The Dissemination of Thought

Just because it's in print doesn't mean it's intelligent…

Posts Tagged ‘philosophy

Why your privacy will be replaced with t-shirts and belt buckles

with 16 comments

It’s about time I pulled my finger out and wrote another guest piece for Magnificent Nose. This post looks at privacy, and how we aren’t helping ourselves by sharing every aspect of our lives publicly, either via social networking or by failing to adjust our volume knobs when we’re out and about.

"So, it's definitely herpes? Can you speak up? Yes, I'm on the bus right now." Source of original photograph: sohaveyouevernoticed.blogspot.com

Here’s a snippet from Magnificent Nose:

Social networking has conditioned us to share absolutely everything about our lives; it’s as if we’ve adopted a policy of “if it’s happening, it’s worth announcing”. We’re so absorbed in our own self-importance that it doesn’t occur to us the people at the adjacent table have no interest in being subjected to a vivid description of our rash and the doctor’s prognosis. We don’t seem to care when there is a privacy breach because of our own lax stupidity, but if someone found out about our rash because of loose lips at the medical centre, we’d be livid. Isn’t that just the slightest bit hypocritical?

To continue reading “There’s nothing private about full disclosure couture”, you should point your cursor here and click the left mouse button.

See, the t-shirt idea works. Now you can cross diseases off the list of things that may be wrong with him. Source: vegasarrowstore.com

Since “There’s nothing private about full disclosure couture” is a thinly-veiled jab at social networking, it would be remiss of me not to use it as a hypocritical segue to plug The Dissemination of Thought Facebook page. Magnificent Nose also has a holiday house in Zuckerbergland, and you can find it by clicking right here.

Advertisements

I tweet, therefore I am…as boring as hell: lobotomising the world, one update at a time

with 25 comments

Even as I write this, I’m accosted by another ridiculously pointless, whiny status update from one of my Facebook friends. Fuck me. “[Name removed to protect their stupidity] is tired after a long day.” Really? Thanks for sharing that nugget of genius, but I’m now dumber for knowing you.

Does this really warrant a status update? Source: toast.anu.edu.au

Why does everyone, especially since social networking became idiot-proof, assume that the world wants to know what they’re doing 24 hours a day? Just because you can, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should.

Source: blog.virginaustralia.com

I’ve written another article on Magnificent Nose entitled “Facebook and Twitter don’t care that you’re boring, but your status updates have the rest of us snoring: a Tahitian lime epiphany”, that examines the phenomenon of individuals who feel compelled to share every boring, mind-numbing detail about their feelings and dietary habits with the social networking universe.

Partly because of the instant audience that social networking platforms provide, we have become a society that is under the delusion that the world deserves–and apparently, wants–to know every detail about our lives. People seem to think that they are more exciting than they actually are, and the result is that they are sharing every boring, painfully nauseating facet of their monochromatically dull lives.

Here’s the sad reality: You are boring.

I came in pretty late on the whole Facebook tidal wave, somewhere around 2009, but at that stage people only posted interesting stuff. A quote. A song. Something amusing that had happened to them during the day. Jump forward 3 years, and with the advent of Twitter and the myriad of other social media platforms, every man and their dog (literally: pets have Facebook profiles now) thinks that they have a licence to post drivel. Boring drivel. Don’t believe me? It’s reached a point where we can categorise the inane rants into four specific types.

You know how it works. I tease you a little bit here, don’t give you my real phone number, and then force you to jump across to Magnificent Nose to read the full piece and achieve blogging fulfilment. Don’t pretend you didn’t know I was an asshole before you began following me.

“Whingy McBoring is angry at the weather.” Didn’t you get the memo? Clouds don’t have Wi-Fi. Source: lonelyplanet.com

If you missed the obvious link above, you can continue reading “Facebook and Twitter don’t care that you’re boring, but your status updates have the rest of us snoring: a Tahitian lime epiphany” here. Enjoy.

