"They have no conversation, don't listen and refuse to take an interest in anyone else"
Quoted by popular newspaper the telegraph, there is an article trying to understand just why is it that the youth of today are the way they are, their ill manners, foul language, apparent lack of social skills, and why they are all such "bad eggs".
Really Telegraph? I honestly thought better of you.
Surprisingly these youths that are being blamed for all of societies faults might actually account for some of your readers, an odd concept considering you call yourselves a form of media targeting intellectual members of society.
That seems like a very naive and narrow minded perspective to have on a whole section of society.
Ever heard of the term scapegoat? Because that is exactly what the youth of today are, with an expanding society comes increasing diversity and susceptibility to blame, nowadays everything you do is wrong to somebody, there is always somebody who doesn't agree with it, so today we just tend to shrug it off.
Whatever we do, we're wrong, so why pay any attention, right?
Wrong. - As a group young people are so accepting of the fact they are blamed for everything, but maybe it's the reluctance to stand up and say "Hey, you know what, we aren't that bad", that lands us with a stained reputation we can't seem to disperse.
Society is more diverse and open minded, but with this freedom times also change, there was a time when any faults within society were to be "corrected" and "fixed", some appropriately, and others not.
People would try to fix foul language among society, but with this compulsion to "fix" came attempts to fix homosexuality, and controversial freedoms of speech. There was no balance.
Now society, unfortunately, has gone the other way, we no longer live in a world where actions speak louder than words, we live in a land of promises, judgments, stereotyping and ultimately, one big blame game.
People see bad things happening in this world, and instead of stepping in and trying to help or solve the problems, we just sit back, watch, and make our judgments, blaming whoever will sit and take it.
"If i spoke to my parents like that, then i would have gotten a slap"
Many people see "old school" parenting as a way to solve all problems (apparently caused be youth), but if youth really are the problem, and parenting is the answer, then surely the wrong parenting could equally be the cause.
No? Course not, didn't think so.
I had forgotten that all older generations are superior.
Stereotyping comes with great stigma and we all take pride is claiming not to do it at all, however we each do it, every single day.
Just because one drunk might urinate in public and act socially inappropriate, what is there to actually say that another one approaching you in the street is likely to do so?
Absolutely nothing, we are all that says they will, and what do we know?
There have been riots recently, which have involved young people, the riots were in response to hiking university fees (how dare people want an education to contribute to society), and directly affected a lot of young people.
Firstly, in addressing riots, there were groups of young people protesting quietly, peacefully, however the less friendly rioters, tainted to entire protesting and lead to the stereotyping of all young people there.
Then again, this does tend to happen with most protests, they were simply jumping on the bandwagon.
Secondly, young people were protesting, because the cause was directly affecting them, it's unlikely that for a cause affecting young people the protests will be full of 80 year old retired pensioners, as it simply does not affect them, not to the same degree as least.
If the government were to suddenly increase tax for the average 30 year old by 300% then if there were protests, which there definitely would be, it's very likely that among the individuals involved, the majority would in fact be 30 year old working class people. It's simply how it works, society is selfish, if it doesn't affect us, we don't care, or at least that's what goes for the majority.
Nobody is perfect, society is far from perfect, and there are some vile young people, people that I, and many other young people i know am ashamed to be connected, compared and considered the same as.
When we are in groups, it's a common assumption that we are up to no good, however i can certainly say that when I am with my friends and see an old lady coming towards us, I will immediately pause the conversation and move the side so she can pass through us easily.
No, that doesn't mean we are trying to block you in, corner you, rob you, or steal any of your things, it simply means I am trying to be helpful.
There is good and there is bad in any group in society, but if every groups were to be scrutinized and stereotyped like youth, then we would all end up fearing everybody, hating everybody, and ultimately blaming everybody.
When you get on a bus and see me, you should not see me as somebody to avoid, or as a lesser member of society than you, I am the same as every man, woman, child on that bus, and I will continue to be until i die.
This is the generation that holds the future leaders, kings and queens, doctors, lifesaving surgeons, and people who in 40 years will be considered well respected, and might one day save your life.
