In depth

What Your College Doesn’t Tell You…

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I have an anecdote for you today, as some of you may recall, I work at a college, as well as attend classes (online mostly now) to get ready for certification in ASL Interpreting.

Which is a whole ‘nother story in of itself, but not my focus today.

I currently work in the writing center, as many colleges have one, as a student tutor.

The job can be boring when people just want grammar checks and assignments to be signed off, but every so often I get a real zinger that reminds me why I love my job–or hate it, depending how you look at it.

Just such an occasion happened last week for me during finals. A student was doing an assignment on the topic of banned books.

He titled it “the war on books.”

Banned books are an interest of mine, so I was eager to read his paper.

Until…

Turns out the student had haphazardly researched what the leftist news cites had to say about parents’ objections to the many LGBTQ+ and political agenda books that are being presented to students.

Also the objections against Harry Potter and other books that include topics religious people don’t like.

I was surprised to see “To Kill a Mockingbird” on the list. Usually conservative, the group this student was rather biasedly targeting in his paper, don’t object to that book. I was skeptical that it was them. Mostly it’s the liberals who don’t like Huck Finn or Uncle Tom’s Cabin, other famous books that include some touchy race words and aspects of life, just because they are realistic about it.

Some people don’t understand the value of historically accuracy when teaching kids about race issues.

I asked my student about why he targeted only conservatives, and his basic answer was it was what the articles mentioned.

Not sruspi, they were form liberal owned papers.

Which is bad journalism, because all political parties object to certain books, not just conservatives, they’re just trying to make it seem like it’s a political party issue, but it’s a issue parents of all backgrounds have.

I’m not supposed to lecture students, so I had to be careful how I worded my objections, I causally pointed out that the paper had a clear bias ad that it’s not considered responsible writing in college to target people groups.

“We target ideas not people,” I explianed.

(This is true, whatever side you’re on you’re supposed to keep it professional in college classes.)

I learned this myself, and I think it’s helped me as a blogger to not try to call out specific people, though I do complain about the left, on a blog it’s okay to do that, it’s not considered professional formal writing and people expect you to be biased in a blog. I do refrain from slinging insults though.

The student took this point pretty well from me, so I dared to, after going over some of his professor’s feedback also, broach the subject of his argument itself.

I asked him “is your position that parents should not be deciding what their children read.”

“Yes.” he said.

I had a silent moment of disbelief.

But I didn’t show it.

Instead I said that it was good to make his solution clear then, so I asked him “then who should decide it?”

I kid you not, he went quiet for at least 1.5 seconds, then he said “I didn’t really think of that.”

I did not say “I could tell from you paper that you didn’t think about it.”

I just thought it.

I patiently explained that if you say one person should not decide something, your implicit argument is that someone else should. In this case it would be the school (or perhaps the child themselves, but we were talking about 5th graders, so that was doubtful).

This student didn’t know it, but I have a pet peeve with college courses about the vial stories they make students read, and many students I speak to agree with me that the stories are awful and they don’t enjoy them. Some of them are borderline pornographic, and I told my English professor they made me uncomfortalbe to read.

I think college students should sign some kind of waver saying they’re okay with explicit content, or else be allowed to read a story with a senl theme, but less graphic depictions.

So I’m with parents about objecting to books I would never read myself being shown to kids not even old enough to drive yet.

The student agreed with my point, and said he hadn’t thought about it that much and he’d have to fix that later. And that he’d fix the biased part.

Since he seemed openminded, I decided to risk one more point, once we’d gone over some more technical stuff, and our session was nearly over.

I mentioned that I’d had one of his classmates with this paper subject in earlier in the semester, and we’d talked about it too. And I had asked them if parents should never be able to decide what their kids read, and their answer was kind of noncommittal.

For context, one of the books mentioned in the article was one that showed sex positions between two gay men–and it would be horrifying if it was between a man and owman also, being shown to kids under 18, the legal age of consent, there is no reason to be showing a book like this, and it wasn’t even to teach sex education, that I understood.

The article openly admitted this book was objected to because of that, but insisted that the parents were at fault.

I wonder what they would have said if the teacher had shown the kids a R-rated movie instead.

I decided to give the student an illustration.

“For example,” I said. “Would you object to a child whose parents were atheists being forced to read a religious text in school?”

[The funny thing about this is that’s not even as overt, because plenty of atheists can acknowledge the lessons of religious texts are beneficial, as long as the content is not too explicit. And not all religious texts are about God only, plenty are about people and have useful life lessons.But on principle the parents can object to it if they want.]

The student immediately said “Yes.” Just like I thought he would.

But impressively, he also said “I get it, because that’s the same thing.”

He might have been bad at doing research for his paper, but he wasn’t stupid.

I agreed that it’s basically the same thing if religious parents don’t want their child taught stuff that goes against their religion.

And as a Christian, of course I would prefer everyone to learn about the Bible, but I wouldn’t force a Muslim child to read it against their parent’s will. Because I want the same rights to protect my child as they do, and if an exception can be made for me, it can be made for anyone, that’s the danger of hypocrisy.

As Portia piontes out in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, once you make an exception for one person, no matter how much you like them, it’s a problem because it becomes a precedent for less scrupulous people to use as a loophole to get out of their punishments.

So why did I share this story?

Other than I thought it was funny, I also thought it was a good example.

I’ve been in college for 5 years (because a certificate program takes a long time) and I’ve noticed how the courses are trying to chip away at students’ integrity.

I know one class that make its student defend the idea that eating someone is okay if the person agree to it, and was drugged so as not to feel it.

I hope that shocked you and not that you’ve already had to study that case in your class.

I almost got physically sick when I went over that assignment.

But I learned something very important, and kind of diablocial, about psychology.

If you make someone argue for something, even if they hate it, it forces their mind to become a bit more open to it, just by dint of practice.

It’s like drinking alcohol, at first it’s really bitter, but then you get used to it, and your tastebuds go numb.

Now if it’s a harmless subject, that’s fine.

But what if it’s a subject the person really object to morally at first, but by practicing arguing for it, they become more amenable to it.

You might say “They probably didn’t really object that much then.”

But that is not true.

That is exactly how brainwashing works, you make someone accept part of something that is not true, and then you build off of it, till they don’t even realize you changed their mind.

The real art of counseling is to help people realize that they really think, deep down under the lies they tell themselves.

The art of brainwashing it to make people believe that they really agree with what you think, deep down, despite their misgivings initially.

Also the art of gaslighting works that way. Though in both cases, you may not actually believe what you want them to believe.

Some amount of manipulation goes into all forms of teaching, but a responsib;e teachers knows where to draw the line, just like a responsible parent knows that tricking your kids into eating more greens is very different than tricking them into a career choice they didn’t want. One of these things will not do lasting damage, and the other will.

And convincing someone to do what  you want willingly, instead of jamming it down their throat, like my mom used to do with food I didn’t want to eat, is a very different skill.

However, if you force feed someone poison it will still be poison, and it’s still harmful.

I think the college classes are a mix of both. They force students to read about topics no one should ever be forced to read about.

Then they have them argue about it, till the students are willing to look at it more laxly.

Some professors hate this curriculum as much as the students do, but are required to teach it. Their silent protest is making the assignments as short and worth as little points as they can.

Others love it, because they’ve drunk the Kool Aid that says this is somehow becoming more progressive.

To go back to my student with the book banning, it’s really not so surprising the poor chump didn’t question his position till I pointed it out. After all, he’s being taught the exact same way by his professors, and it doesn’t occur to him to question it, because in his highschool days, he just had to do whatever the teachers said.

This is how I think public school teachers kids to be blind followers. Don’t object to anything or you fail the class.

At least in college our paper can criticize the material if you’re creative about it, so some vent for these feelings is allowed.

The thing I’ve noticed that’s key to brainwashing, is to make sure no one ever asks why you think this issue is so important.

As soon as I asked my student who he thought should be making the decision for what kids read, he hesitated. Because maybe deep down, he know that saying it should be the school and not the parents is a very problematic thing to say, without some parameters. Once I pointed out how he’d object to one situation but not the other, he began to see that he had a double standard, or better yet, the articles he read did.

Not every student can even admit this, some are very stubborn about not thinking out their position. I’ve had a few end our session as soon as they could because they didn’t like what I was saying.

I admit I’m not perfect as a tutor, but I do hold up students with views like mine to the same standards. I’ve told them plenty of times to be more careful about how they write their argument.

Even more so because I know professors with leftist leanings, like some I had, will tear their paper apart if they give any opening to do so by sloppy arguing, and they need to be better than the other students, not worse, at being unbiased.

What your college doesn’t tell you about these issues, like boko banning, or pride, or equality, is that the very first thing you need to ask before you teach anything about this, is why you think it matters.

See, the assumption that equality is the most important value of life permeates our culture, and most people don’t actually question if it’s valid.

As long as they don’t, the argument is always going to be on uneven footing, because you’re automatically forced to concede points to the other side.

And suggesting that there are higher goals than equality gets you a weird look, like that’s crazy, because it is so assumed.

I do believe in equal rights, but I don’t share the definition of rights that many people do, and I don’t like to argue on their turf until we’ve established what we really think.