Author’s note: remember to check out (and like) The Dissemination of Thought Facebook page. Come on, the more the merrier. I guarantee there won’t be any updates about me boiling an egg, nor will there be any vehement rants aimed at microwaves, toothbrushes or any other inanimate objects.

Source: t3.com.au

When should free speech and personal beliefs take a back seat to the greater good?

with 26 comments

In 2012 Australia, you can affirm anything you like, even if it’s unjust, narrow-minded or based on a belief that may be less than sound. Unfortunately, there’s no rule that dictates free speech needs to be well thought out and factual. When this is considered in the context of the free speech of a private citizen versus that of an elected official, it raises a pertinent question: should the personal beliefs of politicians take a back seat in order to champion the causes of the people who elected them, even if the causes don’t align with their individual faith or opinions? Should free speech apply to politicians while they are acting on behalf of the greater population?

A great many words have been, and will be, written about tennis champion Margaret Court’s views on homosexuality, especially in the lead-up to the Australian Open. Gay rights activists are planning on using the arena that bears her name as a quasi protest site during the event, and have called for it to be renamed because of her outspoken opinion. I’m sorry ladies and gentlemen of the protesting persuasion, but she’s entitled to express her views, however ludicrous and bigoted they may be.

I’m an advocate for equality and same-sex marriage. I’ve written numerous pieces centering on the subjects, but I think Margaret Court should be allowed to speak. I believe her opinions are that of a narrowed-minded zealot and based on irrational religious beliefs, but I also assert that she is entitled to have and air them. Does hearing her purport that same-sex marriage would “legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices” anger me and make me want to smack my head against a wall? Absolutely, but it’s her individual point of view. I’ve got mine. You’ve got yours. While I’d relish the opportunity to debate our differences of opinion, I learnt a long time ago that arguing with any sort of fanatic is futile: trying to have a rational, intellectual discussion with someone who isn’t flexible in their beliefs or accepting of facts and new ideas is never going to work. That said, providing we don’t incite hatred or endanger public safety with our opinions, we should be free to express them, whether privately or publicly, without fear of condemnation or reprisal.

There has been limited media coverage about the annual neo-Nazi Hammered Music Festival, most of which has focused on why this hate-filled, disgusting celebration of white pride is allowed to take place. As abhorrent as this event may be, it’s being held on private property, presumably out of sight and earshot of those who don’t want to hear it. Whether you wish you acknowledge the fact or not, attendees and performers are just as entitled as the rest of us to think and believe what they want. They aren’t spewing propaganda or spouting their preposterous views to the masses, and they aren’t airing their personal opinions publicly, unlike many who use the spotlight to constantly reiterate their beliefs.

Margaret Court has used her celebrity to broadcast her beliefs and faith, as well as raise the profile of her church, but is there really a problem with this? While some of her statements, including the affirmation that homosexuality is a choice, may be insensitive and not based on fact, she is free to say it. She’s not provoking violence or abuse against the gay community, and she is not acting on behalf of a group, nor is she an elected official.

What if Margaret Court was in a public position of power? What if she was a Member of Parliament? What about Premier of Western Australia? If she was Prime Minister, should she be free to express her deepest and most closely held beliefs while in that position? In my opinion, no. Someone who has been entrusted to act on behalf of a large, diverse group needs to be able to forgo their personal agenda and take their narrow-minded views, be they religious or not, out of the equation when making decisions that impact the community as a whole.

Source: tracker.org.au

In Australian politics, there are currently several high-profile elected individuals with very strong religious views who have no qualms about letting these beliefs guide them while acting in their official capacities on behalf of the Australian people. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, a practising Catholic, was quoted in December 2009 in the Herald Sun as saying, “I think it would be impossible to have a good general education without at least some serious familiarity with the Bible and with the teachings of Christianity.” While he has, on several occasions, suggested that politicians should not rely on religion to justify decisions or a specific point of view, his comments make it clear that his faith plays a very strong part in his thought process and rationale. Independent MP Bob Katter is on the record as stating that marriage equality is a stupid idea that “deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed”. I’m not disputing that they have the right to harbour these beliefs, where’s the line at which the personal views of politicians are required to take a back seat to a more broad-minded, progressive and socially acceptable perspective that’s representative of the views of their constituents?