You are the ones that brought us up, taught us all that we do, and have been our role models, we don't blame you, but if you continue to question us, we could start questioning you.
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
When did you choose to be gay?
I always hear questions being thrown around regarding sexuality, generally to people who identify themselves as anything other than straight.
Just to clarify, there are now 7 recognised types of sexuality, covering a very wide spectrum;
There is so much pressure at the moment within society to know what sexuality you are, and to assign it a label, and the truth of the matter, is that some people simply aren't ready to explore their sexuality.
No two people are the same, they never will be, they will not think the same, feel the same, they will not be the same, so why is everybody expected to like the same people and act the same way?
It is a common misconception that people who are not heterosexual have a choice about their sexuality, and choose to like the same gender as themselves or deviate from the social norm in an apparent bid for attention or to appear individual.
If a heterosexual man were to be asked when they decided that they like women, then they would generally answer slightly confused with answers like "I just did" "It's nature", why is any other sexuality different?
Whoever one person likes or does not like, they are still a human being, they are still a person, everybody has different likes, dislikes, feelings and emotions, but just because one person's feelings differs from yours does not make them any more or less valid.
Emotions and feelings are what make us human, they are part of our make up, who's right is it to say to one group of people you cannot feel this way about another person?
It's not breaking the law, it's not pedophilia, it's not illegal, it's just one human being feeling an attraction to another, nobody is hurt, no more than an average relationship.
Society has formed a hierarchy because we have allowed it to do so, and with this formed different members of society, those who perceive themselves as high on the social scale see themselves fit to make judgments upon other members of society. If a person is genuinely determined to form an opinion on another person then they should not voice them and cause a person to feel like their views and feelings make them any less of a person than anybody else, being gay, or being any sexuality does not make you any different to any other person, more or less superior.
A person can choose what they do, and how they behave, but not how they feel, and people need to remember that, a gay man may choose to have sex with a woman, but he cannot help but feel attracted to other men. People claim to choose to be straight, but generally this is because they perceive being heterosexual as an accepted norm and consider themselves as having a choice.
Feeling attracted to somebody is emotions, you cannot blame somebody for their emotions, you wouldn't tell somebody they have no right to feel sad, or happy, or angry.
People with anger issues have no choice about feeling angry, however they make choices regarding their behavior, a person can feel however they want to feel, nobody has the right to judge them for it.
Today we live in a society where everything is wrong, whatever you do you are being constantly judged by different areas within society, you can't do right for doing wrong nowadays.
Society is so diverse with such a wide spectrum of views and opinions that even if you please the majority there will still be people who don't agree with your feelings, behaviors, mannerisms, there is always somebody who thinks they know right.
As we develop as a culture, freedom of speech is encouraged and opinions are advocated, however appropriateness and mindfulness has not yet been entirely mastered among all, people need to start speaking up, because most of the time, ignorant comments are made simply through lack of education about the topic.
At the end of the day, gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, we are all equal human, we all feel, we all hurt, and we all love who we love, not one person has a right to judge whether you love a man or a woman, and hopefully over time society won't use the blanket term of acceptance as PC homophobic action, maybe one day society will just accept us for who we are, not what we are.
Just to clarify, there are now 7 recognised types of sexuality, covering a very wide spectrum;
Heterosexuality- Is the sexual attraction between members of the opposite sexes such as man attracts to woman and woman attracts to man sexually.
Homosexuality- is the sexual attraction between members of the same sexes such as man to man and woman to woman.sexually.
Bisexuality- Is the sexual attraction to both the opposite and same sexes such as man to man and man to woman, woman to woman and woman to man.
Asexuality- Is also known as nonsexuality which is the lack of sexual attraction and sexual interest towards others.
Polysexuality- Is the sexual attraction to more than one gender but do not wish to be known as bisexual as it implies that their are only two binary sexes, do not confuse this with pansexuality (Pan meaning All) and (Poly meaning many).
