Thursday, April 11, 2013

White Boy Video Game Confidence


     If you're reading this, I'm assuming you know enough about me to know that I tend toward the nerdier side of things. I've been known to play a video game or two, and I am intimately familiar with trading card games, and fantasy role play games a la Dungeons and Dragons. I've thoroughly enjoyed things that I am ashamed to talk about in certain company. That, in fact, is something of a dividing line, I've noticed, between myself and some other people who frequent such activities, most notably, I would say, video game fanatics. I love the fun I can have playing these sorts of games, but I do, however, have, in my opinion, an understanding of the popular perceptions of these types of activities, and, while I won't lie about my involvement, I will certainly exclude them from conversation with some people. Although, I have known many people who are so preoccupied with their massively-multiplayer online games, their card collections and such, that it clearly starts to affect their interpersonal relationships.
     I coined the term "white boy video game confidence" years ago, although I certainly recognize that the overly-emotional dork hormone sees neither race nor gender. Many friends of mine have either gone through a phase, or live their lives vicarious though pixels and paper, and when they try to interact with real people, relationships are difficult to build and quick to splinter. I have had a friendship end with Nintendo 64 controller whipping down a flight of stairs past my head, seen very lonely people lash out at others in defense of fantasy realms of limited interest. Internet forums are filled with the angry rantings bred out of spirit and pride in fictional characters that lead to apparent resentment of nonfiction. I think I would be satisfied in simply chuckling quietly to myself when I watch these interactions, content to watch one person stroke their ego with game knowledge, and the other person laugh at them at why they care so much.
     But I see so much self-perpetuating social isolation as a result. If I could offer a bit of advice from someone who has seen the isolation that comes from focusing entirely on games, including video, card, and paper-based, you will not impress real people by that being the only thing you are outgoing about. I can even understand if you have no interest in making friends with people who don't play the same games as you, but you can hold yourself back in so many facets of your life if you treat video game confidence like real confidence. It can keep you out of the running for a promotion, it can make it almost impossible to find a mate, it can drive wedges in long-established friendships, not to mention the natural procrastination that I KNOW comes from the hobby turned obsession. I've caused fights with my wife, and both my parents, and had to mumble through excuses to teachers and professors due to gaming. If there's anything I would like to share with my friends who love their games, it's important enough to repeat, don't treat video game confidence like real confidence.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

R.I.P. Maddy!

    It's hard to write about someone who has passed without seeming cheesey or cliched. Everything's been said before, by someone else, about someone else. Therefore, I want to talk more about the specifics, the individual ways she affected my life and that of my wife, her niece.
    Maddy's untimely passing sent ripples across the United States, all the way to us in Los Angeles. Her far-reaching legacy brought positivity to so many people, and to myself and my wife in particular. I can't begin to imagine Joe's anguish, I only know that he is living my worst fear, and my heart goes out to him. Individually, Maddy, as well as Joe were great role models, and together, their relationship was a personal exemplar for my wife and I. Even in the wake of this horrible tragedy, Maddy's influence still affects us, and makes us appreciate each other more.
    Maddy was among the most generous people I ever met. She helped without being asked, and when she was asked for help, she did not hesitate. With me, she shared her home, her wisdom, her vacations, her time, and her advice. She officiated my wedding, binding my wife and I together with her own hands. She went above and beyond during that process, weathering a storm of discontent alongside us, helping my wife immensely as she sparred with fundamentalist relatives. She personally helped teach me to drive when my dad had his hands more than full teaching my older sister to drive. Maddy and Joe generously invited Mia and I along on several of their vacations that left us with beautiful memories we can never recreate. She showed ongoing maternal concern for my own personal well-being and future, offering encouragement and checking up on progress throughout my endeavors. Maddy's somber past granted her unique insight and gave her ability and desire to make the future better than the past. Her perspective was invaluable to Mia, who had her own closet full of skeletons that Maddy selflessly helped her untangle.
    Maddy was always polite, considerate and courteous to everyone, regardless of their opinion of her. She was a remarkably real individual, not willing to hide her true self for fear of judgement. She listened when you talked, and cared about what you said enough to remember it later, a trait that is becoming increasingly hard to find in people. Myself and my wife are just two of the legion of friends whose lives were made better for having known her. She is missed, she is remembered, she is loved.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Walkin' in a Splintered Gun-derland pt. 2: Definitions

    I'd like to deviate from my traditional block of text, and just bring you all some simple definitions, a glossary if you will, for terms related to debates over firearm legislation in America. I will define each term and briefly outline how it relates to this virulent debate.

