Category Archives: American culture

American culture, NFL

The Social Media Mob

On Tuesday morning, I was driving to work listening to “Mike & Mike” on ESPN radio, as I do most morning commutes. For 15 minutes, Greeny and Golic allowed Jim Turner, the former offensive line coach for the Miami Dolphins, to share details and his point of view on what exactly happened last year between Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin that led to a social outcry over locker room ethics and behavior.

For the first few minutes, all I could think was:

  1. Why are they rehashing all this? That was last year!
  2. Why are they giving this man so much air time to talk about something that happened last year and has been over for so long?

After all, there was much more to talk about – sports for one. But if the show was heading down that path (again) of discussing the larger issues that are taking over sports, then why not at least cover something from 2014?

And then it hit me.

We never really figured out what happened.

I didn’t even know this guy’s name. We moved through that story, that news cycle, so fast and with such condemnation that we made grandiose assumptions about what happened, but never really found out the truth, then came to a conclusion well in advance and moved on to the next thing.

social mediaIf it seems like the NFL is in a dark place right now, it is because it does seem that way. But seeming to be is not the same as it actually happening. To be fair, the NFL, NBA and the world in general are not any darker or different than it was 25 or 30 years ago.

We just find out about everything now – in near real time – and often react within the same beat.

We have a mob mentality on Social Media. We have shifted into an era of guilty until proven innocent. This is no longer about defending one person, their actions or even trying to determine what actually happened.

This is about the part that precedes that part.

While there is clearly a lack of leadership in the NFL – and perhaps more importantly, it’s player’s union – the NFL and other professional sports leagues should not be held to a standard that we do not hold ourselves or the justice system to.

In other words, while the NFL can and should do better, it is not their responsibility to go above and beyond the punishment, or lack thereof, handed down by the law.

We’ve been dipping our toes in some very troubling waters lately. Social media has pushed the public outcry to a place that is placing a great deal of pressure on different groups and people to act correctly – and with extreme speed. This creates two important problems that we seem to be ignoring with consequential long term damage.

Problem No. 1: In an attempt to get things right, speed matters. But not rapid speed. Rushing leads to mistakes, to not hitting all the angles just right. Think of pretty much every time you have rushed to get something done. Now how did that work out? Fail a test? Miss a deadline? Burn the casserole? Care for any do-overs? Ever think back on that situation a month, six months or a year later? While our decision making process should not take a long time, it also shouldn’t play out in 36 hours.

Problem No. 2: We cannot agree on what is “right” – and we probably never will. This is a simple fact of humanity. You will not find everyone in complete agreement on any issue, which is a good thing.

Look, we do not need to like the same things. The world would be a pretty boring place if we did. But we also do not have to agree on everything, or be right all the time. Better still, until we have all the information we need to process something, we don’t even need to be first or fast. We should want to do what is right, not just be right.

Debate, whether reasonable or not, at the very least helps with Problem No. 1 because it forces a slowdown. Making a decision alone, without consult, and it tends to cause collateral problems.

There is no doubt a wide array of opinions on the Adrian Peterson situation. From every corner, we hear from people with various and diverse backgrounds who have all been disciplined in a numerous ways. Some might have been whipped and hated it. Some might have hated it, but understood it and employ it with their kids. Others were never whipped and have run amok in life, while still even more were never spanked and have turned out to be fine, upstanding citizens.

But we want to be right, we want everyone to agree that we are right and we want to move on to the next thing we can find to stand up on a soapbox and shout about, be right about and move on from.

It does not – or should not matter – what our opinions are in regard to these situations, frankly. We can and should feel free to share them, so long as it does not sway the process due to them. And there is a difference between defending someone and defending the rights of anyone.

For example, Donald Sterling is clearly a sick, twisted and evil man. The NBA used his incredibly disgusting track record and a surging public outcry to take his business and sell it to someone else. And while the NBA – and the world in general – are better for it, while we all applaud the fact he’s out and gone, it doesn’t make us any less culpable for beating up the bully and taking what didn’t belong to us.

And now, it’s over. It feels like a long time ago.

It was July.

adrian-petersonWe’ll move on – and quickly – from Adrian Peterson, too. Just like we did with Ray Rice and Roger Goodell a whole week ago.

It is strange to think how collectively, through social media, we make up one of the most influential groups in the modern world. It’s an instant poll in many ways – like performing in front of a live audience, except with each line, you stop, gather the reaction and then move on to the next scene.

