A Dilemma

I want to talk about the book idea I just had, but is that even a good idea? It is rather cerebral, and there is a good chance that I am nowhere near smart enough to make it happen. Hell, I have little more than a concept, at this point.

I have talked to family about the idea. One thought it sounded like an interesting concept, but did not elaborate. One thought it would make an interesting screenplay, but could not see it working as a novel. I get that take more than most: I write a lot of ideas out that would make great screenplays but fall short as novels. Maybe I should write a movie? Do I really want to enter that world right now?

That is part of the reason I haven’t been writing here so much in recent times. Between that new concept, and two books that I have been working on for a bit, I am mildly distracted.

What I would like to remind people is that Canada is coming up to an election. I implore you to vote for YOUR interests, and not just tow a family line on principle alone. I am going to have to vote strategically for the first time in my adult life, and I am far from a fan. I want to vote NDP (you know: one of the five major parties of Canada. We do have more than two.), but to keep out the party that would damage my way of life the most, I will have to vote Liberal.

this is about you

Fact: I rarely post anything with any thought of anyone.

If you are offended by what I post, ask yourself: does it attack me directly?

The answer universally is: NOT INTENTIONALLY.

I try, not always successfully, to post completely objective truths or very personal ideas. I am NOT trying to offend you. If you are offended by what gets posted, ask yourself ‘why?’ before jumping in and claiming I, or anyone else, is wrong. You might be exactly the person being attacked, but there may also be a good reason for it.

The other day, I reposted from an external source that Jesus was not white, and was anti-establishment. These are facts. However, a person jumped in saying refuting these facts, pointing to his church and the great charitable works they do.

NOT ONCE DID I SAY THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS WRONG.

I just pushed along the facts that the Christian church has a shady past, and some people in the church needed a reminder that Jesus could NOT be a white man living in the Middle East in the time period being discussed in the Bible. His attacks on the regime in place are what made the Christian faith so important in history. Not once did I say that you are a bad person for not remembering that, I merely brought it up as something to be remembered.

The fact that I need to remind people that not everything posted online is an attack on them is, at this point, rather embarrassing. We have been living in an internet based world for over 20 years. Actually, depending on who you are and what capacity technology plays in your life, it could be argued that it has been closer to 50 years of internet borderline dependency. At this point, it shows your personal character if you think every opinion and statement is geared directly towards you

Does this post not contradict this point? Well, very astute, but the difference between what I am talking about and what happened is that the statements provided above are general. These are “facts” that apply to a broad audience, and really are not all that offensive. The affronted individual decided to attack me, personally, as if I was attacking him directly.

“Do not feed the trolls!” I hear the masses scream.

I removed him from personal lists, which I am confused how he got on in the first place. I can almost promise you that he does not read this site, as well. To attack him anonymously on the internet may seem petty, but I will not post his name. I deleted his public comments so no one can point him towards this. I have done everything in my power to make sure that he remains in ignorance of this, and I feel as though he needs to read this, anyway. To remind him that opinions on the internet are not usually meant to attack or hurt one person specifically, or divide anyone.

We live in a troubling time. The left-minded see an attempt at a rise in Fascism in one of the most powerful countries in the world right now. The right-minded are trying to embolden their way of thinking without having an oranged-faced oompa-loompa dictate how they are perceived. We are seeing bully-tactics being okay’d throughout the political sphere in Canada, which cheapens any sort of advancement. All of this on top of a global pandemic that, as a global population, were woefully unprepared for, even though there have been warning by scientists for years.

I get it; we are hurting. All of us need compassion and love instead of snarky comments and GIF depicting our beliefs, either spiritually or politically, are wrong. Personally, I would love nothing more than a hug most days.

We have to remember that soon, maybe even tomorrow, all will be better. No, nothing will 100% return to normal, but it will be better.

I love you.

Except you, Phil. You’re a dick.

What is your normal?

The title of this alludes to what I want to discus today.

We speak of normal as if there is a ridged and long lasting definition for what it is. If we went by the first time I heard it in relation to someone’s life, it would include accepting the Gulf War and Bill Clinton is the president of the USA. Human rights were discussed but not universally implemented, smoking was far from being ban in most countries, and grade 13 still existed in Canada.

Social changes are inevitable, so what does it mean to lead a “normal” existence? It could be argued that the nuclear family, a steady paying job, and aspirations that are achievable are normal. Ironically, that cuts a huge swath of the population out of the definition. I mean, by definition, single children families, single parents, and the disabled would all be cut from the definition. Collectively, they make up a greater majority than the sample size. Would they no longer define normal?

This is why I choose to define normal for myself, in that I just define it as being comfortable in life.

Now, where this gets tricky is when people decide to compare and contrast. All because I cannot walk does not mean that I cannot have a normal day by my standards. This leaves me to wonder by what metric people are gading “normal” when it does not exist?

There are plenty of studies showing how 99% of the wealth is held by 1% of people (cite). Their lives are the ones portrayed in movies and TV shows, so are they the definition of normal? If majority reigns, normal should be living in destitute conditions under a communist regime. (looking at current populations of China and India [India is not communist, but does have a large population in poverty according to the World Vision poverty calculations])

I vote we all define our own normal. Our own place to keep our minds at peace. We have to survive this world, we should be able to dictate what we consider normal.