I blog, therefore I am.

5 notes

I think a lot of people go wrong with the Israel-Palestine conflict because they treat it as if it’s a conflict that’s been going on for a year when really it’s been more like 50 or even more.

I don’t think I’ll ever write any opinion pieces on the ins and outs of the conflict on the blog because I simply don’t know the history. I would implore anyone interested or emotionally invested in the conflict to really read up on the history.

There’s no point having your heart in the right place if your head isn’t.

Filed under Israel palestine history tsp rant human rights gaza war

5 notes

There is nothing more satisfying than having an actual mature and constructive conversation on the internet. So useful having input from people from all different backgrounds to widen the perspective. A lot of my posts seem to get generally praised which is great for my confidence and stuff but I do enjoy the constructive criticism so much, luckily I’ve only had a handful of idiots and sjw’s to deal with.

Filed under philosophy tsp personal dragoctosaur arewejustfallingthroughtime

12 notes

Anonymous asked: That's not the friend zone. That's being friends with someone. Don't be a neckbeard and use that term please. Even if you mean it in a positive light.

arewejustfallingthroughtime:

the-shallow-philosopher:

dragoctosaur:

the-shallow-philosopher:

dragoctosaur:

the-shallow-philosopher:

Not really, it’s being friends with someone in the knowledge it won’t go further than that due to the longevity, comfort, or intensity of the friendship, i.e. The friend zone.

It’s not even an offensive term, people link the term with the kind of people that generally use it and associate the term with them. Relationships peak at different levels, some are only passing acquaintances, some level off at the friend zone and others bypass it or peak at the muddy line between a friend and a partner.

So in a way you’re correct, if you are friends with someone they are in the friend zone, but to be friend zoned is when it is acknowledged that your relationship is peaking in that zone. At least that’s how I see it, I could be wrong though.

That’s definitely not the common definition of the term. In my experience, “friendzone” is generally used in relation to the verb “to friendzone.” So if they say “the friendzone does not exist” it really means a person cannot be friendzoned.

Basically, she friendzoned him iff she only gave him friendship when he was paying her kindness for romantic love. The general feeling is that he’s been cheated of something he was entitled to.

The problems with this concept are 1) implies that women owe men romantic love if they’re nice to us- that they’re entitled to it, 2) implies that it’s unreasonable for women to expect men to ever be nice to us just for the sake of friendship, 3) implies that having romantic love for someone is a voluntary action when it is actually involuntary- that love is a commodity that can be voluntarily given and 4) devalues friendship, particularly between men and women. That’s just what I can think of off the top of my head, you can probably think of more.

So yeah, you’re not really talking about the friendzone here.

They’re all excellent points and I agree but they’re all points against the idea that one can be placed indefinitely in the friend zone. I’m arguing that the friend zone itself exists and that sometimes relationships don’t go beyond it. Whether we can be sure that a relationship will always stay at friend is questionable so I’d agree that you can’t be friend zoned by someone but that you can be in the friend zone.

The male entitlement points definitely cause problems but it assumes that a male cannot friend zone a female or that a female cannot friend zone another female (assuming we can friend zone someone)

I think when males say that what’s really going on is the male wants romance or sex and she doesn’t. She’ll either see him as a friend or less than that, there’s basically a lack of mutual feeling and then the effects of patriarchy is added on top of that which leaves some males feeling they’ve been placed in the situation when really it’s involuntary as you said.

My argument was a little muddy though so thanks for helping me clean it up a little, I’m sure it needs more work so anyone else who thinks they can chip in feel free :)

See, I agree with your concept, but I don’t agree with calling this the friendzone. I too have some friendships with the opposite sex that are never going to become romantic or sexual, but I don’t say we’re “in the friendzone” because “the friendzone” is the name of a sexist notion that I am opposed to whereas opposite sex friendships are a completely different thing. It’s best to keep the language clear, especially when talking about controversial and confusing topics like male/female interactions and power dynamics, you know?

And as for the assumption you say I was making, women don’t tend to say we’ve been friendzoned, we tend to frame it as “he’s only interested in me as a friend,” or even “he rejected me, but at least we’re still friends.” We haven’t been socialized to feel entitled to other people’s affection beyond general politeness, so we don’t tend to use the term that has the implication that the rejection was unjust. Of course there are some individual women with the narcissism to say they’ve been friendzoned, just as there are some individual men who have thought through their male socialization enough to know that being friendzoned isn’t a thing. But on the whole, feeling oneself “friendzoned” is a male phenomenon.

Yeah, I think I get you. So, basically we could say there is a conceptual area which exists but the term “friend zone” is a perverse form of the concept tainted by sexism?