Truth be told, no one knows what to do right now –almost entirely because of what we will say. We have frozen the market on public relations, almost across the board.

Beer companies are threatening to pull sponsorship money because the NFL’s problems are not matching their “value” system (slightly ironic, right?). Hotels are gasping when their sponsorship banner hangs behind a team official as he makes an announcement because of the content and topic of said announcement.

Major sports companies and sponsors are suspending or pulling their deals with athletes and teams and leagues because they are afraid of us. They are afraid we’ll boycott, that we won’t buy their goods or services. Further, these actions are met with approval from celebrities and dignitaries outside the world of sports, simply because it feels like something that needs to be stated: “[Insert whatever situation, e.g. Child Abuse/Domestic Abuse] is wrong and I’m glad to see them doing something about it.”

Except nobody really did anything. “They” stopped selling jerseys or action figures or posters. They suspended someone with pay. They booted someone from the league. But nothing of real value has actually been done to prevent future child or domestic abuse.

This is not just limited to sports. Last week, Apple haphazardly forced all iTunes accounts to download the new album from U2 – which was met with swift and shameful scorn by social media. In about three days’ time, Apple released a program that would remove the album from user accounts. Good, right? Except how many even knew Apple possessed the power to put that on our devices to begin with? And if they can do it with Bono’s overly produced music, what could they do it with in the future?

We have yet to understand the breadth and depth of the power we now hold in our hands – both the technology and the medium.

Look at what we’ve done in just the past 10 days: Roger Goodell, the most powerful sports commissioner in history – has been shamed into hiding for the past week. Perhaps he should be fired – for a variety of reasons that include incredibly poor decision making – but a gone Goodell does not solve the problem. It only satisfies the social media mob.

The NFL did not just get a domestic abuse problem – as detailed here, it’s had one for years. Whether or not Goodell goes away or Ray Rice ever is allowed to return does little to address the issue. Further, we don’t seem to actually care about Janay Rice, just about using her as visual evidence for our cries of NFL violence and players out of control.

Donald Sterling did not just become a bigot overnight after a weird conversation with a woman not his wife; it had been documented for years as the lawsuits piled up. Being ousted as owner of the Clippers changes none of the living situations and irreparable damage Sterling did to others as their landlord.

The same as the NFL locker room has probably always been a strange place to you and me, the details of this foreign area escaped last fall in a situation that has been reported on largely by one side. But we don’t care about Richie Incognito or Jonathan Martin anymore.

We’ve long since moved on.

Last week, we had the whole NFL, the Baltimore Ravens and Ray Rice to be the judge, jury and pass verdict on. This week, we’ve got Adrian Peterson and the Minnesota Vikings. Next week, or the week after, it will be something else.

We’re using social media to collectively engage in our own little drama filled soap opera. And now, as our social media world turns, so does the actual world. We engage and trade barbs and opinions with people we know and we don’t know, saying things we’d never say out loud and/or in person, making the world at large believe we’re actually invested in the issue of the day – making our collective voices the loudest voting poll in human history.

You have to wonder if our cyber selves are creating a kind of future where social media swiftly – and with great feigned outrage – decides even more. What about the policies and the politics that govern us? Will we continue to not wait for all the information and provide a presumption of guilt until proven innocence as standard operating procedures?

Just remember that it is not so much about who you are, but what you will become.

I feel compelled to ask, what are we becoming?

And, are we really OK with it?

Standard
American culture, Derek Jeter, LeBron James, Uncategorized

A Life of Lazy Fastballs

For an examination of all that ails our decaying American culture and society, look no further than Derek Jeter’s first at-bat in the 2014 Major League Baseball All-Star Game.

Jeter got the unbelievably kind gesture of a couple fastballs, right down the middle. These courtesy pitches, from Adam Wainwright, were meant allow the great Jeter a chance to get a hit in his final All-Star game before retiring at season’s end.

jeterNever mind that this game is supposed to be important because it decides home-field advantage for the World Series.

“I was going to give him a couple pipe shots,” St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright said. “He deserved it.”

Frankly, aside from the free pass to be publicly idolized, Jeter didn’t deserve to be there based simply on merit. He ranks as one of the worst shortstops in the majors this season. But the fans determine who goes to the All-Star game, and they wanted their hero in the game.

But while America paid #re2pect to Derek Jeter, I #cringed.