Often my view surprises them because it’s not taught in school.

Which is my point, school doesn’t teach this stuff.

Chesterton said that a boy is only sent to school when it is too late to teach him anything. [Orthodoxy, chapter 9]

The angle in schools is very narrow. It doesn’t teach you all sides of an issue, or even the underlying assumptions of the side it is teaching.

The point is to teach yo uto spit out the same rhetoric they use, and not think any deeper, or any longer, about it than absolutely necessary.

And you wonder why the internet is such an echo champ of inane chatter and trolling.

I wish I could tell you the Left is the only offender, but I’ve seen just as much of it on the Right, only the Right tends to at least hold up the idea of unbiased thinking more than the left does, but often only in name, not practice. And often their approach to issues is just as surface level. Just because I happen to agree with their side more doesn’t mean I don’t see the flaws in their approach.

I was talking to my sisters and a friend about this earlier this week, and telling them that as much as we like to appeal to rationality for our side, we forget that people do not usually want to be rational.

They believe things because they are comfortable believing them, and because it’s what everyone else says, and most people don’t go against the flow. If our view was popular, they’d take it, but it’s not.

In fact on of my favorite tests of faith is to ask if your faith makes you comfortable.

Mine doesn’t. Some things about it are comforting, but many are challenging and unpleasant, but I’m firmly convinced of their validity despite that. Which shows I do not believe it just to suit my own fancy.

Granted, I may be ore afraid to stop believing it than I am to accept the unpleasant things, but that also shows genuine faith.

What is not genuine is when the only fear you have is to consider a different perspective that makes you uneasy period. Not because it’s one that would shake your entire world. People can be just as stubborn about not trusting new companies as they are about new religions, but either might be better than what they currently use, they’ll never know if they can help it.

What college does not tell you is that sometimes it’s in losing those beliefs that make us comfortable that we find what’s really right for us.

Stores stopped carrying a coffee brand I liked, which bothered me for months as I had to use a cheaper, much less tasty variety.

But this dissatisfaction led me to try a new kind of organic coffee that tasted even better than the brand I first lost.

The point is, someone losing one good thing, and being dissatisfied with the available replacements, leads you to find a better thing in the end.

Ideas can be the same. Humans are terrible at knowing what’s best for us, and the wisest of us keep that in mind all our lives and are flexible, the foolish of us try to make everyone else agree with our definition of what’s best at all times.

And I think any religion that doesn’t challenge your idea of what’s best isn’t really a religion, it’s your preference that you put a religious face on. And Christains do this just as much as other religions.

But the bible at least is clear that it’s not the purest form of our religion to do this, that the best way is to be teachable.

Now, even so, even an idiot who’s right by sheer accident is better than a genius who’s wrong by deliberately pursuing the wrong thing.

So I still think it’s better to be a stupid Christian than a smart atheist, because intelligence is not everything, and anyone who thinks it is is already missing a big chunk of their heart.

Our intelligence, as we call it, is so very small compared to the complexities of the universe, that to feel proud of it is kind of ludicrous. The smartest person in the world can’t explain the real mysteries of life any easier than a stupid person can. Sometimes they have more trouble because they think they can.

Our intelligence, as we call it, is so very small compared to the complexities of the universe, that to feel proud of it is kind of ludicrous. The smartest person in the world can’t explain the real mysteries of life any easier than a stupid person can. Sometimes they have more trouble because they think they can.

Even so, I feel compelled to still get involved in these debates.

It seems small, but the Bible does say, “casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” [2 Corinthians 10:5]

Which is why I write about it also.

I think it’s about time to wrap this post up (and I’m still recovering from a head cold anyway, starting to feel sleepy), and I think that’s a good closing thought.

I might write more about this in the future, but I think my overall takeaway is that you can’t let school be your only education.

You have to dig deeper, school plays to the bare minimum, unfortunately, to the lowest common denominator, and that’s encouraged by a lot of educators now, because no one should ever be made to feel inferior. Even if realistically, some people are not as smart or skilled as others.

Most people who hate learning, hate it because school does it the wrong way, and would enjoy it if they tried a different approach.

I believe in learning and self improvement if you can improve. And in growing.

So yeah, that’s it for today on what your college doesn’t teach you, though some professors, bless ‘em, do try, and I love them for it, but it’s just not enough without the student trying too.

Until next time, stay honest, –Natasha.

Well, I was young I was young and naïve Cause I was told Cause I was told so I believed I was told there’s only one road that leads you home And the truth was a cave On the mountain side And I’ll seek it out until the day I die…
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00
¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00
¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00

Or enter a custom amount

¤

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

The Wrong Approach to Wokeism.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I’m back finally!

I’ve been so busy with classes and work and other stuff, it always feels like blogging is at the bottom of my to-do list.

Might be a short post today anyway.

So…what should we talk about?

Something controversial?

You know me.

Well, since I’ve been working at my college, I’ve had plenty of opportunity to meet people who have views I don’t agree with…which is a constant source of frustration.

I know that we have to allow other people to have their opinions, but they don’t seem to feel the same way. It’s annoying to be silenced so quickly if I even start to poke the big balloon of hot air that is most of the opinion people spout off.

I know the truth is never popular, but the alternative is just scary.

I guess I confuse people. I’m 24 and half and I live in a Blue state. I shouldn’t have the opinions I do. I should prefer traditional teachings to progressive ones and I shouldn’t prefer the opinion of God to the one of Man.

But the thing is, before I ever cared about fitting in with my peer group, I cared about truth.

I feel sorry for my generation, and it’s not just because of the mental health crisis, or the total depravity of sex and everything else that can be corrupted.

It’s also because I can’t imagine being raised without truth being put first and seeking out the right way to live being a priority.

What shocks me the most often about other people my age is not that they’re wrong, isn’t that to them, it doesn’t matter whether they are good or not. They have some vague sense that there is astandabe, but they prefer not to care about it.

I know that’s not new, but that it is so prevalent and no one seems to even feel the need to excuse it now, that is what’s scary.

I remember when I read the Mr. Miracle Comics by Jack Kirby, one thing that stuck out was when the character in it who ends up waking Scott Free (Mr. Miracle) up to his brainwashed existence mentions to him that he doesn’t really think or have any right to be respected because all he does is have a programmed response to be angry when someone says a certain word or phrase to him, and he doesn’t question it.

It’s interesting to think of what Kirby probably thought was a dystopian view of society becoming almost the reality for many though not all, people.

It’s not new to the world, but it is new to us to see it happen in our lifetimes, and I think it’s always shocking to those outside it just how deep it goes.

Here’s the thing, Wokeism, or whatever you want to call it, is not new.

It’s not even a creative spin on old ideas.

It’s just slapping a bunch of new labels on things that have been around for thousands of years and have always tried to defend themselves with whatever words or excuses they could.

People think that being LGBTQ supportive is a new thing, but the Greeks would use it as part of worship to gods, they’d go even further than we do–at least I hope.

And rejecting religion is nothing new, it is the movement that has happened before every single fall of a country since history began to be recorded.

Not a popular fact to point out.

What always frustrates those of us who see this happen and warn people is that no matter what we do, they will act surprised when it happens. We always think we’re so right, till we’re so wrong.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death,”

But I am learning a few things about how to reach people like this from having to work around them.

While it’s only small changes for now, it’s good to learn.

See, I also find the approach that many people on my side of the politics and faith issue take to be unsatisfying.

We condemn the people who believe these delusions for believing them, but neglect to remember that they’ve been taught only this most of their lives. That media and schools are on the side of it, and that the government itself is in the back pocket of those groups.

Considering the weight of societal pressure to agree with them, and the inability to get away from it even in our homes often enough, it’s easy to see why so many people are afraid to disagree.

Even those who have questions are afraid to voice them.

And those who scream the loudest tend to drown them out anyway.

Public protests are our right as citizens I suppose, but I don’t think they work. They might get a few people thinking, but most will only scream louder.

And now for some truth that no one on my side is going to want to hear:

In the long run, it’s not going to matter how much we protest.

The vast majority of young people are indoctrinated by the schools and don’t know how to even reason at all about what they think, because they are not taught to do so.

I live in it. I would know.

Even the critical thinking and philosophy classes at colleges are always slanted one way, usually to the Left.

I notice how the examples they gave us to analyze for logical fallacies were always very weak incomplete or even inaccurate examples of right wing thinking that wouldn’t be what was present by the most educated or well thought out speakers for the side. Probably just college level stuff by people who haven’t learned how to argue yet.

Which is fine, but then on the Left side, there’s only a very small example of fallacious logic provided and if students aren’t that hard on it, the professors often don’t care.

And if you dared to ask for errors to be found in hot topic issues…oh forget it. You’d get fired.

So let’s be realistic people, we’re not going to be able to out yell them.

The older generation is going to die out and there’s only a minority in the younger one who has different opinions, and a lot of them are too neutered by the culture to even stand up for anything, they’re afraid.

(Which is so deeply unattractive in the dating pool I might add.)

But I also don’t think being angry is going to help anything in the long run.

