Sunday, December 4, 2011

Missing In 2011.: The Inner Kulifay

“If something inside of you is real, we will probably find it interesting, and it will probably be universal. So you must risk placing real emotion at the center of your work. Write straight into the emotional center of things. Write toward vulnerability. Risk being unliked. Tell the truth as you understand it. If you’re a writer you have a moral obligation to do this. And it is a revolutionary act—truth is always subversive.”
Anne Lamott

I like writing a blog. 5 words I didn't think I'd ever catch myself saying. It's not the writing part that I'm surprised about, I always wanted to write, it's the blog part. 5 years ago I equated bloggers to sexually inactive guys who categoried what actresses were naked in what movies and had very serious arguments over Scarlett Johansson vs. Jessica Alba and Star Wars vs. Star Trek. Us 'cool' guys only had those discussions at bars over beers, never documented online. I have ambitions to write a blog that changes the world, that makes people face their dreams and fears and reach for epic heights. Like everyone else who writes an article, book or blog, or steps onto a stage or in front of a camera or microphone, I secretly desire to release something that leaves a legacy, influences people, initiates change for the better and rises above the countless mediocre voices trying to outshout one another in a cluttered environment where anyone can be heard with minimal effort. But I don't. I keep it simple. I keep it light and (questionably) humorous. And, most embarrassingly to admit to myself, I keep it safe.

I still find Facebook to be a fascinating sociological experiment that forces us to deal with the polarizing viewpoints of of our various social circles (and if you don't think Facebook is aware of this already, please familiarize yourself with their Lists feature, allowing you to distinguish exactly who sees what). Because of the immediacy of people's responses and the ever expanding audience they can reach, reactions to daily news and events often incites debates that can invariably become contentious. Topics that people would rarely address at parties, gatherings, bars, clubs, etc. are fair game on Facebook, even though they aren't restricted to a more tightly controlled audience. You're not just telling the person or persons standing immediately in front of you who are unlikely to be recording the conversation. You're addressing the X amount of people you have as Facebook 'friends', some of which we are quite undiscerning in regards to befriending. And with the new features on our beloved social network even their friends can see your postings if they 'like' or comment on it. But despite the fact that we are technically aware of how potentially far-reaching our opinions, posts, links and updates can be, people feel safer behind a keyboard than they ever did face to face. The irony of this is that despite our increased comfort in some ways it's actually far more difficult to accurately communicate in this manner. We can't hear tone, we can't see facial expressions and I believe we are emotionally distanced from people when looking at a computer screen in a way that affects our response. We would be more forgiving and understanding facing a human being: we react more vehemently and critically facing printed words that just have a familiar name attached to them.

I saw several examples in just a 2 day period on my Facebook (for legal purposes I'm not claiming to own Facebook, just referring to what shows up on my news feed. Thank you for not prosecuting, Mr. Zuckerberg) that particularly caught my attention this week. In one example I had two close friends engaging in a debate over a link detailing how a pro-choice blogger was encouraging people to donate money to a pro-choice organization every time NFL quarterback, and publically acknowledged devout christian Tim Tebow scored a touchdown as a statement against Tebow's vocal pro-life stance. The person posting the link was disgusted by the blogger's anti-christian sentiments and vociferous support of abortion rights. My other friend's comments suggested that by being so open and vocal about his faith in a sports forum he was inviting criticism and attack and while his beliefs were his own he didn't need to throw it in people's faces as such. Did it escalate? To a degree. But it stopped before getting out of hand. And in all honesty this wasn't a true religious debate, I think they were arguing different points and not getting on the same page. But religion in any form is a touchy topic (I am an unapologetic but non-judgemental man of christian faith by the way) to many and one that will spark arguments, with the non-believers I know being just as aggressive about their opinions as those of religious faith. For the record the ONLY Facebook friend I have ever blocked from my news feed is an opinionated atheist who constantly posts condescending statements and links. I did not block him because he's an atheist or because I fear his viewpoint, I blocked him because it got tiresome to repeatedly read what a delusional idiot I must be because I'm not. Your beliefs are your own and I will respect them. Having my intelligence mocked is not something I have to voluntarily (and the key word when discussing social network issues is voluntary) subject myself to. No hard feelings, no pointless confrontation. I don't need to validate my beliefs by trying to convince anyone else but nor do I have to accept disrespect.

A second Facebook observation wasn't a debate and the two acquaintences involved are not even aware of each others existence. It was two polar opposite perspectives on an event. Controversial author, and atheist, Christopher Hitchens died the day before. The above mentioned acquaintences both posted links on his death. One saddened by the loss of a great voice. The other remarking that the atheist will not be meeting his maker. I will allow you to determine for yourselves the religious views of the each respective poster.

A third incident revolved around something that seemed as simple as a GQ article a friend posted referencing the 40 Worst Dressed Cities in America. It was posted because our beloved Steel City came in 3rd (and rightfully so). I barely glanced at it, being only concerned with the ranking, not the witty commentary on each city's attire. I shared it with a friend of mine born and raised in Missouri but who has visited Pittsburgh frequently and makes repeated jokes at the expense of how the "thick necked yinzers" dress, having never seen such a proliferation of women in football and hockey jerseys. Apparently in this article (I still haven't read it to determine where) there was a reference, I assume as a lowbrow criticism, to the inhabitants dressing like they have Down Syndrome. As a result a friend of mine decided to post on my wall that the article was offensive to many people, including her. Now I will state, not as a matter of apology but as fact, that I would never knowingly mock any individual for a handicap or condition and as a general rule I walk on eggshells critiquing people on any subject that is out of their control and could be hurtful. But I also couldn't help thinking that it should have been fairly obvious that I was in no way linking myself to the author's dubious sense of humor and was merely trying to share the embarrassingly accurate portrayal of my city's fashion sense, or lack thereof.

Here's the truth though: I'm not here to argue. I'm not here to dictate what you should believe, I'm not here to judge you (unless you present something so asinine I can't reasonably restrain myself). I'm not here to bring polar opposites together to hold hands and sing kum bah ya. If people can argue without ever actually addressing the others' point, if people can grieve and mock the same death, if people can attribute someone else's non politically correct remark to myself, and ALL of these people are my friends, then let's be real: it'll take a better man than me to unite the masses, by Facebook or blog. And by that requirement you don't have a lot of men to select from (that's right, blog cockiness). 2012's a new year. I typically avoid equating importance to numbers or dates in terms of actual relevancy to our lives. Not trying to get deep but time, calendars, etc. are all man made devices that we create to try to categorize and understand our existence. But I don't think God (or the universe, or fate or however you choose to label it) places a relevance on round numbers or centuries or calendar dates or anything of that nature. We do. However, it doesn't mean I'm above using something like a New Year as a motivational tool and inspiration. By classifying time it also makes it easier to figuratively put things in the past and focus on the future.

I want to make a difference. I want to make change. I want to put myself out there even if it means criticism, judgement or even a loss of friendships. I want to find myself and put it out there and I want to do it for me. Join in or not, it's an open door policy. But above all I want the best, for myself and for every single one of you. Let's take this date, this new year, this new opportunity and make the absolute most out of it. Even if it's nothing more than a number. 2012. Like my man said, "Let's get it".

No comments:

Post a Comment