The Nike ad that went viral this week on Jeter was touching, very cool and well done, but this embarrassing display of over-honoring our sports heroes serves as yet another reminder that we have got societal shortcomings that must be addressed.

For starters, there is the humility of Derek Jeter during the 2014 Fare Thee Well tour. For example, to put that ad together, Nike needed Jeter’s cooperation. They needed him to film it.

Can it be a touching, poignant tribute if you played a part in filming scenes for it? Can you be humble and do the “awe, shucks, you shouldn’t have” routine if you are participating in the shine? Following the All-Star game, after being named MVP, Jeter spoke at the press conference about how a night about him wasn’t a night about him.

The paradoxes are endless here. But this is not Derek Jeter’s fault.

No, his hubris aside, these grandiose gestures are bypassing the unspoken rules we have been ignoring for a long time, anyway. We decided to bid a long farewell before they actually are gone, all to appreciate what they have given us.

What they’ve given us is something to latch on to and distract ourselves from. That’s all sports are – entertainment. They can teach us about heart, effort, teamwork and dedication, but more often than not, they serve as a distraction from the day-to-day simplicity of life.

Jeter and the Yankees are the best representative of this. There was something about the mid-to-late 1990s. New York seemed to be on resurgence in cool. Part Seinfeld and Friends, part Yankees, part Rudy Guiliani. And we looked to the Yankees following 9/11, looked to follow their lead with American pride literally bursting with emotion.

Maybe that’s why we’re so wrapped up in honoring these guys, even though our gratitude has been paid (literally – and in millions) for years.

We are attached to our professional athletes, dangerously so. We ask far too much of them to support our emotional imbalance from our own lives feeling unfulfilled.

It can engulf us, our families, our friends, and in the case of Cleveland, an entire region.

We were so quick to jump on the fairy tale bandwagon of LeBron James return to Cleveland and the Cavs, that we overlooked everything prior to it. The unbiased media was biased in rooting for LeBron’s return home.

They ignored all the prior theories about why and how he left the Cavs in the first place to gush about a love story. It was and remains fun to pick on the Heat now, easy to forget that LeBron picked them and then did nearly exactly what he did to the Cavs four years ago. There may not be a “Welcome Party” or a televised special, but we’re still enthralled with it. His website crashed on Thursday due to constant refreshes.

Miami Heat Introduce LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Dwyane WadeJames misled Pat Riley and the Heat front office, as well as his supposed brothers Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade, for a few weeks, trying to let his PR folks figure out how to handle it better this time around, knowing full well that most likely, the vast majority would be delighted he’d come to his senses and returned to Cleveland.

Should it – does it – matter that James did both the Cavs and Heat dirty, or can we even acknowledge this time around he did? See, we’re fine with certain things, a bending of the rules and the moral code, as long as we like the end result or the person.

We are fine with this decision because Cleveland needs him, he’s from there, Miami has more sunshine in a day that majority of us see in a week, Riley’s legendary status was not enough for once, the Heat had their success and you shouldn’t be able to win with your friends at a discount.

Above all, it’s just a heartwarming story. And man, are we a sucker for those.

You can be an egocentric individual and a great athlete – believe it or not, many before have. So LeBron James can be a great basketball player. He can want to be in Cleveland. He can be a good husband, a great role model and father, as well as tremendous at a number of other things. But can also be a disingenuous businessman.

It’s OK for us to admit these things, still want these athletes to succeed and win our favorite team’s championships. But we just can’t bring ourselves to admit anything like that.

We need them too badly.

We do the same thing with actors. We want to believe they are the characters we see in the movies. We’re stunned at the rumors and the arrests, disappointed they failed our expectations. And then we go right back to watching their films, because we need them way more than they need us.

We need heroes to distract us from our schedule-oriented, consumer-driven lives. We need them to wear the championship shirts, to have some seminal event to share half-drunk with friends, to bond with our children.

This is both understandable and remarkably sad at the same time.

We value the real heroes, the ones who died, sacrificed themselves for us and gave all to protect our freedoms. But we only do this on holidays where we are reminded of it. Our society, our culture, demands that our heroes forever be in our face, in our minds, lest we forget who we truly idolize.

We’ll always want and need Jeter, Jordan and James because they are someone to follow from a distance. And following at a distance allows us to not get hurt, to feign emotion and allows for easy backlash, if ever required. Our disappointment, while directed at them, is really with ourselves.

No wonder Twitter is such a big hit.

You may be asking yourself why this is a problem? Who cares and what does it matter?