I’d be the first to say we all have reason to be angry. There’s never any lack of reason to be angry.

But my question is will it help?

I think that often, Left or Right, we’d really rather just be able to point at someone else and say they’re stupid and it’s all their fault, then ever try to help them.

I don’t think we need to apologize for being right, either policitally or literally, and I hate it when people do that.

But we don’t need to be arrogant about it either.

Unfortunately, I find just as many poor thinkers on my side of the issue as I do on the other side. Many very smart people buy into the Left because they have never heard the Right presented in an intelligent or compelling way.

And then you have people who are too smart to really buy it, but too well aware of the consequences of disagreeing to dare to voice that thought to anyone who does support the Left Wing agenda.

All this together means I think that we really need to reconsider our approach.

Really on either side, what good is rage doing us?

The difference is that the Left outnumbers the Right now in America at least, so they don’t need to worry about getting the power, only about keeping it and that’s why they hold us in such contempt. They know we can’t beat them by sheer force. Though they are terrified of going anywhere where we might outnumber them and then they might need a therapy session to deal with the emotional stress of being talked down to.

(If I needed therapy after every time someone disparaged my worldviews, I’d never be able to work in this country.)

Anger is justified, but it is not helpful. Foolish people know all about anger, and if you stoop to their level, they’ll drag you down with them.

I think we should be striking where these young people are actually vulnerable.

Their opinions may be strong, though ill informed, but that’s about all that is.

Once you turn someone into nothing more than a mouth for your ideology that you’re pushing them to have no choice but to believe, you take out any kind of self reliance or self respect or courage.

Anger is a poor replacement for happiness.

What’s going to get to them is not our reason or logic, because they can’t understand that, they’ve never been taught to.

But what might get through is if we’re happier and more confident people.

I’ve stood out among my peers as the person who’s sure of herself, and while some of them have openly despised me for it, they know it’s not like them.

While I never set out to really be this person on purpose, once I realized I am that person for better or worse, I had to ask why.

I consider the way I live to be normal. Trying to come to the right conclusions about things and to live in a way that promotes the most happiness in myself and the least regrets about my actions.

In other words to do as I think God has said we should do, and hope for the best, while preparing for the worst when necessary.

I never thought that was novel till I heard other people talk about their lives.

I never realized that what I believe made me happier just because I really believe it, and conviction gives you a sense of purpose that other people don’t have.

And I think I’d like to ask this generation some questions now that I feel are going unasked.

  1. Why do you believe what you do?

And I mean why do you really believe it?

Most of us who call ourselves born again Christians had a conversion experience where we had a realization that it was true and that we needed it or we wouldn’t be able to live freely, or live at all in some cases. So many of us are pulled back from the brink of suicide or self destructive lifestyle.

I would like to know where this is in the secular side of things. Why do you feel so strongly that it’s true.

If you had to pick a reason other than it’s what everyone teaches and supports and assumes it’s true what would you pick?

  1. How does your belief make you a better person?

Do your beliefs prompt you to think about who you are? Do you make people’s lives better? Would you say you’re a more gracious or forgiving person? Do you do more nice things for others? Do you defend people who are being picked on, no matter who they are or what their beliefs are?

Do you try to be fair, do you try to be honest, do you have any ideals that are about personal excellence and ot public approval?

Because it is so easy to get by in the world if you just give it lip service. It doesn’t care about your heart. The world will not be there for you if you are miserable and downcast and in financial trouble.

There’s not one jot of charity in the LGBT movement to anyone but themselves, unless it’s just as a bonus because some people in it who care about other things too (and I won’t say it’s not good when there is, it’s just rare.)

The Pride movement doesn’t promote better grades or better understanding of hard subjects. They promote acceptance, but often can’t even define what it is.

It’s more like a void is trying to be filled with morals and ethics, but when you look at it, the actual guidance for ethical living is pretty small.

3. What in your worldview tells you how to be a good person?

    I mean a really good one. Not just accepting and supportive.

    • What comforts you when you go through something hard? And what meaning is there in pain or suffering?
    • What is the best reason to believe what you believe in?
    • What should people care most about in life?
    • What world would you want to grow up in, if you could?

    All of these questions are the ones that we really need answered.

    My conclusion is that only by teaching people love and truth together can we really teach them at all.

    Truth is precious but very little valued by people unless they think it benefits them.

    And my generation is practical.

    They know that deviating from the norm gets you insults, ostracized, and more and more often fired and failed, if people have enough power over you.

    They know also you will be publicly flogged by the media who does not care about justice or fairness or spreading kindness.

    Until they want something other than the security of the world’s favor, they will never want God or even man’s wisdom.

    So our best defense is, as it’s always been, living to the best of our ability to embody the principles of God’s ways and our freedom in them.

    Or, if we really think we are smarter, we must try to use that to benefit other people.

    As a tutor/teacher I look at students a lot who seem like idiots to me, but my job is to make them as smart as possible. Sometimes it works. Sometimes I want to cry for this generation.

    But it’s for the few who we can save that we have to try.

    And at least, in my faith, I have the assurance that my fate does not depend on them anyway, and the longer I live, the more glad I am of that. The world is too fickle to rely on.

    People will attack me for that, but I really care very little because I know that in the long run, the world will betray them, as it always does and always has, but God will never betray me, because He is what He is.

    And no that does not mean I’m never discouraged, but thank God, all my hope is not in other people.

    I can’t promise you that it will get better, things usually get worse before they get better.

    But I can promise you that trying to live by the world or the culture is a useless exercise, and no one can keep up with it.

    Find hope in something else, and cling to it.

    Until next time, stay honest–Natasha.

    The Oh Hellos–The Truth is a Cave.

    Paragon of Virtue

    / toseealife / Leave a comment
    “For it is in passing that we achieve immortality. Through this, we become a paragon of virtue and glory to rise above all. Infinite in distance and unbound by death, I release your soul, and by my shoulder, protect thee.“
    Pyrrha Nkos

    It’s no secret if you’ve followed me for a while that I was originally a big fan of RWBY.

    And that I’m still a fan of the first 3 volumes, at least. Possibly the 4-5 ones also.

    I’m also a fan of the Justice League Animated show (and recently I watched the Snyder cut of the live action movie, and holy cow was it like watching a different film! One I actually lied. I think we should burn the theatrical cut and pretend it never happened.)

    So I was talking to my sister about both these things and comparing the characters, and she specifically requested I blog about this topic.

    So here we go:

    What is a Paragon?

    Let’s look at the web’s definition, though most weebs already know what it is, sort of:

    “A paragon means someone or something that is the very best. The English noun paragon comes from the Italian word paragone, which is a touchstone, a black stone that is used to tell the quality of gold. You rub the gold on the touchstone and you can find out how good the gold is.” (vocabulary.com)

    Most people acknowledge that the main character of any given kids show or movie is supposed to be the paragon. And if I name names, you’ll see a pattern.

    Anime has a paragon almost as a requirement, with a few exceptions, like the Shield Hero.

    Midoriya (My Hero Academia)

    Naruto (Naruto)

    Tohru (Fruits Basket)

    Natsu (Fairy Tale, Erza would also be one)

    Hiro (Darling in the Franx)

    Not all of these are perfect examples, the first two are the closest. But you know the characters who stand above the rest, who everyone wants to be like, who they trust to lead them, who they think has some moral insight that they don’t.

    Outside of anime, the paragon is less worshiped, but still present.

    Captain America (Avengers)

    Xavier (X-men, often Logan also fulfills this role)

    Mickey Mouse (any Micky Mouse media)

    Aang (Avatar the Last Airbender)

    So you see paragons are everywhere. That’s why it’s considered a trope.

    For a better explanation of how it is used in a story and the pros and cons, I refer you to Overly Sarcastic Productions excellent video:

    Love Red’s videos about tropes

    So, of course, the two paragons I wanted to talk about are Ruby, from the show RWBY, and Superman, from the DC Universe. Particularly his recent shows and movie renditions.

    I’m going to argue that neither of these characters are good paragons, though they are treated like paragons by their writers and fellow characters, and the fans, by and large.

    But my unpopular opinion is that they both suck at fulfilling this role, and that is because people lack understanding of what makes a paragon really work.

    I think it goes back to our culture’s lack of understanding of what makes a righteous person to begin with.

    (I’ve argued that Gaara should be the protagonist of Naruto also, and a protagonist and paragon do not have to be the same thing but they usually are in anime, however I think Gaara fulfills both roles better.)

    It’s easy to see why Superman would be considered the best of the best, who can be better than Superman?

    Yet, it’s interesting that in every version of the Justice League that’s written where they turn to the dark side, Superman is the first to fall.

    I now the premise is that he is the only one holding the league together, so if he falls, they all fall.

    I’m going to argue now that that is actually one of the signs of a bad paragon.

    1. Instead of people being inspired by the paragon, they instead rely on them, both intellectually and physically.

    Ruby is the bigger offender here, but so is Superman.

    Lazy thinking is the bane of every group in real life, but it’s also one of the main things that kills fictional teams.

    The whole team relies on thsi one person to know what’s right and to know what to do.