Tony Abbott and Bob Katter are not alone in expressing their dogmatic views while acting on behalf of the people. In 2011, John Murphy, Labor MP for the seat of Reid in western Sydney, kicked the political hornet’s nest when he advised members of the Australian Labor Party who support same-sex marriage to ”join the Greens”. Is this petulant “my way or the highway” approach reflective of the attitude of his electorate? I think not. One person’s obstinate, black or white view should not be allowed to take precedence over the collective view of the almost 90,000 constituents in the electorate of Reid.

It may sound ridiculous and incredibly hypocritical to promote free speech in one paragraph and then suggest in the next that elected officials need to look past their own personal views in order to take a stance that, while not aligning with their own beliefs, fairly reflects what the community stands for and wishes to see achieved. Perhaps there is an element of hypocrisy to it, but politicians need to recognise that we have entrusted them to be our collective voice, and for this voice to be clearly heard, they have to look at the big picture, which often falls outside the line of sight that their bigoted or conservative blinkers allow.

For Australia to transform into a genuinely modern and forward-thinking society, we need to be led by free thinkers who can accept that personal religious views have don’t have a place in 21st century politics. We need strong leaders who make decisions based on fact and community sentiment, and who don’t feel compelled to constantly promulgate their individual beliefs and agendas; they need to remember that as a politician, they are the mouthpiece for twenty-two million voices, not just one. If our current politicians are unable to separate state from the church, mosque or synagogue, they need to step aside and make room for people who can.

When it comes to a group of individuals who have been empowered to represent the people and make untainted, logical choices based on fact for benefit of the collective group, there are occasions where free speech and faith are going to have to ride shotgun.

Black, white and the flashing red light‏

with 23 comments

When you’re a view stats junkie, all you focus on is your next hit. That feeling of euphoria that comes about by seeing someone comment on a post. That rush that can only be achieved by releasing site views and search terms into your bloodstream. For me, the quest for a fix involves pawing at my BlackBerry every eighteen seconds, day and night, yearning to see the flashing red light that indicates someone has liked, subscribed or felt compelled to comment. I know constantly looking for the light or feeling for the vibration (I do occasionally remember to put my phone on silent) isn’t healthy, but it’s what I do as a stats-addicted blogging strumpet.

Just to clarify, this is NOT the type of flashing red light I’m talking about. Source: stopthetraffik.wordpress.com

In this obsessive state, tunnel vision takes over; there is no middle ground: you are either black in your constant quest for hit after sweet electronic hit, or you are white: throwing your BlackBerry and laptop into the river before curling up fully clothed under a shower, attempting to go cold turkey from the compulsion to check your blog statistics every six minutes.

Irrespective of whether you are black or white, this battle against blogging makes you lose sight of things: time; ensuring that you have more than an orange and soy sauce in your fridge ; what point you were trying to make with the confusing colour metaphors; and, most importantly, the grey area.

The grey area is the demilitarized zone of opinions and personal beliefs. It’s a part that’s usually forgotten about when we judge, argue or write someone else’s opinion off as wrong. While it’s easy and self-serving – albeit incredibly naïve – to assert that our opinion or belief is the right one, it’s critical that we recognise there’s a lot we don’t know and can’t see from black or white. As we’ve discussed, coming from either corner tends to see us have blinkers fitted; this inadvertent narrowing of our perspective results in an inability to see more than about ten feet in front of our specifically colour-coded noses. Isn’t it about time that we accept that between the absolutes of right and wrong, there’s a lovely shade of grey? I hear they have wildflowers growing there. And pancakes.

While I’m adverse to making resolutions of any sort – especially on New Year’s Eve – I think we should all resolve to try and spend more time in the grey area from 2012 onwards, especially before judging others and condemning them for thinking black instead of white, or vice versa. Just remember: mixing black and white produces grey; therefore, the grey area is the location from which to listen, learn and debate. Colours don’t lie.