Simple: our hero worship is so out of control that it is controlling us. We want our kids to be heroes, so we push them too hard, scream at their coaches and yell at their teachers. At the same time, ironically, we don’t want them embarrassed, so we shield them from possible pain and rejection. This is why everyone gets a trophy. This is why cuts are no longer publicly announced – even for a high school play.

In our own bitterness, resentment and disdain, we’re erasing the very things that balance us out and make us real for future generations: pain

Rejection and pain were meant to serve as a catalyst to something more. Once upon a time, they did. In fact, these very heroes we worship all have their stories of pushing beyond someone else’s no.

Now, we’re all too happy to use them as an excuse. This leads to a life of feeling sorry for ourselves, passing the days remaining in our lives by hoping for our hero’s successes or failures, all while buying their music, their movies, their jerseys.

Love or hate LeBron James or Derek Jeter over these past few weeks, we made them. We empowered them.

If we are even remotely interested in solving some of our bigger issues, it would serve us good to spend more time reflecting on what we can do to make ourselves less emotionally dependent on the success of others.

If we poured even 25-percent of what we give them into ourselves, I bet it would be amazing what could be accomplished, both as individuals and as a collective society.

The only problem is, those days seem long passed us now. We bypass challenges these days. We don’t pay even pay tribute in the right way.

We just throw lazy fastballs.

Right down the middle.

Standard
American culture, Donald Sterling, NBA, Uncategorized

A Wrong to Write

Over the past week, as Donald Sterling’s disturbing remarks came to light and the world reacted, I watched it unfold. From the statements to the ban to the talk of boycotts, I just listened, read and absorbed.

But for the first time, I wrote nothing.

It was not for lack of something to say, an angle or an opinion. Anyone who has read what I write about knows that I have no problem diving into a topic, sensitive or not, and navigating through it with thoughtful intent.

Donald SterlingOn Thursday, I finally had a complete, nuanced outline in my head of what I wanted to say on Sterling and the entire situation. About halfway through putting it from brain to laptop, a dear friend texted me and asked me what I thought and why I had not posted something about it.

I bounced my draft his way. It was a thought-provoking piece about race, racism, and the new social media justice that has evolved into a speedy, mob mentality that we should be fearful of should the topic not be something we could universally agree on (you know, like Donald Sterling being a slumlord scumbag who should certainly not own a basketball team.)  I asked if there was anything in it that could somehow be misconstrued or viewed as insensitive – certainly the last thing anyone wants, but especially on this topic.

His response was probably more thought-provoking than my piece.

“It’s good, and you certainly spent a good enough amount of time making sure it was crystal clear that you didn’t agree with Sterling while making an entirely valid point. Freedom of speech and this social media component are an important distinction from this particular topic, but some might not make that distinction. You have to ask is it worth it for you? The sad part to me is that you even have to think about it.”

It wasn’t the response I was expecting, and it affected me. Why was I struggling to post it? Why did I wait so long? Was it because of the topic?

That’s not me – or at least it used to not be. More frequently than ever, I pass on stories that I feel I have a well-informed, researched and thought provoking opinion on. The mental war over what the fallout of negativity might be is just not worth it. This makes me slightly sad.

Are there more out there like me? Writers and journalists and bloggers afraid to post about certain topics because of the mob mentality of social media and the speed of judgment made now in America? I re-read my draft on the Sterling situation and found at least eight different instances where I used multiple adjectives to describe how disgusting I personally found the man to be – whilst trying to make a broader point about being careful how quickly we react. I was so concerned to make one thing clear (I’m not racist) that it was interfering with my other points (social media has changed how we react, is this a good thing?, etc.).

Do I really need to guard myself that much?

This is my passion. I admired and devoured the work of Frank Deford, Tony Kornheiser, Gary Smith, Ralph Wiley, Malcolm Gladwell, Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons growing up. I favorite author is probably George Orwell. Kornheiser’s piece on Nolan Ryan from the 1980 Sporting News is perhaps one of the finest pieces of long-form I’ve ever read. And Deford’s “The Deer Hunter” piece on Bob Knight in the fall of 1980 for Sports Illustrated rivals it.

Wiley’s catalog stands next to most as some of the best, thought-provoking and ingenious writing I’ve ever come across. I was deeply saddened when he passed away too young. Simmons was the first to use the internet, pop-culture and sports and wrap it up into a massive piece that left you laughing for hours.