    Sample:

    Yang from RWBY: “She (Ruby) always knows what to do, so I’m going to follow her.”

    Flash from JL animated series: We don’t do that to our enemies.

    Diana: Speak for yourself.

    Flash: I was trying to speak for Superman.”

    This is just one of many examples from the shows where the other characters rely on the example of the paragon…to a point where it seems they may not actually agree with them.

    I’m against murder, of course, but Diana stopping herself only because Superman would say to, and not out of any mercy of her own, seems like a red flag.

    And it’s made more poignant when we consider that both in the Justice Lords episode of this show, and in the video game and movie versions of the Dark Justice League, Diana goes dark once Superman has led the way. Implying she never had any root in herself and her own ideals to resist the pull of power.

    Diana’s weakness is not thinking for herself. Flash, who we learn died before the League went full on power mad in the alternate world, would have been the only person to resist the corruption, and he is the only one to stop Diana in the regular timeline.

    J’onn, the Maritian, also expresses how he wonders if they can still be a league, how many battles did they win just because Superman was there, he asks.

    [I actually think he’s less necessary than they think based on the show at least, but not in the movies.]

    On RWBY, Ruby is followed by her sister, Yang, but also by Ozpin, who insists that victory is in the simpler things. Even the theme song says ‘victory is in a simple soul.’

    The problem is, Ruby is not a simple soul.

    Actually she is full of insecurities, questions, and later on, she resorts to deception and misleading her allies, just because she’s not sure what they will do with the truth, even though she was angry at Ozpin for doing the same thing.

    Whereas Oscar, a much better character, is against ding this, but gets ignored because no one respects him.

    And Superman, despite Flash’s well meaning optimism, is not the paragon of mercy Flash thinks he is.

    Flash didn’t witness the two times Superman tried to kill Darkseid, a villain who humiliated him more than even Lex Luthor, who he just barely holds himself back from killing as it is. But Superman actually had zero hesitation to try to kill Darkseid, and was only stopped, one by Supergirl using reason, and once by Batman, who used brute force (sort of, he got lucky with a boom tube.)

    The issue I have with both Supes and Ruby isn’t that they make these mistakes, while being the leaders, but it’s actually my second point:

    2. The paragon lacks humility.

    A good paragon has flaws, that’s not the problem. The problem is when they pretend that they don’t.

    Ruby makes a crap ton of mistakes, but notably, she never once admits it.

    As far back as volume 1, Weiss goes off on Ruby for being reckless and a show-off, but then admits that she herself can be a little ‘demanding’ and offers to compromise.

    I might be missing something, but I don’t recall Ruby ever owning up to Weiss having a point. She’s just blindly confident that she’ll impress everyone with her skills. Which she does, but that doesn’t make her a good leader.

    Weiss also complains that Ruby is the leader of their team, and offers some valid reasons, which in my mind were proven entirely right by Ruby herself several times, and then some, and while Weiss is hardly perfect, Ruby never tries to amend her actions to give Weiss more confidence in her, or acknowledge Weiss might have a point.

    “I’m not perfect! Not yet, but I’m still a hundred times better than you.” Weiss, volume one. (I may have paraphrased slightly)

    All the way up to Volumes 6-8, which were all horrible train wrecks, including the actual train wreck that happened in volume 6, where Ruby actually says she never needed her uncle’s help, after he saved her butt like 3 times just since his reintroduction in vol 4, and the other times people bailed her out.

    Ruby, much like Naruto and Deku on their shows, doesn’t one off win nay fights on her own after volume 2, and that was a draw. Yet she has the idea that she’s independent somehow…why?

    Let’s look at Superman for a moment.

    In one of the worst episodes of the first JL show (but still far better than the last season of the Unlimited follow up show) Secret Society, Superman pisses off Flash and Hawk Girl by saying:

    “At the end of the day, I’m the invulnerable one. Every hit I take is one someone else doesn’t have to.”

    While they get mad at this, no one makes the pretty obvious come back: “Sure, until someone has Kryptonite or Red Sun Radiation.”

    Something multiple people have had access to, in the show alone, and on his own show.

    Superman may be tough, but everyone knows his weaknesses! He’s not invulnerable or invincible. Plus, even Lois Lane has had to save him, not once, but at least 2 or 3 times on his show, and the others saved him many times on the Justice League show.

    So where does he get off suggesting that he’s somehow less subject to peril than they are? If he was less reckless about his own safety, they’d actually win their fights faster because they might employ this thing called strategy.

    And this leads into point number 3

    3. A paragon that never learns

    Because of people worshiping them, and their big head, often bad paragons never learn anything from their mistakes.

    The entire show of RWBY is proof of that for Ruby, but Superman is a little less obvious.

    However, if we consider what happens in the Justice League show, it’s kind of unnerving.

    One episode, Patriot Act, points out that after the League got called into question for having a weapon that was worse than a bomb would have been in their watchtower, and Cadmus has issues with them, instead of losing power, the League gains a second base on the earth, but doesn’t’ dismantle their watchtower.

    And the only group that was capable of competing with them has been so publicly shamed that they are no longer a threat. Meaning the League is freer from criticism than ever.

    Yet the League is still caught off guard by the villains unifying, and almost loses yet again to Darkseid. Superman, rather than show more caution, seems to be overly confident, and has to be saved, ultimately, by Lex Luthor, the most humiliating choice yet.

    I can’t blame Superman entirely for that, but he didn’t really back off after the Cadmus incident. I don’t see how getting more power is learning his lesson about hubris and controlling things too much.

    What really stands in the way of the League becoming the Justice Lords by the end of the show? Only Flash, anything could still happen to him. How have they learned and become stronger?

    This is a problem with the show overall, but especially with Superman. Everyone else changes and evolves over time at least a little, but he stays the same. The same pride and anger under the surface, and willingness to compromise what he claims he upholds.

    And finally, one last point

    4. A paragon who is only an example when everyone is looking or they have something to prove.

    What I detest about both Ruby and Superman, not because I’d hate them as people if it was true, but because they are hailed as such paragons of virtue, is their lack of consideration for anyone else.

    If no one is looking, Ruby never gives a crap about helping anyboyd but herself, if shes’ not playint he hor.

    Ruby herself is helped both by Blake and Jaune just on her first day at Beacon Academy, but we see her help no one else, nor try to.

    While others stand up to the racism against Faunus, Ruby does nothing.

    And when Oscar gets beat on for unfair reasons later in the show, Ruby only steps in one time, and that’s when it’s someone who she’d not get much flack for calling out, but not when her uncle or sister also abuse Oscar.

    Ruby is nice to Oscar, because she has a crush on him, and once or twice she is nice to Jaune. So she’s not the worst, but she never goes out of her way to help anybody. Nor is she ever more open-minded than anyone else in the team.

    But Superman has to be even worse.

    I was reading someone else’s post about Wonder Woman the other day, and they brought up a scene where Diana teaches a little girl how to fight to help her have confidence about playing with the boys. The author commented that she couldn’t see Superman or Batman doing this.

    I think Batman actually does demonstrate compassion more often, in his own way, when he helps Ace, one of the villains Cadmus created, as well as Baby Doll, one of his sadder villains, and many others. Actually it’s why he and Diana are good together.

    But I agree, I can’t see Superman doing it.

    Superman is the type of guy who’d say he has to focus on the big problems, fly around and help people, and the little things aren’t ones he can afford to spend time on.

    Yet those things are what make us the most human and help us to stay grounded. If you’d take time to help a kid, even if it’s just over something small, then you will remember what’s really important.

    He keeps Lois, the closest relationship he has, at arm’s length. At the end of the show, she still doesn’t know his real identity, that we know of. She knows freaking Batman’s, but not his!

    I’ve never seen Superman help a kid, outside of his old comics, and then it was to prove a point, that he was Superman…he still helped either way, and I’m not saying he wouldn’t have anyhow, but he got invested primarily for that reason.

    Contrast it with Flash, who is a great guy on and off the job, based on how his coworkers treat him. And is a great guy even to the other League members.

    Can you see Superman getting Hawk Girl a coffee and blanket? Or giving an old coot an actual fair chance to explain his magic crystal and have a job later? Or painting someone’s fence?

    Me neither. The fact that I wouldn’t even imagine it says a lot.

    Oh and RWBY has an example of this too. Pyrrha freaking Nikos!

    And that’s the perfect cue for me to launch into why Pyrrha is a way better paragon than Ruby, and why many people would be a better one than Superman.

    Ironically, almost any member of the 7 would be better than Superman, but most of them lack the leadership drive to be so.

    Good Paragon traits

    Basically just turn all the bad ones on thier head.

    Let’s star twith the last one and work backwards.

    Instead of only dong good when it’s beneficial for them also, good Paragons do good when no one thanks them for it.

    On Naruto, Gaara sticks up for the rights of people to have life, and for the ideals of mercy, long before he gets made the leader of the army. He works for years to reform Sand Village, to the point where assassination attempt on him by the elders who think he’s crazy or wrong happen so often that his siblings no longer even react to having to save him and each other’s lives at any given moment.

    On RWBY, Pyrrha sticks up for Faunus though it gets her little thanks from her classmates. She also helps Jaune with his problems, even when it would get her the opposite of what she wants, or when he gets mad at her.