I still don’t think the term “friend zone” should be considered tainted by sexism. It’s simply a declination to a closer relationship. But this declination is all too often associated with the entitlement of men, when in truth, there should be no correlation between the two. As far as the original question, this friend zone is rather ambiguous don’t you think? We all have different definitions to what pertains to the difference between a romantic relationship and a plutonic one. The creation of such a zone is up to the individual; the perimeter of this zone is entirely up to the creator’s digression.

The difference in relationships - acquaintanceship, friendship, romantics relationship, etc. - is purely created by the individuals. It is unarguable that some people consider each faction as a separate tier - much like a step on a ladder. Others have ambiguous borders; sometimes we may hear that a certain person is “kind of a friend” or “more than a friend but less than a boy/girlfriend”. My point is that the friend-zone only exists if someone perceives it to exist.

I still think we’re all in agreement, only we’re coming from 3 different angles, if I understand you two fully. The difficulty seems to be distinguishing the zone(s) itself from how or why we are in the zone(s) and the comparison of reactions to being in the zone.

I’m saying the concept of the friend zone exists, whether we call it the friend zone or give it a different name.

Dragoctosaur is rightly pointing out that there is a difference between the existence of the zone and the ability to friend zone someone. Due to the involuntary nature of becoming friends or falling in love we can’t actually place things where we want, it happens as it happens. Also, she notes that the general male reaction to being in the zone is different from females and can be explained through male entitlement, at least for some cases.

Arewejustfallingthroughtime then correctly points out that the concept itself is untainted. The way in which we talk about it is tainted when sexism is involved. I would fall in between the two opinions and say that there is correlation some of the time but is not necessary. Then, we can establish that whilst the concept exists, it is a subjective concept like love or other areas of relationships, the parameters of which are established between the two individuals in question.

Filed under philosophy friend zone tsp personal

1 note

The philosophy of Welcome to Night Vale - Episode 6: The Drawbridge

Foreshadowing of future episodes – Doppelgangers and the robot woman in the WZZZ station

This week in Night Vale it is mentioned that power outages have caused residents to have the sensation that they have been replaced with someone who is exactly the same as them including memories and identities and that now “all that was familiar would ever after be strange.” This raises some obvious questions about personal identity and what makes us who we are but will be easier to talk about in a future episode. As well as this, we hear of the monotone female voice in the WZZZ station who reads out seemingly random numbers 24/7. This voice is clearly not an autonomous one so she doesn’t deserve rights, most would agree at least, unless of course you want to begin protesting for the rights of toasters and kettles. In a future episode there is an interesting development on this story too so just including the two so you can begin to work your mind around how you would classify identity and rights.

A return to perfection – The drawbridge

In episode 2 I talked about the clash between Cecil’s idea of perfection and that of Aristotle.  Put simply, Aristotle believes a perfect thing is complete in all its parts, is the best of its kind, and completes its purpose. Cecil, in contrast, believes something becomes perfect “when you accept it for what it is.” We see the two views clashing over the building of a drawbridge in Night Vale. Steve Carlsberg takes offense at the decision to build a drawbridge as it has constantly failed to be built (is not complete in its parts), is inefficient and overpriced (is not the best of its kind) and that “there is not even a river or a bay in Night Vale” (does not complete its purpose). Despite failing all three of Aristotle’s criteria Cecil leaps to the drawbridge’s defence by calling Steve Carlsberg a spoil sport by denying Night Vale a drawbridge. To be fair to Cecil, Steve Carlsberg can’t even care for a tan corolla!

A sisyphean task – The drawbridge and the meaning of life

“This just in on drawbridge gate. The city council said that in response to this week’s collapse they will increase the project’s budget by 20 million dollars over the next 14 years, the new timeline for the bridge….large, expensive projects are not uncommon in Night Vale, we are a patient but resilient little city.”

Despite the constant and inevitable delays, postponements, and failures the people of Night Vale decide to persevere with the clearly pointless development of the drawbridge. This is much like Sisyphus who was condemned to roll a giant boulder up a hill only for his strength to give way near the top after which the boulder would roll to the bottom of the hill and he would need to begin again. It has been shown in earlier episodes that the residents absurdist nature leaves no room for a higher meaning of life. There is no reachable final goal. However, just like Sisyphus, the residents of Night Vale puff out their chest and resiliently charge into failure once more. Yet, the king of absurdity that is Albert Camus would say “one must imagine Sisyphus happy as the struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.”

Filed under philosophy tsp wtnv wtnv welcome to night vale Cecil steve carlsberg personal identity human rights meaning of life albert camus the myth of sisyphus sisyphus perfection aesthetics aristotle

3 notes

They say the friend zone doesn’t exist but I do have some female friends that I’ve known for so long that I really wouldn’t consider a relationship, sexual or otherwise, with them as a possibility.

Filed under friend zone tsp personal

8 notes

Hobos are people who move around looking for work, tramps are people who move around but don’t look for work, and bums are people who don’t move and don’t work. I’ve been all three.
Seasick Steve

Filed under quotes seasick Steve