move on from them. There is no other way about it. The "next step" in our evolution as a people, is impossible, without evolving BEYOND things like guns. And for us to survive, that moment in our history HAS to come about, sooner rather than later.

 No, it isn't easy, and there IS no easy answer, unfortunately. But it's either believe that it IS possible, and that it CAN happen, that it eventually HAS to happen and WILL happen. Or else you adopt the absurd (and far too common) attitude that "oh it'll never change", and succumb to the reality that eventually, humanity will just kill themselves off. Which is precisely what will happen if we never CHOOSE to evolve past tools of destruction. And personally, I choose to believe in a future where mankind actually grows the hell up, and that if I ever am lucky enough to get to HAVE children, that there IS a "Better Tomorrow" we can create, for them to inherit.

Scientific Facts

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. No matter someone's opinion on LGBTQ issues, science is science. Science doesn't change to fit feelings, it just fits facts. This is as bad as climate change denial, or "Flat Earth" theory. Nature/Biology is gendered, period.

And the scary thing is, this isn't a gag. It's serious, and seriously the idiotic, anti-science kind of shit they're starting to try teaching kids in ACTUAL schools now. Anatomy IS female or male. Humans DO exist as a "Gender Binary", just like every single OTHER mammal on the planet. That isn't up for debate, it isn't open to interpretation. It is hard, LONG-since-established scientific reality, easily and readily observable THROUGHOUT Nature. Not just in mammals, but in the VAST majority of beings on Planet Earth, including most plants and trees.

The silliest part of all this is, the entire POINT of "Being Trans", to people who feel they are Trans, regardless of anyone else's personal feelings on the subject, is SPECIFICALLY that they feel they are actually the opposite gender, of the TWO genders human beings biologically come as. Ignoring all of the myriad "gender fluid" static that some others talk about, the exact point of Trans, specifically, is that they feel they are the OPPOSITE gender than they were born as.

In fact, some of the same people who I'm sure support this "non-gendered sex education" bullshit in schools, the same people who actually with a straight face sit there and claim that "gender is just a social construct", are the SAME people who also claim that if you "misgender" a Trans person, IE see them and assume based on visual evidence (or otherwise) that they are one gender or the other (out of two), that constitutes as "hate speech". Which of course it doesn't, that is also not what hate speech is, and yet another example of just how dazzlingly anti-intellectual these types and their rhetoric actually are.

The bottom line is this: Scientific fact exists. Yes, many facts are debatable, and completely open to new data. But there are SOME very simple, very EASY facts, such as the fact that we NEED oxygen to breath (like most creatures on the planet except plants and trees), such as the fact that gravity exists and pulls things towards the ground, such as the fact that the Earth is verifiably "round", and such as the fact that almost ALL beings on Earth, and absolutely ALL mammal life on Earth, DOES exist in a "Gender Binary", that "Male and Female" are not only the default, but the ONLY genders natural Biology produces or recognizes.

So if you are one of these types, who actually try to argue differently, to argue against simple, obvious, long-established scientific FACT about human beings and gender, then no, you are no better, no smarter, and deserve no more respect or to be taken no more seriously, than people who earnestly believe that the Earth is flat. 

Culture Clash

It is incredibly disingenuous, even terrifyingly ignorant and arguably evil, to actually suggest that speaking up/out against the FACTS that the forced mass migration of Syrian/Etc. refugees to "Western" nations, has not gone smoothly, is "racism". No, attacking those people for simply being who they ARE, THAT is actual, literal racism.

But pointing out that you simply cannot take, especially in mass quantities (meaning by the thousands), people from one culture, and shove them into a nation with a VERY different, even opposite culture, and expect it to go smoothly? That's just shining a light on what's actually happening. It isn't (or shouldn't be) subjective opinion. It is objective FACT that for countries who have taken on mass refugee populations, in many cases FORCED without choice by the EU, etc., things are not going so great.

It is a statistical, objective FACT, that the rates of things like robberies, beatings, stabbings, shootings, people driving vehicles into crowds, public attacks, kidnappings, rapes, and outright murder, has increased in many of those nations, like the UK, like Germany, like France, like Sweden, etc., considerably, since taking on those refugee populations. Are ALL of those increased instances being perpetrated by the refugees? Are ALL refugees bad or dangerous? Of course not. But it they are still directly correlated realities.

It is sickeningly hypocritical, for example, for feminists to blather on about Western "rape culture" and all of this bullshit, and then be absolutely SILENT, or decry people pointing it out as "RACISM", when literally thousands of European girls and women have been raped (objective fact, not opinion, not conspiracy), in those nations since taking on refugee populations. And yes, MANY, if not a majority, of those rape cases have been carried out by immigrants. There are girls and women in Germany, and even in the UK, who now live in fear of so-called "rape gangs", and fear they can't even go out anywhere alone anymore.

Yet where are all the strong feminists, who shout from the rooftops about the "Western Rape Problem", when these things occur? Is it actually somehow justifiable to these people, to simply ignore ACTUAL rapes occurring, because the perpetrators belong to what they identify as a "protected minority victim group?" Are they actually saying that because these people are Muslim Refugees, that committing horrible acts of atrocity is forgivable?