    But what I love is that she’s got bit of a temper too. When Jaune forsakes his team because Cardin blackmails him, instead of coming to them for help, she makes her sentiment clear until he finally apologizes, but she still bails him out of a tight spot.

    Pyrrha helps Jaune for his own sake, even when she’s not getting anyth out of it.

    She also is nice to team RWBY, paying for their meal and is generally kind and caring to everyone.

    Jaune also is a decent paragon, he has more of the traits of pursuing excellence that they have in anime, but he also sticks up for his team and helps people even when he doesn’t have to, as I mentioned above.

    Turning back to Justice League, Wonder Woman is far more compassionate than Superman, and Batman is less arrogant. Flash however is the best example, since he combines both those traits at the same time.

    Often the traits of a good paragon would be better if they rested on two or three character’s instead of just one, since few people are that virtuous, but if we want to find who’d be a better starting point, those are our choices.

    Hawk Girl has the most integrity of everyone in the League, but lacks the confidence to lead, or she might make the better choice.

    Point number 2, all of these other characters learn more than the actual paragon characters do.

    Granted, not that much, in Batman’s case.

    But Batman has a healthy respect for people with different qualities than himself, whereas Superman doesn’t.

    Pyrrha is not given the chance to learn much since she (SPOILER ALERT) dies before she really can. But based on her overall humility, it seems like she would have.

    Jaune we see does learn from his mistakes and improve, becoming more of a peacemaker in the group and a protector.

    And of course, that includes having humility.

    One of my favorite things about Pyrrha’s character, as I got more mature about looking at her, was that she isn’t above improving. She has a power that makes it easy for her to win fights by hardly doing anything, but only uses it to give her a bit of an edge, she still trains like crazy to hone her skills. She still thinks she needs to practice. Shes’ willing to team up with less skilled people like Jaune just because she likes his attitude, and to take orders from him despite his lack of experience, unlike Weiss’s attitude towards Ruby.

    Pyrrha could roll her eyes😒at Jaune, but instead she builds him up. And he becomes the kind of leader she believed in, as he even acknowledges in vole 5 when he said she told him something once, and he believed her.

    Pyrrha and Jaune

    Pyrrha could win more on a different team, or if she asserted herself over Juane, but she doesn’t. Instead she embraces being treated like a normal person by him, and doesn’t see herself as the invincible, untouchable warrior.

    And last bu not least, back to point 1.

    A good paragon is not worshiped, they are imitated and respected.

    Perhaps this is where Pyrrha, Flash, and the others I mentioned shine most clearly beyond their competition of the canon paragons.

    While people talk about imitating Ruby, or Superman, no one actually does it. Or when they do, it’s usually the worst parts of them. Because people always copy your underlying attitude more than your professed one.

    Flash copies Superman’s reckless actions more than his selfless ones, the Flash is selfless on his own, that’s why he can take that out of Superman’s example, but Superman never really has any interaction with Flash about this, nor do we see any one moment where Flash is inspired by him to be selfless when he’s actually there.

    In contrast, Batman is moved by Flash’es compassion towards his foe the Trickster, in the episode about Flash. And tells Orion that he does not understand him.

    Batman actually never talks Flash down, notably, and hes’ shown to be a closet fan of the Flash even in other renditions of the League.

    So Flash inspires respect from people it’s worthwhile to earn the respect of, and he is looked up to by kids and regular citizens also just for being so good hearted.

    Even if not everyone imitates Flash, they respect his heart.

    Pyrrha on the other hand has admiration from her peers and superiors alike, but it’s interesting that in her closet ring of friends, she doesn’t inspire the hero worship that Ruby does.

    People don’t look up to Pyrrha to lead them, they want to be like her, because she follows the right thing not just in her words, but in her actions.

    Ruby and Superman tell people what the right thing is, Pyrrha and Flash show them what it is.

    This doesn’t even mean that I’m arguing for Pyrrha and Flash to be the leader of their teams, I don’t think either of them are suited to that, in fact I thin paragons often don’t make good leaders because of their lack of putting themselves first. A leader ha to have some self confidence.

    But like Jaune, and like Batman, the best leaders are the ones who are following the example of a paragon who isn’t the leader, but isn’t a blind follower either, who makes their own choices, but i willing to work with others also.

    Pyrrha never turns down help, and Flash is the first to ask for it again after the League breaks up.

    Every leader I know of who is also a paragon is the most boring and frustrating kind of protagonist, the most engaging leaders are the ones who learn from paragons as they go.

    Like the show My Little Pony’s MC Twilight, who has to learn from all her friends in order to become the Princess of Friendship.

    Pyrrha’s influence is felt in volume 4 and 6 especially when we see that Juane, as well as her other teammates, all want to be more like her, they do not say that about Ruby.

    Ruby can lead, but she can not exemplify. That’s the problem.

    Like Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, Luke might be the leader, but he’s following Obi Wan’s example.

    Once in a great while, a paragon may make a good protagonist, Twilight Sparkle sort of grows into being a paragon by the end of MLP, usually it’s done best when it’s like that, one character growing into being one over time.

    Which is where Pyrrha having struggles and an arc in volume 3 made her much more like a protagonist than Ruby has ever been, fight me.

    A paragon can also become a protagonist over time, it’s usually very satisfying to see that actually.

    But the starting point has to be them working together, or it just doesn’t feel right, at least to me, it feels fake.

    We are all protagonists in our own lives, but we all should want to be paragons, and if we find people looking up to us like ones, we should never forget to be protagonists also, always able to learn from others.

    But when you divorce these two characters from helping each other, your story falls apart, because that’s not real life.

    And with that, I think I’ll end this post, until next time–Natasha.

    My Own Devices

    / toseealife / Leave a comment

    I’d like to start this post with a song:

    I was left to my own devices.

    Many days fell away with nothing to show.

    … But if you close your eyes Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all? And if you close your eyes Does it almost feel like you’ve been here before? How am I gonna be an optimist about this? How am I gonna be an optimist about this?

    We were caught up and lost in all of our vices In your pose as the dust settled around us

    Eh-oh, eh-oh Eh-eh-oh, eh-oh Eh-eh-oh, eh-oh Eh-eh-oh, eh-oh

    Oh, where do we begin? The rubble or our sins?

    The rough draft of this post got erased somehow…I guess I shouldn’t leave things on this site…

    So starting over from scratch, what would be a good thing to write about?

    I know that my original point was how well this song describes us now. I mean us in the Western World.

    You know it’s funny how much depression runs rampant in our cultures, considering we have more benefits than we ever have.

    But that’s actually something we have in common with animals.

    A study was done on rats, where they were given everything they needed, all the time, never had to work for it.

    The rats developed depression, as well as other unhealthy habits, for rats…and for humans.

    But you might see the same thing with dogs. They’re bred for work, and when they’re kept as pets but not exercised properly or given any tasks to do, they will also get depressed.

    And so do humans.

    This life of staring at screens and working from home, and not getting outside and having to really work to solve problems that many of us have is making us depressed. We feel like we have no meaning, because there is no effort.

    We don’t have to be fighting for survival, to feel accomplished, any creative goal can help, but most especially if it’s necessary.

    I know each generation has its issues with how the younger one has it easier and isn’t disciplined.

    I do think there’s some truth in that, though. Even I feel less invested in homework assignments since I had to do them digitally, and it’s just a little too easy now. I know it doesn’t prove I’m smart now, if I succeed, it just proves I knew what the teacher wanted. Many times I could have done way more if left to my own devices.

    But the education system encourages me not to be creative, because my grade will suffer if I don’t meet the exact requirements of the assignment. Ever get in trouble for going over the page limit? Yeah…

    But anyway, my point is, we don’t have to really work. There are people who do, but the ones who are the face and voice of our culture don’t.

    And that is every race, gender, and whatever else.

    i think that’s part of the reason we spend so much time fighting each other, really. While history shows people would fight each other no matter what, it doesn’t help that we really have all the time in the world to do it now, instead of having to set aside time to go to war.

    All this has got me to thinking.

    About how few people under 30 even know history now, they really don’t know that much period. Not science, or religion, or how people work.

    You have your outliers, like my cousin, who like to do their own research, but they’re not the majority.

    Not that this is unusual, in pampered societies, it’s pretty normal, actually…and then they crumble.

    That’s what the song Pompeii is about, really. How when we’re left to ourselves, to follow our own whims, we get buried in our sins, until disaster strikes, and freezes us that way forever.

    And how can you be an optimist about this? When there is only one outcome ever to societies in moral decay like that.

     “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25, 17:6)

    Both those instance talk about someone doing something pretty stupid and wrong. And also it says:

    “Be not wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.” (Proverbs 3:7)

    We are wise in our own eyes now aren’t we?

    Like all this prattle about not getting married and staying single that I wrote about before. What is that but being wise in our own eyes.

    And we don’t seem to care what generations of humans before us said or thought. We’ve got it figued out now.

    I mean because with zero experience, zero study, and only the corrupt examples of current culture to go by, clearly we’re well informed on these issues.