See, I told you there’s a grey area between black and white. Source: ianfitter.com

Tolerance and Twitter: why God doesn’t care about hashtags

with 4 comments

Tolerance. It’s easier to say than to practically apply. A piece today on Impassioned Rantings of an Unbalanced Mind looks at religious types who are demonstrating impressive levels of intolerance toward the Twitter hashtag #godisnotgreat following the death of Christopher Hitchens. Like many who push hatred and narrow-mindedness, these God-fearing, allegedly benevolent individuals are doing so via the safety and relative anonymity of the internet. After reading it, I have to question whether for some, it’s a case of “do as I say, not as I do”.

Isn’t it ironic that those who are often the least tolerant of difference are the same people whose beliefs preach compassion for others and the acceptance of their flaws and misgivings? Let’s face it: regardless of what you believe, what form your deity takes or whether you have the spirituality of a cardboard box, we’re all pretty fucked up.

Without getting too deep and philosophical (because that’s so not me), we need to remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, and just because someone doesn’t have the same religious persuasion as you doesn’t make them wrong. Someone isn’t any better or worse than you because they’ve made different life decisions. At the end of the day, we’re all just living. If we can accept that and accept others, it’s a step in the right direction.

Would a “peace out” in closing be too much?

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry on my BlackBerry Bold 9700

Changing plans, and a tribute to the lady with the sandwiches

with 6 comments

I was going to write about search results tonight. At some stage today, someone clicked on TDoT  for the 1,000th time, so I figured it was the perfect opportunity to cogitate about some of the more amusing search engine terms that have led people here. While some of them were no doubt trying to find me, a mass seem to have inadvertently ventured into the middle of my ramblings while looking for something totally different, and often questionably disturbing. Exhibit A in support of the latter would be “boobs in a puppets stage”, while the second piece of evidence presented to the jury would be whichever of “badwrap sex” and “tattoo back 40cm dick” won a pistols at dawn-style shootout. Seriously people, I’ve googled some pretty strange shit in my time, and even I couldn’t image what these individuals were thinking – or hoping to find – when they let their fingers do the walking.

At 6:13pm, as I was scribbling notes for the piece that I was planning on writing, I got a call from my father, advising me that one of my grandmothers had passed away earlier in the day. At that moment, discussing how people had stumbled across my blog became irrelevant. Two hours later, as I try to gather my thoughts with a glass of Scotch, all I can do is write, as well as try to comprehend the numbness I that feel. Sure, there have been tears, and I’m saddened that she’s no longer with us, but there aren’t any clear emotions per se. Every idea that forms seems anaesthetised, as if the universe is using my introspection as a punching bag.

My favourite memory of my grandmother is sitting with her on the back steps of the house in East Ipswich, eating mashed banana sandwiches. I have no idea exactly how old I was, nor do I recall what we used to talk about for hours on end. What is vivid in my mind is the feeling of contentment that I had each time we sat down on those narrow timber steps for a chat. That, and how much she loved the colour green.

I’ve written about plans before, and while they’re undoubtedly important, it’s critical that we don’t lose sight of the bigger picture at their expense. I guess my grandmother’s passing reiterates that point: you can spend all the time you want planning, accumulating and wanting more than you already have, but life won’t stop while you do so. From the moment we are born the clock starts counting down. Call it a very unromantic view of life, but the stinging reality is that everything continues around us, and not usually to script. Make the most of every second, because the most ambitious, well-orchestrated plans in the world aren’t worth a pinch of shit if you’re not around to execute them.

So there you have it. The Dissemination of Thought for 25 November, 2011. A post that reflects upon the first thousand hits on my blog, and celebrates the life of a woman who made one hell of a sandwich.

Patricia Joyce Morgans, this post is dedicated to your memory.

requiescat in pace

Written by disseminatedthought

November 25, 2011 at 21:44