Civil rights: A class of rights that deal with the protection of an individual's freedom from infringement by government or private parties to ensure ability to participate in the civil and political life of a state without discrimination or repression (see below for definitions of discrimination and repression). Gun policies do not interfere in any way with personal ability to participate in the civil and political affairs, and therefore, by definition, the right to bear arms is not a civil right.

Constitutional Amendment: A formal change to the text of a written constitution of a nation. By definition, the right to bear arms was not even part of the original U.S. Constitution, it was added in as an amendment after the bulk of the Constitution was written. It was not the foundation of the country, or the basis of our constitution. Amendments can also be used to change other amendments, without the whole Constitution being ignored, disrespected or thrown out (example: the 18th amendment banned alcohol and the 21st amendment reinstated alcohol's legality).

Discrimination:  The prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on age, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, religion or skin color or other personal characteristics. Gun enthusiasts often claim discrimination with regard to gun control, and the claim does not fall in line with the definition of the word. Guns are not an ethnicity, a gender, a sexual orientation, or anything else. Material goods are not subject to discrimination.

District of Columbia V. Heller: A 2008 court case that ruled that per the Second Amendment, guns are legal for private citizens to own, separate from a militia, and to use for traditionally lawful activity such as personal defense in a home is also protected. In short, guns are legal under the Second Amendment. They are still subject to regulation, and as such, the regulations currently in place have proven to be unsatisfactory and ineffective. We can absolutely change those regulations, but understand that per this court case, private citizens are not in danger of a gun ban.

Domino effect: A chain-reaction of events, where one small change leads to another similar change which leads to another similar change and so on, in a linear sequence. In relation to gun control, it is the belief that if gun laws become more strict, it will lead to more regulation, and more regulation, up to a complete ban, followed by suspension of the Constitution and martial law. This is not how everyone in support of guns thinks, but it is what a small percentage of them believe. It is based on assumptions and fear, rather than on any fact. If a law is passed to bring about gun restrictions, then subsequent laws also must pass on their own merit. Just because a majority agrees that one bit of legislation should be adopted, there will always be ample opportunity to vote down the next bit of legislation. If we lose the ability as a country to vote down things we disagree with, the problem will infinitely more serious than gun control.

Gun control: Any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/ or use of guns by private citizens. It is an extremely broad definition, and as such, it is impossible to determine if gun control is good or bad other than with a case-by-case, referendum-by-referendum, or bill-by-bill basis. Additionally, I would like to point out the words "limit" and "restrict" from the definition, both of which can be used to different degrees, rather than simply 'legal' or 'illegal.' Gun control does not have to be black-and-white, it can be conditional.

Repression: The persecution of an individual or group for political reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing their ability to take part in the political life of a society. Freedoms of speech and expression still hold sway, and if any legislation is passed to control guns further, anyone would be free to make their choice of protest and work toward it being repealed. No repression of any person is being proposed in any way, with respect to firearm laws or anything else.

     These are not my definitions, but their interpretations with regard to firearm legislation are my own. Even if you disagree with me editorializing, I have done my best to present the definitions themselves as objectively as possible. Even if you completely disregard my personal spin on things, try to keep the true definition in your mind the next time you think guns are a civil right or that this country was founded primarily on the right to bear arms, or that a ban on all guns forever will be sure to follow any new gun control laws.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Oh My God, TV Killed Kenny!