    But the depression of this age has gone so far now, that a lot of kids don’t even care anymore if they’re right.

    Case in point, just yesterday, I was in YT comment thread with someone who said that truth doesn’t matter tot ehm.

    I was asking them why they bothered to watch the whole video of a debate if they didn’t care about the truth or what was right.

    I got no answer to that so far. I probably never will.

    At this point, admitting you hunger for a definitive truth is like a weakness to our relativistic young people–and some older people also.

    Of course the dismissive attitude of older people isn’t helping.

    I mean, who let the kids watch PBS and Disney Channel and Cartoon network? I noticed the bad messages of those channels when I was a kid. I’m not surprised the people who never questioned it have now swallowed it hook line and sinker.

    I mean, you take a whole show like Dora the Explorer, and you go on a quest through a fake map, looking fora fake item, learn a few Spanish words…and you call that exploring?

    Nothing against Dora personally, it’s an okay show for entertainment–but it’s not really educational. And it’s not even the worst one.

    It’s hard to blame the young, they’re just doing what they were taught to do, and by the time they realize it wasn’t right, they’ll have a lot of regrets.

    Still we have our own responsibility. And they do choose not to think, not to try, not to explore for real. And that’s on them.

    I bring all this up, but do I have a solution?

    I think the solution is the same as it’s always been.

    Person by person, the only thing to do is try to get people to understand the condition they’er in.

    Debate isn’t always the best way to do that, I admit. Though it works for some.

    I’ve had most people just duck out of arguments when they realized I was going to win because I was better informed than them, or just straight up insult me.

    But people can’t always be so quick to dismiss if you touch them on a personal level.

    We need both.

    But it’s hard, there’s so few people fighting these battles compared to the people who are casualties in them.

    But that’s how it usually goes. We preserve a remnant of the people. The majority of them don’t want to be helped.

    Some will literally say so, I have grandparents who would say that.

    We love our sin so much.

    We love being able to do what we wnat.

    And now it’s not a secret, you’d even hear it hailed from the streets and the theaters and political campaigns that we’d rather die doing what we’d prefer to do, right or wrong, then live submitting to God’s will.

    I saw this comment today, it was like this: I don’t believe in God because there’s nothing about same sex relationship in the bible and He’s not okay with them.

    First: There’s actually plenty about homosexuality in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, the books of the Law, and Romans 1 all talk about it. (It’s called Sodomy in the old Testament)

    Second: I find that these types of objections completely misunderstand the nature of God’s existence.

    You see, if God exists does not depend on our personal preferences. He either does, or He doesn’t.

    If He does exist, He is the final say on what is right and wrong. You, as His creation, don’t get an opinion.

    Sure, against other humans, you do. But not against God. If God was in front of you and He told you, that would be the last word. And if you saw God, in His Glory, the last thing you would dream of doing is arguing with Him.

    See, the point of contention is not if God supports what we feel is right.

    If God is the Reality, then that is the reality we have to deal with. Even if He was the bloodthirsty God of many religions, cruel and spiteful, which would be bad for us. But it would be Reality, there’d be nothing we can do about it.

    Thankfully, God is not like that. But He’s still unchangeable. Your preferences donesn’t come into it.

    You may not like it….and God has never said we have to like doing what He says…but He does say we need to do it.

    As a Christian, I do find that the rewards of serving God is that if you do it long enough, you will start to like it, and then eventually, you won’t be able to do without it. But that’s sort of an insider bonus. The bible promises that one day everyone will have to submit to God’s will, whether they like it or not.

    It’s a bit like Gravity. Many of us wish we could fly, and though we can sort of, using machines, we have to borrow that from things God made that can defy gravity, we ourselves can’t defy gravity more than a few feet in the air before it yanks us back down.

    In the same way, we can’t defy God’s design for very far in our moral lives. Maybe if we had the “help” from the devil, we can go farther…gross.

    But that’s short lived, and on our own, the consequences of our actions will always pull us back down to the ground eventually.

    Christians believe that one day God will set us free form the law of Gravity, just as one day, we don’t need the Law of morality anymore…because we’ll become things that don’t need gravity, and things that don’t need law. We’ll have a new nature.

    Like a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.

    But until then, this is what we’ve got. We have to work with it.

    I’m not an optimist about Mans’ ability to fix this world. I think we’re as doomed as Pompeii.

    But I always knew that.

    But I still have hope. I hope in God’s ability to always save some people, as He promises to do. And in that hope, we keep trying to be a part of that.

    I think that’s about all for now.

    Until next time, stay honest–Natasha.

    Loving Ourselves

    / toseealife / Leave a comment

    Well my last post seems to have gone over well, so I trust I’m striking a chord with some people at least.

    I talked a lot about being arrogant in that post.

    What I don’t want to do is come off like I’m blaming Gen Z and Millennials for this.

    While I do blame them in some capacity for making their own decision to embrace all this insanity, I can’t say they’re particularly stupid or evil compared to the rest of humanity.

    It’s been pointed out by smarter people than me that the age of Moral Standards we’ve lived in for the last 200 years in the West, give or take a few decades or centuries depending on the country, was not a usual thing for humans. It’s the anomaly.

    From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance to the Revolution era, it was a very unusual period in history compared to before, especially the pre-Christian era.

    Up till then, the general consensus from all people’s was that everyone else was corrupt, and only their culture stood out, and some of them didn’t even go that far.

    If you read what the Bible describes people doing, it would shock you how sick it was. Even now, we haven’t gone that far–as a whole–though some of us have.

    And God somehow still had hope for those people. It boggles my mind. But He was always looking for the Remnant.

    What big movement preachers tend to overlook, though they mean well, and I wish what they talked about was more frequent than it is–is that Positive Change, as well as Ethics being Preserved, is usually the work of small amounts of people.

    A few thousand out of many thousands, is usually the biggest amount of people who work together on it.

    It can be as few as 8, like the story of Noah (the legend is found in almost every culture in the world by the way, often with the same number of people surviving as the Bible says.)

    God has His eyes always on the few.

    Jesus even told us “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way to Life, and few will there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14)

    Which seems harsh…but Jesus is just telling us how this works.

    The Masses of people are not concerned with morality that much, and if they ever are concerned about a few things in general, it was the phenomenon of the past thousand years to see that, it wasn’t common before.

    That’s why some historians have the idea that Man’s Consciousness is evolving. They look at our moving toward higher and higher ethical standards, and or at least more discussion about them, and they say we improved.

    But if you look at the bare facts of history, you’ll see each age has its own problems, and they repeat. We’re not smarter as a whole, it’s isl that those of us in each generation that do See Clearly, see a little more, because wise men learn form history and they build off of it, but foolish ones ignore it and they always have.

    That was part of the thought that’s been rolling around in my head for several months, which is just this:

    Things that people predict will happen if a country doesn’t change it’s course always do actually happen.

    And no one listens because no one ever has listened.

    You see, a lot of social commentators say that the problem is people just don’t realize what is happening.

    But that is not true.

    Sure there’s secrete scandals still, there probably always will be as long as mankind is in power.

    But the problems that are eating away at us are ones people predicted and called to attention for years, and decades, and even centuries.

    Just like in the Bible the Prophets told the Israelites what was happening. And the Israelites didn’t listen.

    It’s so hard for us to admit this, isn’t it? That we do what we do, knowing exactly what will happen, and we do it anyway.

    Example:

    If you got any person to answer you honestly on the subject of depicting violent in movies directed at kids as much as we do, they’d have to acknowledge that statistics do point to violence in entertainment having a bad effect on kids and their development.

    [See articles here: https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-And-TV-Violence-013.aspx#:~:text=Extensive%20viewing%20of%20television%20violence,to%20imitate%20what%20they%20see.

    https://www.bartleby.com/essay/effects-of-tv-violence-on-children-F3CEVXSZTC%5D

    But would they stop promoting that stuff by watching it, talking about it, reviewing it, and in many cases, showing it to their own kids.

    My father did, and he’d be one of the ones to say it was a problem.

    You see? We know…we just don’t care.

    That’s always the way.

    I’m glad that my faith was never in humanity to begin with, because living in a world where everyone’s corruption is exposed so much via internet would kill anyone’s faith in humanity.

    We hope for the best from people, but we cannot depend on it, unless we know them very well.

    But that’s not really mean to be a depressing thought. The Bible has said that for years. All these angsty pop culture hot take people are just agreeing with an old teaching, that’s all.

    It’s like G. K. Chesterton said, if we try to hit on anything original an good, we’ll only find it was Orthodoxy the entire time.

    Even the idea of Self Worth is Christian, though it’s been taken way, way out of it’s proper context, as always.

    I don’t know if there’s a better or worse thing to worship other than God. One could make the case for it, but it’s kind of a matter of opinion whether the worship of success and domination of a few hundred years ago is really better or worse than the worship of tribalism and self fulfillment is now. Often both at the same time.

    Humans are not better or worse than we’ve been in the past.

    But we are regressing out of the progress the last centuries brought us in at least realizing how messed up we were.

    People used to admit that there was a lot wrong with human nature, even if they didn’t see it in themselves.