Beyond that, there are the cultural and economic implications. People are branded "Racist" if they speak out on the very real fear, whether it is entirely well-founded or not, that their countries and their cultures are being "overrun" by immigrants. And yeah, looking at what some of them have to say, or at least the ways in which some of them choose to say it, YES, of course, there is some racism there. There was always going to be, and WOULD be in any similar scenario.

Imagine, if you will, for a moment, that the "Shoe was on the other foot", so to speak. Imagine if some massive war or atrocities broke out in Europe, and the United Nations sent "white" European refugees into Middle Eastern, Islamic countries. Or Asian countries, or African countries. What, exactly, do you think THOSE indigenous populations would have to say about that? How do you think a lot of THOSE people would react, to "white people" flooding their cities? How do you think they would react, to non-Muslim/Arab, or non-Asian, or non-African immigrants suddenly existing by the thousands in their homelands, and NOT integrating well, NOT really bothering to learn the languages or cultures, just spreading "White European" culture around, in the very streets of non-European lands.

Would that be okay? How would the "Social Justice" set react if that happened. How do they think the indigenous populations would react? Do you think everything would go over smoothly, or that there WOULDN'T be xenophobia and racism towards the European immigrants?  Do you honestly think there would NOT be a movement in those countries to give those "whities" that were moving in, the boot? Tell them "Euros Go Home", etc? That there WOULDN'T be people in those countries who would claim, rightly or not, that the European immigrants were "threatening their stability, their culture and their way of life".  Sentiments like "This is OUR land, not THEIRS", etc.?

And where would so-called "liberal" whites in places like the US and Canada stand? Would they express that the indigenous populations of those countries had a right to feel that way? To "protect their culture and cultural identity"? Or would they say the same thing they say to European folks who share the exact same views, and label them "racists", even going so far as to claim they "deserve to be overrun and out-populated in their own lands" (yes, I've seen that exact sentiment online, by white Americans). 

Of course, the entire issue anything BUT simple, nor are the answers and solutions easy. In the example of JUST the Syrian refugee crisis, yes OF COURSE those people need someone to live, temporarily, so that they can be safe until shit calms down in their own country. No one should claim that they have no right to flee for their lives. Everyone has a right to self-preservation, on some basic primal level. But the thing is, circling back around to the concept of a "Culture Clash", it really wasn't, and isn't, a great idea to just push those people, who come from a HEAVILY Islamic culture, into "Western" countries that are decidedly almost the polar OPPOSITE of heavily Islamic culture. It is going to be difficult for those people to just on the fly adapt to European culture and views and ways of life, and it is most certainly absurd to expect that the European host countries should CHANGE their cultures or views or ways of life, to suit what is supposed to be a temporary immigrant population. 

The bottom line is this: Those refugees are human beings, regardless of culture, religion, or any other man-made complexities. They deserve the chance to live peacefully, without fearing for their lives or safety, and it is obvious that they do not feel, or cannot be safe in their home countries right now. But firstly, they should have been sent to cultures far more similar to their own, where the "clash" would have been minimal at worst. And ideally, the END GOAL, should be for their home countries to IMPROVE, for conditions to IMPROVE, so they can all go HOME. Their home, their land, their nation. They should strive to go back to their home eventually, and change it for the better. THAT should be the end goal of this entire circumstance, not for these populations to simply take root in Europe, or Canada, or the US, or Australia, etc. There is nothing saying some of them CAN'T make a home and a life in those places. But fleeing their HOME, permanently, especially for the majority of the population, shouldn't be the goal.  

The Culture Clash is real, whether people want to openly and intelligently acknowledge it, or not. And while fears are rarely fully rational, there is still something to be said for one people's fear of being "overrun" by another. Racism and xenophobia may well exist in that fear, for some people. But it is foolish and idiotic to assume that the exact same WOULDN'T be the case if "White Europeans" were flooding into "non-white" lands. And in both cases, the indigenous population has SOME right, at least, to want to preserve and protect their own culture and identity and way of life. That doesn't mean it's right, or OK, for anyone to be an asshole about it. But just as an extreme, but real and legitimate example, British people are not automatically "racist", if they are uncomfortable or even frightened by the sight of, say, thousands of Muslims immigrants praying in a London park. Imagine how Muslims would feel, if thousands of European Christians, who were forcibly moved to their country, were gathering and holding Christian prayers in public streets, or public parks. Would those Muslim peoples be merely "racist" for being disturbed or frightened by that? Or would they be well within their rights, rational or not, to be concerned that "these white people are taking over our country"?

That isn't to say that people shouldn't be able to move where they want, and that every nation on earth should be this perfectly homogeneous, static, xenophobic monolith that never allows "outsiders" in. But it IS to say, that it isn't necessarily "bigotry", for people to have a legitimate concern, especially in the face of very real non-integration issues and rising refugee-related crimes, that "shit's getting out of hand". It isn't anymore "Racist", if let's say, Swedish people or British people or French people want Swedish to "Stay Swedish", or Britain to "Stay British", or France to "Stay French", in the sense that they want their culture and ways of life protected, than it would be for people from Iraq, or China, or Nigeria to feel the same exact way. 

The Culture Clash is real, and while the ultimate goal should be to strive for a future where the human race grows up enough, that we stop being so sickeningly petty and small-minded, there is also nothing automatically, inherently "bad" or "wrong" about being proud of who your people are, and wanting your people to sustain and survive.