Pansexuality- Is the sexual attraction towards people regardless of gender also known as omnisexuality, some pansexuals refer to themselves as gender blind as to them gender is insignificant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others.
Transexualism - Is when a person identifies themselves with a physical sex that is different to their own biological one, A medical diagnosis can be made if a person experiences discomfort as a result of a desire to be a member of the opposite sex. for example a person may be born male, and is uncomfortable with their gender as a male and changes to a female, or a female may change to a male. It is a long process that they will go through and an expensive one too.
There is so much pressure at the moment within society to know what sexuality you are, and to assign it a label, and the truth of the matter, is that some people simply aren't ready to explore their sexuality.
No two people are the same, they never will be, they will not think the same, feel the same, they will not be the same, so why is everybody expected to like the same people and act the same way?
It is a common misconception that people who are not heterosexual have a choice about their sexuality, and choose to like the same gender as themselves or deviate from the social norm in an apparent bid for attention or to appear individual.
If a heterosexual man were to be asked when they decided that they like women, then they would generally answer slightly confused with answers like "I just did" "It's nature", why is any other sexuality different?
Whoever one person likes or does not like, they are still a human being, they are still a person, everybody has different likes, dislikes, feelings and emotions, but just because one person's feelings differs from yours does not make them any more or less valid.
Emotions and feelings are what make us human, they are part of our make up, who's right is it to say to one group of people you cannot feel this way about another person?
It's not breaking the law, it's not pedophilia, it's not illegal, it's just one human being feeling an attraction to another, nobody is hurt, no more than an average relationship.
Society has formed a hierarchy because we have allowed it to do so, and with this formed different members of society, those who perceive themselves as high on the social scale see themselves fit to make judgments upon other members of society. If a person is genuinely determined to form an opinion on another person then they should not voice them and cause a person to feel like their views and feelings make them any less of a person than anybody else, being gay, or being any sexuality does not make you any different to any other person, more or less superior.
A person can choose what they do, and how they behave, but not how they feel, and people need to remember that, a gay man may choose to have sex with a woman, but he cannot help but feel attracted to other men. People claim to choose to be straight, but generally this is because they perceive being heterosexual as an accepted norm and consider themselves as having a choice.
Feeling attracted to somebody is emotions, you cannot blame somebody for their emotions, you wouldn't tell somebody they have no right to feel sad, or happy, or angry.
People with anger issues have no choice about feeling angry, however they make choices regarding their behavior, a person can feel however they want to feel, nobody has the right to judge them for it.
Today we live in a society where everything is wrong, whatever you do you are being constantly judged by different areas within society, you can't do right for doing wrong nowadays.
Society is so diverse with such a wide spectrum of views and opinions that even if you please the majority there will still be people who don't agree with your feelings, behaviors, mannerisms, there is always somebody who thinks they know right.
As we develop as a culture, freedom of speech is encouraged and opinions are advocated, however appropriateness and mindfulness has not yet been entirely mastered among all, people need to start speaking up, because most of the time, ignorant comments are made simply through lack of education about the topic.
At the end of the day, gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, we are all equal human, we all feel, we all hurt, and we all love who we love, not one person has a right to judge whether you love a man or a woman, and hopefully over time society won't use the blanket term of acceptance as PC homophobic action, maybe one day society will just accept us for who we are, not what we are.
Thursday, 9 January 2014
What is Freedom?
I recently read an article which questioned where did freedom begin and end, and what were the limitations of freedom to us, as human beings.
"Freedom is the right to speech and free will" "Freedom is upon us all"
What actually constitutes freedom in society today?
Is it the freedom to go where we want? Maybe, as long as it is not within the prohibited areas defined for us.
Is it the freedom to say what we want ? Sure, so long as it does not offend anybody or breach the rules.
The freedom we have, is the freedom we are given, clue to that being the concept given.
A certain amount of freedom has to be given to members of society to stop outbreak, rioting and all out chaos, and within any society there has to be a social hierarchy allowing for different privileges to be presented dependent upon social positioning and equity, with further options to increase freedom e.g. using money to bribe officers within the federal departments.