    But now we’re really trying to deny that Human Nature is corrupt.

    Telling people to “Be themselves” no matter what.

    Yes,the message to be genuine is a good one.

    But predictably, since other messages were neglected, it’s become “be yourself even if that you is a terrible person.”

    Women will admit to be aggressive b—-s publicly now. Like ti’s something to brag about.

    “I’m so mean, yay!”

    Or “so evil” I hear that one a lot.

    “I have no soul” guys say that one too.

    “no heart.”

    Wow, so brave of all of you to admit to being inhuman. Hip hip hurrah.

    I think actual people who are jerks have always been proud of it, if they weren’t arrogant, they probably would be jerks.

    But at least it wasn’t approved of by the entire culture before, not for a long time, but we’re swinging back that direction.

    Let’s just remember that in Greek Culture, which is where we get a lot of our ideas, rape and kidnapping were normalized parts of their mythology that no one thought twice about. It’s possible to be completely blind to the obvious.

    Actually we’re blind to the obvious most often, because we just don’t want to see it.

    2 Timothy 3 says this about it:

    “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.”

    Even if we ignore the ones I didn’t emphasize, though they are still prevalent, look at how much those words sum up not just our complaints at a culture, but the things we actually praise.

    Romans 1 says that people, known such thins are wrong, not only practice them but approve of those who do.

    In 2000 years, nothing has changed.

    Ecclesiastes says there is “nothing new under the sun.”

    It’s been dawning on me that while I appeal to people’s desire for morality when I debate them, I am assuming they care at all.

    But I think less and less of them do.

    Aside from the SJW crap that they are programmed to react to, without understanding it at all, they really don’t care about higher thought.

    These things have no value to them. They live for entertainment and pleasure. For Self. And no one tells them this is unacceptable.

    It’s not a mystery why the Media promotes this. Selfish people buy more things, and care less if you exploit others to provide them with those things.

    But it’s sad how the schools and churches have promoted it so much also.

    They have us so much under their spell, the Overlords’, that we can be told this point blank, even by our own commercials on TV, and we simply don’t care. Just keep distracting me. The world is a dark place.

    Well in Quasimodo’s words to Frollo “Well now I see the only thing that’s dark about it is people like you!”

    See, the people who tell us to stay away form the world because of its evil are the same ones making it evil. They don’t want us to catch on, do they? Called Gaslighting.

    Because if we did catch on, we might stop them, and evil men fear having their deeds exposed, don’t they?

    They hate and fear those of us who know better and have pure hearts. And like Fagan from Oliver Twist, they want to make sure anyone who does is corrupted.

    A lot of anime has this theme also. What is Japan trying to tell us, huh? That people who are naturally more inclined to do good than the rest of us are feared the most.

    Don’t you fear someone who seems like a better person than you, sometimes? I know I have.

    I’ve mostly given up thinking of it that way, we’re all human. But I can do that because I have grace, the people who don’t are still afraid, we remind them of their own death the Bible says.

    People have accused Christians of that ever since they first appeared.

    I have to recognize as I write this that a lot of people may not even be ready to hear what I’m saying.

    They may not even be to where they see a piot ot all this.

    I can hope it resonates with someone who is ready, who needs it.

    Like “wow I’m not crazy!”

    My advice, if i’m qualified to give it, is if you have found yourself noticing all these problems, don’t waste time being chocked by them.

    Try to find that remnant of people who still believe in the old values, and stick with them.

    And reach who you can. There’s always some wheat among the tares of each generation, perhaps more than we realize, since many of us give up trying to reach them.

    It’s not our job to decide who can receive truth and salvation, we are supposed to shoot our shot, and let God choose how it lands.

    I don’t know what all our fates will be, and I ‘m not suppose dot know, but I know that we can’t control destiny, only how much we want to take an active role in it. There are still things that will happen no matter what, but there’s a lot we can change also. So we are still supposed to try.

    That said, for now I’m done, so until next time, stay honest–Natasha

    Content With Singleness

    / toseealife / Leave a comment

    Wow it has been a while.

    I’ve been working on other stuff, so I kind of neglected this blog for a bit, but, it has given me time to think about some new topics of conversation.

    Like for example:

    Isolation.

    So I like to write about relationships, as you know if you’ve been here a while, and I like to write about the nature of love, fear, and so on.

    But with all this, the global spy search engine tends to recommend me videos of people talking about their opinion on relationships.

    I might think they were outliers, except that even in my own college classes people express the same views.

    In my last class, I heard people talk about how being in committed relationships was hard, expensive and so on.

    In the same class, a guy also asked some of the girls in the back row if they’d ever consider getting a Sugar Daddy (not him, he was just weird and the topic had come up in the lesson for whatever reason).

    On said no way, it would be too awkward, even if it was just to fake date.

    The other said she’d do anything for the right amount of money.

    I thought “I can’t believe I’m listening to this conversation in the middle of a class.”

    What happened right?

    I blame the internet mostly.

    To use the clice phrase, we’re at a point wehre this is reality? MEn think it’s too much effort to commit, and women think they’d do anything for money in some cases.

    Now sure, that’s just one girl…but her attitude is becoming more prevalent.

    I don’t know how this happened, where we’ve taken the shame of the diea of doing sex for money.

    People call that “slut shaming” now.

    Liek being alsut is someting to be proud of.

    Even if you had no moral obligations, i’s apoor healthy chioce at the very least, so that’s like saying peope should be proud of smokin gor drinking ro drugs.

    That’ll be it next, watch. “Junkie Shaming” the new crime.

    IT always baffles me how poeple never stop to think that the reason orgarian might be pushing for this “no shameing our poor decisons” is because they make money off our addictions.

    Anyone notice those ads that are oopenly mocking us for our addciotn now?

    The ones that are like “You can seek social validation wihtout lagging out.”

    “You can game all night etc.”

    “Lose to a 12 year old.”

    Ha, ha, ah.

    Why don’t they just say:

    “We know you have no self respect, no purpose in your life, and no value as anything but a consumer to up our numbers, please keep paying us to feed your addiction to screens so that you never think about the world outside your little bubble that might actually have real problems.”

    You know in the classic “Fahrenheit 451” the people live in houses where the walls are TV screens, and some you can interact with, making your life more and more into a work of fiction, till they can’t even understand the format of a book, or have a real conversation with a real person anymore.

    In an anime of all things, “Darling in the Franxx” People replace real human relationships with a machine-forged connection, and replace sex with happiness stimulation, and food with this weird energy they input into their bodies directly.

    They become immortal…but at the price of ceasing to be human beings. At the end they all turn into pure spiritual mental energy and become part of the hive mind. [Sorry for Spoilers, but I doubt anyone reading this would care about those.]

    The show isn’t that good at exploring the concept intellectually, but it’s certainly unnerving.

    It used to be a joke that we were becoming like machines, but, now people are really starting to just take that seriously.

    At least here, to be fair, it’s not global.

    But I’m talking about the West, were I live, naturally.

    You don’t need me to tell you this, though, you can see it yourself.

    If you watch our shows now, even actors are becoming more robotic and fake in their delivery. The goal isn’t to come off as a real person anymore, it’s to be quippy and mock modern culture.

    It’s actually become modern culture to mock ourselves, anything and everything, and nothing can be taken seriously.

    I listen to people talk sometimes, and it’s like they don’t even know how to be serious at all.

    Their tone, their facial expressions, they seem devoid of real purpose…you wait for the joke to be over, but it’s like it never is…until you offend them, then no one has any sense of humor.

    I’m not sure how we compartmentalized our lives to this point, it seems like someone took great care to ensure that we did, however.

    I can feel the draw myself too. I live in this culture, and I’m tempted by it, same as everyone else.

    But at least I still know I’m tempted. As C. S. Lewis pus it, if you can feel the spell working, then you’re not fully under it yet.

    Which is found in the Silver Chair, which is actually a book that coves the temptation of distraction and dulled senses a lot. I never liked it, it was unsettling, probably because it hit too close to home.

    Actually Prince Rillian in that book acts a lot like people do now. Unable to take anything seriously, unless it’s an insult to the very witch who’s keeping him under her spell. Then he becomes very angry.

    He’s easily distracted. Flippant.

    But when he breaks free of the enchantment, he becomes clear headed and implores them to help him.

    Later the witch tries to re-enchant them all, dulling their minds again, but their friend Puddleglum uses pain to clear his head, and tells her off. Freeing them all finally so they can kill her.

    The moral of the story?

    Real sensations are what block out the fake ones.

    All of us can go along the way we do, until something truly bad happens.

    But it seems the Overloads known as the entertainment industry are trying to take great care to tell us that suffering in the land can be remedied only with more distractions.

    How many people got movie streaming services during COVID?

    A lot of us realized the value of real interactions, but a lot of people, especially younger ones, fell more deeply under the spell of using screens for everything. (I say with irony, because I’m using one right now.)

    So let’s talk about this: Why did this happen?

    How did we become so distracted?

    I think we all know how it slowly became more and more normal to stare at screens.

    But let’s talk about the real reason it’s so appealing.

    People now use the excuse that they have too much social anxiety to want to make friends, leave their house, and try anything really.

