Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Self-centered Prick
Gotcha!
No, this isn't an article bashing Trump but it does have something to do with him. That "something" is a label that often brands those undeserving of it.
It's a label that's often only a superficial representation of the myriad of perceived character flaws exhibited by those who at least on the surface fit the remark.
I'll admit that I've felt the sting of it myself. The accusers used kinder terms like: arrogant, overconfident or entitled but that's only because they're uttered in mixed company. The real meaning is: Self-centered Prick.
Did I deserve it? In their mind I did but it doesn't matter.
Once you're branded as such, there's not much point in defending against it. To do so just proves the point to the prosecution.
Maybe that's why Trump never apologizes. You can't admit a mistake without owning the flaw and as we all know, everything about Trump is, "Fabulous, never better."
But more to the point...
I've leveled the barb myself and of course I was right to do so.....Uh Oh....maybe I am a self-centered Pr...
Perception is rarely reality. We color our views with our own experience. Whatever we're going through now is viewed through that lens.
Even if it's a family member, if something they're doing ( or NOT doing ) is affecting YOU in some way and they won't acknowledge it to your satisfaction, I can guarantee the phrase will at least briefly come to mind.
Thing is, who's the bigger devil here? If you're only concerned with yourself how are you any better than the other guy? If you won't take the time to see things through their eyes, their experience and their beliefs then who's the real "prick?"
I don't make excuses for people that deserve the charge. We're all products of our environments and if that's a negative thing and we don't try to change it then the label is deserved.
But an attack is rarely left unanswered. The conflict only escalates and in our society conflict sells. We even encourage snap judgement without further reflection. It's a world with little more patience than the life of a paparazzi's flash bulb.
Everything is black and white. You're guilty or not. No time for evidence or reflection. Why waste time moving past the first impression when it fits so neatly into our safe, uncomplicated view of the world.
If there's anything from the Star Wars prequels I liked it was one quote.
"Only a Sith deals in Absolutes" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Sith's are bad people, you don't want to be a Sith.
Nobody is completely right or wrong and by extension you know nothing about anyone if you don't bother to listen to them first.
You have a right to an opinion, don't waste it with unilateral decisions based on petty evidence.
Labels:
absolutes
,
consideration
,
egomaniac
,
fairness
,
judgement
,
opinion
,
prejudice
,
self-centered
,
sith
,
snap judgement
,
social
,
Star Wars
,
trump
,
unfair
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
"Not Advertiser Friendly"
Stroll through YouTube for awhile and you're bound to be
offended by something. I've been told I'm
guilty of it myself as evidenced by the three videos YouTube has most recently
deemed "Not Advertiser Friendly."
As opposed to YouTube itself which is by and large "Not Partner
Friendly."
Personally I'd like to see a viable alternative to
YouTube as they've only become
increasingly Draconian since the Google acquisition.
Do these videos offend? That depends on your point of view. Do I advocate hate speech or present vile or disgusting content? Not as far as I'm concerned but your mileage may vary. I know I'm not the most attractive guy but I do keep my clothes on at least.
Do these videos offend? That depends on your point of view. Do I advocate hate speech or present vile or disgusting content? Not as far as I'm concerned but your mileage may vary. I know I'm not the most attractive guy but I do keep my clothes on at least.
Worse, if you're falsely accused of a copyright violation
(I've won 2 of those BTW) YouTube will deny you compensation but has no
compunction to place ads for their own benefit.
If the content is deemed questionable how can they justify
drawing revenue from it when you cannot?
It's corporatism at its worst.
It seems the rule of the Internet is that if it's convenient
it's going to cost you something. In
most cases it's free speech in others it's your privacy. See Facebook and Twitter for other examples.
The bulk of content on the service would safely fit onto a
third tier cable channel that runs infomercials between reruns of Cops all day. Most of those fail within a couple of years
so unless it's a money laundering operation it's not a viable business model. In that light how can YouTube defend
"Advertiser Friendly" denials of monetization?
Too bad, it could be so much more but YouTube chooses the
path of a coward and dies 1000 deaths every day with each new upload of a "Jackass" wannabe.
See how I get myself into trouble below...
Cheers!
Labels:
convenience
,
copyright
,
corporatism
,
draconian
,
facebook
,
Free speech
,
Internet
,
media
,
monetization
,
monetize
,
not advertiser friendly
,
opinion
,
twitter
,
video
,
Web
,
youtube
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)