In today's world it's a rich mans game, money is power, and the two buy everything.
Why is it that footballers have more money than they could ever possibly need, yet the soldiers that go out and risk their lives, sometimes lose them, aren't paid a tuppence, how is that right? How is that fair?
Somebody can go out, risk their life for 2 years, come back home with mental scars that even the best therapists cannot diminish, and have recognition for what, the first 5 minutes, then it's "get on with life lads", move on, get a job and work hard just to even get by.
How can that be justified when some footballers can earn £200,000 a week, some up to £326,000 a week, when this is more than the price of the average house, infact it is the price of the average house, and the one next door.
How is it acceptable for somebody to earn so much for, in effect, kicking a ball around, having immediate medical care at their disposal if god forbid they trip over, have a fan base of millions with thousands of people congratulating them and presenting them recognition for the brilliant job they do. ( Again, kicking a ball around).
Come on society, get a grip.
This is a prime example of freedom, everybody argues that there is freedom to change the wages that everybody is presented with, but at the end of the day, is there? Are people going to just take it with a pinch of salt if wages are drastically cut from one end of society and reassigned to the other?
I don't think so.
Our society is conditioned, it is formulated the way in which the people at the top desire.
Society is like a very clever architecturally designed building, held up by a lot of beams which are supporting all of the levels above.
The bottom levels and beams need to be there, they support the top, but no matter what level you're on, if any of the beams go, the whole building comes crashing down.
We are all just sociological test subjects for the government, they don't actually care about us, not as people, as a statistic yes, but on a 1-2-1 basis, we are just the same as every Tom, Dick & Harry.
I know exactly how that sounds, psychotic delusional controversialist, absolutely not, have you never heard of the term "making an example".
There can be 15 people who all commit the same crime, then number 16 might be the example, numbers 1-15 have not being sufficiently put off the crimes by the punishments, so if number 16 is given a harsher punishment, then potential numbers 17-30 might not actually commit crimes.
The government see this as an effective crime control manner, they don't actually think about how number 16 feels, being the one treated differently and unfairly, yes they may have committed a crime, which is bad, yes, but the other 1-15 weren't treated that way, but hey, who cares so long as it helps government statistics.
Now, this might be controversial, but this is completely from a factual perspective here.
Racism.
Racism is a crime, and fairly so, the official definition of racism is as follows;
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
We are all equal as people, and there are certain words which cause a lot of offence to different groups within society;
"Nigga"
"White Trash"
"Pykey"
"Paki"
All of these are offensive racist terms, used to offend different groups, nationalities and members of society.
I completely agree that all of these are offensive and should not be allowed, there is no question about this.
However, there are so many songs which are in the charts, public eye that use offensive racist slang, Jay Z is a very popular a well respect artist, however he has a song called "Nigga what, Nigga who", the term nigga is generally used to offend people skin is black, therefore it is perceived as socially acceptable for a black person to sing a song which uses the word "Nigga" in it, because they are within the ethnic group most likely to be offended and are therefore considered as advocating it.
I don't think that's quite right, it's actually ludicrous because whether it offends them or not, it still offends other people within the black community.
One overweight person may enjoy making jokes and calling them self offensive names and making light of it, however what one person may find amusing, another person can find highly offensive and upsetting.
The same applies to racial terms.
If a person with white skin would be to sing a song with the word "Nigga" in it, then were would be a major outcry, and a kick off among people, how on earth is this any different?
Both cases are offensive, so why is it seen to be acceptable for one group of society to have different rules to another, because does that not suggest that they are more superior, which is therefore a form of racism.
Freedom of speech? So long as it's within the laws?
Laws? Only apply to some?
Freedom?
We just have the freedom that we are given.
"Freedom is the right to speech and free will" "Freedom is upon us all"
What actually constitutes freedom in society today?
Is it the freedom to go where we want? Maybe, as long as it is not within the prohibited areas defined for us.
Is it the freedom to say what we want ? Sure, so long as it does not offend anybody or breach the rules.