Writing is an art. It is powerful. It has always inspired me because I believe words can inspire others, sway them, inform them and move them. Which is why I was perplexed by my hesitation to post what I knew would be a good take on this mess with Donald Sterling, the NBA, race and social media.

But I didn’t feel safe enough to post it because frankly – regardless if it was this topic or not – free speech is dying, if not dead. There are too many topics that immediately spark a response – no matter what the take or angle, no matter how thoughtful and sincere. You’re better off making fun of PED users, bad calls and questioning the NCAA than you are to actually discuss the nuanced issues facing both sports and society.

The reason free speech is dying is because of the very place that would seem to promote its use the most: the Internet.

Twitter and Facebook have caused a rapid shift in society and our culture. You can share whatever you want, but whatever you share is spread more rapidly than ever before. And it is not only shared, but dissected and rapidly responded to.

On the surface, this seems good. We tend to associate speed with progress – like the swift speed of booting Sterling from the NBA in 72 hours. In 1914, this would have taken months, if not years. In 2014, we do it in a matter of hours.

And as I said in the Sterling piece I will not be posting, that’s just fine in this instance. But is it fine because we all agree on who it was and what was said? What happens if the topic is more ambiguous next time? Will we still move so rapidly towards the decision?

How many times do you write something snarky on someone’s Facebook post or reply to a Tweet without truly thinking about what you are saying? What implications there might be in 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 days? You don’t think, because you are reacting. And reacting is 100 percent emotional and spontaneous.

Social media has increased the speed and the volume of reaction and therefore emotion. We have a lot of emotion in the social media world today. This emotion, this anger over your opinion, mine and theirs is what leads to the reduction of use of free speech.

Free speech is a principle. You may not agree with it in its various forms, but the point it supposed to be that it is allowed. Like so many, I cannot fathom how Donald Sterling thinks the way he does in 2014. It is beyond insensitive, beyond embarrassing and beyond rational.

Free speech is also not something to hide behind. You cannot run from your words, or avoid a fallout. There can and will be consequences for the things we say – as there were and should be for Sterling. But if the person still wants to say something, under the Bill of Rights, it is allowed.

The absolute key, however, is that to check and balance this, we must make sure we do not lump in allowance with tolerance or permanence. They are each separate entities.

A principle has to be defended because it is a principle, not because we all happen to agree in this instance it was violated was for a perfectly good reason. The Sterling situation is obvious; what do we do and how do we react if this happens again, but it’s not about race? Are religious comments OK? How about sexual orientation? What happens when there are other shades of gray and moral ambiguity involved?

Why we must practice some patience is because of that very thing: next time. Here, the punishment and the reaction were befitting and deserving in this instance because we all agree it was offensive and there is no place for racism in this country.

But we must be aware it will now serve as a reference point to any and all future situations that may not be so unifying.  Better still, how do we feel about social media being able to so quickly affect decisions in this country, in our society?

This is a real thing, and it’s a reason that someone like me, who loves writing more than most and has been doing it for years, is left wondering whether I should or can freely express my opinions anymore.

Then again, I guess I just did.

Sigh.

I should have just scraped this whole thing and wrote jokes about quarterbacks and crab legs.

Twitter loves that sort of thing.

Standard
American culture, Life, Logic, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized

Upshot with a Downside

And….it just happened.

Another one of those, check yourself before you wreck yourself moments in modern day America.

dunce-capThe New York Times announced yesterday a new site, Upshot, which will essentially explain how to read the news that you, um, well…read. Aside from the whole Globo Gym vibe, what’s not to like, right?

According to their statement, Upshot believes many people do not understand the news as much as they would like [read: apparently we’re idiots]. We want to grasp big, complicated stories – like Obamacare, inequality, political campaigns, real estate and stock markets, but we’re just incapable of doing so, they say.

So the good folks at the totally cool, non-egotistical Times are going to help us all out in order to allow us the privilege of carrying on a conversation with family, friends and co-workers.

Sweet! Thanks, NYT!

Syrup-y sarcasm aside, I do see one reason to do something like this. We’re in the midst of a golden age of data. We’ve got data about data about how we react to data. Sites like FiveThirtyEight are giving us charts, numbers and graphs about all kinds of trends in science, economics, education, politics and sports.

If you truly want to know the numbers behind something – anything – now is your time to bask in the knowledge those numbers exist in droves. The only problem is we cannot keep up.