    I don't watch anything on TV at all. I don't even own one. Can you say that? I do have Netflix though, and I'm addicted like a junkie, with a needle full of South Park, Wilfred, Spongebob Squarepants and Jersey Shore. I don't even want to like Jersey Shore. I watched two episodes as research for a writing project with my wife, and now I've seen the whole series. It's cliche train-wreck entertainment, and it's human nature to be captivated by that sort of deplorable, shameful activity. That's something really bothersome to me, the fact that it's in my nature. To be so entertained by something so negative, to encourage it and give it beyond safe haven but a glorified status, is truly alarming. I love the dreck on TV, but the implications really bother me.
    We all make our own individual judgements when we see borderline abusive parents on Toddlers & Tiaras, or the alcoholic sociopaths on Jersey Shore, however the simple fact that they are on the air at all, and that millions tune in indicate that as a society we approve of these behaviors. At the very least, we are saying that it's ok for some people to act that way for entertainment. As a society we should shun this sort of thing. Even shows that aren't reality TV, such as Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy put societally detrimental activity on a pedestal. I'm undeniably part of the problem right now, too. I love watching U.F.C. fights but I also realize that its not much more civilized than slaves forced to fight for the amusement of ancient Romans. Even shows that seem harmless can have far-reaching negative consequences. For decades, family sitcoms have put a positive spotlight on dysfunction. Husbands and wives who fight and manipulate each other are made to seem like the relationship we should all have. Also, myriad shows targeting children are similarly teaching negative relationship stereotypes to children of today, and parents are all too happy to let TV raise their children.
    So what is there to be done about it? It's very difficult to say. If mass media is affecting our development, and we are the ones making the TV shows, it becomes a vicious circle. It will take a long-term conscious effort on the part of everyone who watches TV and goes to the movies. We flock to the comfort of familiar programming, with familiar themes, but those themes are what we need to change. Unfortunately those themes reflect on us as people. While we aren't all sexual predators, we all don't make five year old girls parade around in bathing suits for the whole country, and we don't all cook meth, there is something about the bad behavior that we love to hate. To move forward as a society we must find away to put our morbid fascinations aside in favor of the good judgement we all posses. We know these things are bad, its part of the reason we are drawn to them. Now we need to find a new way to put our curiosity aside long enough to punish the bad behavior before we end up rewarding it again.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Sports Discourse

    First base for small talk among males: sports. "Did you catch the game last night?" I didn't. "Who's gonna win the super bowl?" Not a clue. "Who's your favorite team?" I don't have one. It's not that I don't enjoy sporting events, I played little league baseball for years. I just have more important things to care about. If there happens to be a game on, especially football, I'll watch, I'll get into and enjoy myself. But will I ever go out of my way for a sports team? Hell, no. Will I ignore my wife for a sports team? Even more vehemently no.
    It's a staple of sitcoms, beer commercials and comedy routines, the husband or boyfriend who just wants to watch the game, and his favorite lady keeps bothering him, tearing his attention from the screen. To me it's an easy situation, one that doesn't cause me the least stress. How can I put this, my wife... does...certain things with me behind closed doors that I enjoy and she would not want detailed online. Suffice it to say these activities are much more fulfilling than whatever game happens to be on TV. I have no hesitation in admitting this, and it is a decision I will stand by. I see friends, family members, casual acquaintances and total strangers who invest a great deal of time and money following everything some team like a lost puppy. If their team won, they are happy for days, and they get dpressed after a big loss. They plaster decals on their car like a tramp stamp, and proudly wear shirts with another man's name on them. Fanatics even gouge their skin and fill it with ink, a tattoo to show everyone that even if they are naked, they still love the Yankees or the Lakers or the Steelers.
    And this is somehow considered normal, cool even, among other men. And people like me are branded as whipped or gay or a pussy for not following a favored team of muscley, sweaty men. If you ask me about my favorite team, I will ask you what your favorite team is. My favorite team is whoever is playing against your favorite team. I have more important things to get worked up about. So feel free to call me gay if it makes you feel better about idolizing 63 men in matching outfits. I'll be at home fucking my wife.