The freedom we have, is the freedom we are given, clue to that being the concept given.
A certain amount of freedom has to be given to members of society to stop outbreak, rioting and all out chaos, and within any society there has to be a social hierarchy allowing for different privileges to be presented dependent upon social positioning and equity, with further options to increase freedom e.g. using money to bribe officers within the federal departments.
In today's world it's a rich mans game, money is power, and the two buy everything.
Why is it that footballers have more money than they could ever possibly need, yet the soldiers that go out and risk their lives, sometimes lose them, aren't paid a tuppence, how is that right? How is that fair?
Somebody can go out, risk their life for 2 years, come back home with mental scars that even the best therapists cannot diminish, and have recognition for what, the first 5 minutes, then it's "get on with life lads", move on, get a job and work hard just to even get by.
How can that be justified when some footballers can earn £200,000 a week, some up to £326,000 a week, when this is more than the price of the average house, infact it is the price of the average house, and the one next door.
How is it acceptable for somebody to earn so much for, in effect, kicking a ball around, having immediate medical care at their disposal if god forbid they trip over, have a fan base of millions with thousands of people congratulating them and presenting them recognition for the brilliant job they do. ( Again, kicking a ball around).
Come on society, get a grip.
This is a prime example of freedom, everybody argues that there is freedom to change the wages that everybody is presented with, but at the end of the day, is there? Are people going to just take it with a pinch of salt if wages are drastically cut from one end of society and reassigned to the other?
I don't think so.
Our society is conditioned, it is formulated the way in which the people at the top desire.
Society is like a very clever architecturally designed building, held up by a lot of beams which are supporting all of the levels above.
The bottom levels and beams need to be there, they support the top, but no matter what level you're on, if any of the beams go, the whole building comes crashing down.
We are all just sociological test subjects for the government, they don't actually care about us, not as people, as a statistic yes, but on a 1-2-1 basis, we are just the same as every Tom, Dick & Harry.
I know exactly how that sounds, psychotic delusional controversialist, absolutely not, have you never heard of the term "making an example".
There can be 15 people who all commit the same crime, then number 16 might be the example, numbers 1-15 have not being sufficiently put off the crimes by the punishments, so if number 16 is given a harsher punishment, then potential numbers 17-30 might not actually commit crimes.
The government see this as an effective crime control manner, they don't actually think about how number 16 feels, being the one treated differently and unfairly, yes they may have committed a crime, which is bad, yes, but the other 1-15 weren't treated that way, but hey, who cares so long as it helps government statistics.
Now, this might be controversial, but this is completely from a factual perspective here.
Racism.
Racism is a crime, and fairly so, the official definition of racism is as follows;
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
We are all equal as people, and there are certain words which cause a lot of offence to different groups within society;
"Nigga"
"White Trash"
"Pykey"
"Paki"
All of these are offensive racist terms, used to offend different groups, nationalities and members of society.
I completely agree that all of these are offensive and should not be allowed, there is no question about this.
However, there are so many songs which are in the charts, public eye that use offensive racist slang, Jay Z is a very popular a well respect artist, however he has a song called "Nigga what, Nigga who", the term nigga is generally used to offend people skin is black, therefore it is perceived as socially acceptable for a black person to sing a song which uses the word "Nigga" in it, because they are within the ethnic group most likely to be offended and are therefore considered as advocating it.
I don't think that's quite right, it's actually ludicrous because whether it offends them or not, it still offends other people within the black community.
One overweight person may enjoy making jokes and calling them self offensive names and making light of it, however what one person may find amusing, another person can find highly offensive and upsetting.
The same applies to racial terms.
If a person with white skin would be to sing a song with the word "Nigga" in it, then were would be a major outcry, and a kick off among people, how on earth is this any different?
Both cases are offensive, so why is it seen to be acceptable for one group of society to have different rules to another, because does that not suggest that they are more superior, which is therefore a form of racism.
Freedom of speech? So long as it's within the laws?
Laws? Only apply to some?
Freedom?
We just have the freedom that we are given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)