    But that’s not it.

    I’ve no doubt that many people do have anxiety, but most of the ones I talk to don’t really have anything that crippling, they just have insecurities, and we all have those.

    If you can talk and read emotional cues like a normal person, I wouldn’t say you have anxiety, per sec.

    But I don’t believe even the insecurities are the real reason.

    To put it in blunt language, people of the younger generations–which is starting to see anywhere form 12-40 years old, who voice these views, are often arrogant, self absorbed twits.

    It’s not really that we’re afraid to socialize, it’s that we’ve decided three fundamental things.

    1: Other people are a lot of work

    2: Other people are annoying, and they sometimes find us annoying,

    3: Other people are just not worth our time.

    Why is everyone we don’t like toxic now?

    You notice that?

    Some people are toxic, but we’re slapping that label onto every single flaw.

    Throughout human history, many individual have not particlayr liekd ohter humans, that’s not new.

    What is new is broadcasting that fact with so much flippancy, and so little remorse for it.

    I mena, there’s been many cruel societies, but they had families, they had gatering to celebrate, and not showing up still made you kind of an oddball.

    Now u can laugh it off.

    What I find particualrly delusional about this new way of thingkin is taht poepel ac tlike it’s speical.

    Like, “oh wiat, human interaciton is hard? Who knew? It’s not liek we’ve writtne, sung, and performed aobut htat for hundreds of years.”

    Yeah, it is hard.

    Everything worth doing is hard.

    But you don’t duck out of doing it just because of that.

    See, we’re not shying away from each other because we’re scared–we’re doing it because we’re spoiled.

    We can have a fake form of humanity projected into our homes at any minute of any day at any given time.

    We can have porn, and pay for sex if we want the real experience (real being subjective there), so we don’t need to commit to a willing relationship. It’s normalized now to pleasure ourselves if nothing else.

    You know. I don’t do any of those things…and I don’t feel I’ve lost anything in my life. I’m kind of glad actually, I feel like they create weird habits.

    I guess I’m writing this because I think the real wake up call we need might not just be about politics and religion.

    To even get there, we need connection.

    The Bible says that God Himself said, even before there was sin, there was one thing that was not good.

    And that was: “It is not good for Man to be alone.”

    God said man needs help. A supporter. A life saver. Something we need desperately.

    Man wanted companionship, but he also needed it.

    Don’t we all want that? Most of us don’t admit it, but just being wanted can feel cheap. We want to feel we contribute something also. But just being needed can feel hollow. We feel like it should be both. And it was supposed to be both.

    As always, we’re ever rebelling against our Creator.

    One would think that we’d at least want to be around each other.

    But we should remember that Adam and Eve turned on each other immediately after they turned on God.

    People ask sometimes how Christians can believe something that sounds that much like a fairy-tale. The fruit, the trees, the snake.

    I don’t find it so hard to believe, because I see all this played out all the time, every day. Even if the facts weren’t true, the principles are on point.

    The story of Ed gen isn’t actually about knowledge being a bad thing, like some people say.

    Ir’s about trust.

    Do you trust God, or the devil?

    Do you trust your spouse? Or God?

    And when you break the trust of God, and your spouse, guess who wins? Not you. The devil.

    Love is about trust. You can’t have love without trust.

    And we are so determined not to trust anyone now.

    I watched one video, where a woman said she got divorced after 5 years.

    I’m thinking “Five years? Unless he was a deadbeat, a cheater, or an abuser, what problems would you have in 5 years that couldn’t be worked out if you were willing to grow?”

    You can grow out of a lot in 5 years, so if things weren’t working out, the problem was probably one or both of them didn’t want to change at all.

    And what is the idea with expecting to get married, and not have to change anything about yourself?

    The idea we’re fed is that people who love you accept you the way you are.

    Well yeah, they do.

    But that doesn’t man you wouldn’t have to change.

    You may put up with someone’s flaws, out of love, but that done mean you like it, or that you should. Flaws often hurt us more than anyone else.

    And then there’s the things that aren’t sin, but you still need to be able to let them go.

    For example, what if you’re allergic to a food? Should your spouse eat it in front of you? Maybe if you’re okay with it…but what if you aren’t? It’s not a flaw to eat food…but it can be a point of contention.

    I’m just using this to illustrate. And yeah, I’ve seen couples fight over things that stupid. Who hasn’t?

    I’m not saying someone should be telling you how to change. But if you annoy them…you might want to think about compromising.

    And you now…not all of our personal habits are worth hanging onto.

    We’re told now that “Self” is the most important thing.

    There’s fear at the base of that.

    “I can’t trust anyone else to love me, so I have to love me.”

    My therapist once told me to try to give myself the kind of parental validation I didn’t get.

    That didn’t work. It did work when God helped me.

    It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. If everybody out there is so busy loving themselves, they won’t try to love you.

    Someone has to be willing to be different. But more people were willing to in the past, when an relationship based on helping each other was considered normal and healthy.

    Now people say you shouldn’t need your partner.

    And then it’s okay to bail on them. Because you don’t need them anyway.

    Like…you can need someone and still learn to live without them. If they do leave, or die perhaps. Things change. But then you learn to need someone else. We’re not made to not need each other. Literally.

    And if you don’t see why you need other people…That’s proof that you do.

    Anyone who is arrogant enough to think they are doing fine on their own already needs others way more than they realize. It’s just insane to not need anyone.

    I’m not here to say you can’t live alone, sure, you can live alone in a house, or apartment. That doesn’t mean you’re alone all the time.

    Being alone is supposed to be a punishment, in the prison system. It sounded like a lot of people wouldn’t even mind it, if they had WiFi.

    Ugh.

    I’m so sick of this.

    You know, I consider myself an independent woman. I don’t let other people make my decisions for me.

    But I rely on my family all the time for things.

    I don’t mind relying on men either. Not for everything, but it’s reasonable for some things.

    And I really, really don’t see what the big deal is about it.

    Why is it so bad? We’re all born needing everything done for us. All we can do is relieve ourselves, which is a metaphor in of itself.

    And we learn our whole life to do more things for ourselves, but we do them with other people. If we stop learning form others, we’re saying we arrived.

    I think in marriage you have to learn from each other. That used to be the philosophy of a lot of people. You can’t remake your spouse (at least not without breaking them) but you can teach them, and any decent person was expected to learn.

    Not now.

    And it’s not good for us.

    Depression is at an all time high, mental illness of every kind, low self worth.

    But our arrogance is through the roof.

    You can be arrogant and still have low self worth. You have an elevated idea of your own rights, but a low idea of the value of you even existing to exercise them.

    Figures, as soon as we believe we’re the only ones who have any say in our lives, we feel like they have no meaning.

    Men especially need other people to feel like they have meaning in their lives. Women do better amusing ourselves even with indirect contact, and having hobbies, but we still need other people too. I do think we tend to cut ourselves of from them less in general

    Also, little tip ladies. if you’re gong to complain about the bar being low for men, maybe you should make sure you’re giving them something to actually impress anyone for. Do you really want it to just be about sex?

    I have high standards because I have high ones for myself.

    This is what I aspire to be:

    1. Kind
    2. Honest
    3. Smart
    4. Interested in His ( and other peoples) interests, at least enough to be supportive.
    5. Brave enough to confront a problem and also to admit when I’m wrong.
    6. Humble enough not to take myself too seriously.
    7. Confident enough never to not value my part in a relationship or my worth as a person
    8. Determined enough to always try to find solutions, not just gripe about problems.
    9. And relaxed enough to let stuff go that doesn’t really matter.
    10. Not ever thinking I have all the answers, or that I have none of them.

    This is just the short list.

    I am not all of these things all the time, but I do try to be them.

    I’m not expecting someone else to always be like this, but I do expect them to think values are important, and to act be trying to meet them, even if they have slip up.s

    I’ve seen enough of people claiming they have values and then not doing jack to fulfill any of them.

    And I’m even more scared by people who now don’t care, and don’t think they need values. Except spitting out the SJW programmed ones.

    I wouldn’t even mind as much if most of them were honest about it.

    Like, I’d rather have someone who is fully convinced that Pride is a moral cause, but at least really believe that, then the many people I know who just say it because it’s what everyone says, they don’t know why they believe it, they don’t care either.

    Someone once asked a man on the street what the two biggest problems in our society were:

    The man answered “Don’t know, don’t care.”

    The questioner said “You’re right, those are the two biggest problems.”

    And they are.

    We don’t know what’s happening, we don’t know the facts, we don’t know each other.

    And when you don’t know, you can’t care.

    And we choose not to know, and we choose not to care.

    So if I have anything to add to this, it’s that there’s only one solution.

    Make a different choice.

    That’s literally all you can do about this.

    Then teach others to do the same.

    We may not stop the culture from doing this, but we don’t have to do it ourselves.

    As an aside, i found an article while I was trying to find the quote for this chapter that sort of confirms what I was saying about trust, if you want to check it out:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/01/28/americans-losing-trust-in-each-other-and-institutions/35525131-ce9b-4815-81a4-cc7a6ab2aebc/

    Until next time, stay honest–Natasha