Before we can comprehend and understand something, there is a new hot topic just waiting to be data-driven into your newsfeeds and give you a headache – to which the data totally will tell you how many Tylenol you should take depending on the placement, angle and duration of said headache.

But there is another problem with the age of information – or several.

Do we need it? I mean, ALL of it? What are we doing with all this newfound information? And how can this education compete with our other obsession? You know, the one where we are celebrity-crazed and self-serving our own interests?

getty460x276Case in point: suppose the data told you that social media was awful for you, would you quit? Or that HBO programming was written to promote a set of Illuminati based ideals? Or what if they said it is unhealthy to have more than 150 friends on Facebook?

What if some set of analysis told us that all of this was trivial and meaningless?

Or how about this one: say some information is unearthed that proves we were better off emotionally in the 1830s, 1950s or 1980s and that all this technology, this rapidly evolving world is actually hindering our enjoyment of life?

Data talks, but we don’t always have to listen, right?

Over the past few years, I’ve been accused of perhaps being a bit too idealist. Generally speaking, I can understand why.

Nowadays, you cannot be too positive. It does not jive with the vibe. Anger, resentment, hostility bring reaction. And as Scott Van Pelt of ESPN said recently on his radio show, about Toronto mayor Rob Ford, it serves as no better proof that the best thing to be is famous, because it brings a reaction.

And we react the most to this culture of celebrity and negativity. Whoever is stirring the pot doesn’t matter as much the fact that we allow it to be stirred.

Which is entirely the reason why writing like this doesn’t get a push for eyeballs from The New York Times or Grantland: it’s not the trending, data-driven, analytical pieces being devoured and shared. Nobody wants to read it, they say.

By no means am I lamenting my status or place in this wired, literary world.

In fact, I am quite content with leaving these pieces for some future generation to unearth : “Look at this guy, it was like he time-traveled 60 years into the future and tried to convince people to proceed with caution and appealed to their common sense and values! What a maroon – those people needed Upshot to explain the news for crying out loud!”

The truth is, it is a wired world – and it’s hard to get by with a smile. (Thanks to Cat Stevens for the inspiration to that hokey line.) Regardless, it remains: positivity at best seems to sell a product. Tony Robbins and quite a few out there make a good living encouraging others to stay positive.

That has never been the point of this, though.

Our contributions to society at large, to life in general, do not have to be based on a data set, or be outwardly public and self-serving.

We continue to do ourselves an injustice by ignoring the tipping point, you know, the one where we are farther and farther removed from the crux of our core values. But those are not punch lines, they should not be used as psychological tools.

In the film, The American President, Michael Douglas’ character, Andrew Shepherd has a great retort about how you win elections:

“You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters, who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character.”

The response was intended to vilify the opponent who had gone on personal attacks against him, or to address the general perception of American politics in the 1990s and winning elections – which is still very much true today.

But the stark reality is what was missed in that quote, which is that there is truth in it. On some level, it is indeed what people are looking for. It is what might win elections because it is what people actually want: A time where things moved just a shade slower, trusted easier, worried less.

Values and character are not ideals to be strived for, but instead to be lived. They are proven through prudence, rationality, frugality, respect and pragmatism. In short, none of the things we truly are currently in society as a whole.

We assume that all this information will lend us a greater understanding or perspective on any number of topics, certainly of humanity and our role on this planet. It will not, because in some way, the message of Upshot is true: we do not understand everything. We cannot.

We were never probably meant to.

But what we can do is use this data and information to better ourselves. And if we are able to accomplish that, to make our lives better individually, then we’ll gradually make this world a better place, too.

Now that’s an upshot with no downside.

Standard
American culture, Duck Dynasty, GLAAD, NAACP, Phil Robertson, Philosophy, Society

Hide Your Crazy

Hide your crazy.
Who knew Miranda Lambert would provide the ultimate voice of reason? She has a song that include the following lyrics:
“My mama came from a softer generation
Where you get a grip and bite your lip just to save a little face
Go and fix your makeup, girl, it’s just a break up
Run and hide your crazy and start actin’ like a lady
‘Cause I raised you better, gotta keep it together
Even when you fall apart”
Now, who knows if Lambert is endorsing her Mama’s viewpoint or that of the current climate that fully supports broadcasting your news for the world to see? She certainly throws out some backhanded compliments about a softer generation and a saving a little face.
But the point remains: we’re not acting like most of us were raised. And we don’t hide things very well.
It is increasingly difficult to open up Facebook or Twitter without seeing someone, anyone and everyone sharing more than you might expect. It comes from celebrities and old friends from high school. Someone’s cheating on someone, someone’s pissed off about something that was said.
We are intolerant of tolerance. In fact, we seem to be struggling, in this modern, social media, culturally, ethically and morally divided era with the application of the word “tolerance” and the right of Freedom of Speech.
Look, for thousands of years people have been different. Different races, creeds, religions. What does it matter, truly? Why do I care if all of my friends and family hold the same belief on God, gays, lesbians, horticulture, the color purple or health insurance?
Why are we so obsessed with everyone agreeing with us? We never seemed to care before.
Perhaps it is due to the world becoming one massive popularity contest. Between reality TV (which is anything but realistic) and the number of likes, followers and retweets – it’s our straw poll of how well we are liked, admired or listened to.
And apparently we all need to be heard.
At least until no one wants to listen. Or until they hear something that offends them so deeply to their core that they just have to point out – with intolerance – how incorrect you are. The simple fact is we often exercise our Freedom of Speech in order to tell someone else what they can’t say.
It is an absurd notion that most likely most will disagree with, yet fully practice themselves.
Case in point: Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Robertson family showcased on A&E’s hit show “Duck Dynasty”, was put on hiatus for his comments to GQ regarding gays and lesbian lifestyle. There is question now to whether he will return, whether the family will do the show without him and whether advertisers will still support said show if he returns.
GLAAD and the NAACP immediately condemned the remarks – which were Robertson’s personal opinions based off a question in an interview.
This is where it gets murky. Does Robertson represent A&E, or is he representing himself – or something in between – like a brand? These are not actors; they were hired by a television channel to be filmed acting as themselves. Is it really all that surprising that a show that puts a lot of Christianity into their general theme has a main character – who leads grace and prayers at every meal – that might be of the opinion that he doesn’t agree with a lifestyle?
Did I miss something or did Robertson simply state he didn’t agree with their lifestyle choice as it pertains to his faith, which itself is an opinion? Wasn’t he asked for his opinion?
This is where we have really outdone ourselves. We are condemning people for having opinions – popular or unpopular, which is both as intolerant as we say the speaker of said comments is and also basically demanding they not be free to share those opinions – even when asked.
I watch Duck Dynasty and love the show, but I also have friends or family members who are gay. Neither affects my opinions of the other, nor my love for my friends and family. It is not my right to judge, but only to live my life the way I believe best reflects what I personally value – not what values I shove upon other people.
We can respect without disrespect. That’s tolerance.
However, if asked in a setting the same as Robertson was, I’d give my opinion and ultimately make someone unhappy.
Because you can’t win – or break even – anymore in America.
We are divided by so many things, by politics, faith, race, gender, age, industry, intellect, location – that there will always be disagreement and conflicting opinion. It is allowed to exist based on the republican principles the country was created to implore.
Except when it doesn’t meet our criteria – which is, basically, agree with me or else.
It would behoove us to focus a bit more one what we do share in common than what we do not. Seems to be a bit more positive than the negative attention given and drawn from situations in which ultimately impact our lives very, very little.
What benefit do we get out of airing this dirty laundry? Is anyone actually listening when you fire off your written feelings? Isn’t that itself an oxymoron? How can you feel or emote with a status update, genuinely? They are statements.
And we seem to be missing another key point: it is out there now. You can’t take back what you posted; scrub everyone’s eyes and minds of what you said. There opinion of you and whomever you are talking about is partially related to what you post. 
I once read this: “The last thing you know about yourself is your effect.”
Perhaps. But we often tend to think quiet highly of ourselves, our opinions and our effect, thank you very much. However, we don’t understand the impression that we make upon others with these acts of revenge, acts of broadcasting personal information about a shared situation with everyone on our friends list.
People are drawn to drama like moths to a flame, so we spit it out and it confirms that we have supporters out there who think we are smart, attractive, funny or likable.
But what do we think of ourselves? Do we even know anymore or are we so busy branding and marketing ourselves and our crazy that we forgot what tact, a general sense of decency and moral value look like?
Whether or not you are Phil Robertson or the person who loathes what he says does not really matter to your life. What others hear about what’s going on in your life only impacts their impression of you – not the person(s) you are talking about.
So bite your lip.
Get a grip.
Save some face.
Do yourself and the rest of the world a favor.
Hide your crazy. 
Standard