Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Blacks an Endangered Species?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/06abortion.html

Okay, first off, their statistics only cover Georgia. Not the whole country, or even half of it, just Georgia. That means that the claim that blacks are an endangered species is far-fetched. Get more data, please.

And although I'm at least glad that there was a reason given other than some typical Conservative/Christian ideology, it's still fucking racist, even though the idea was put out there by blacks themselves (apparently). It's especially stupid to believe the conspiracy that abortion laws are apparently targeting blacks when anyone can choose (they're not forced) to get abortions.

Of course, they're trying to use their statistics as argument against abortion. they claim that a lot of black women getting abortions is leading to a decrease in the black population. While I won't dispute that claim, I'd imagine things would be worse if abortion was made downright illegal. The mortality rate was higher in this country before abortion was made illegal, because women would either die through the birthing process (i.e. the best reason to have an abortion), and would have unsafe illegal abortions (either getting severely injured or even die from it). I've heard some even killed themselves, but I can't remember where I heard that. Maybe my Social Problems class.

I can see how abortion can cause a problem, though. I've seen that mentality out there that women think they can and should use abortion as a form of birth control at any time. I'm all for women's rights on this issue (of course, why wouldn't I be?), but at the same time, I see abortion as being a health practice. I can understand certain situations, too. You've been raped, and you'd be further traumatized by having the baby? Okay, sure, go ahead and get one. There are several reasons, including economical ones, out of your control that make you unable to take care of the baby, and you didn't mean to have one in the first place because of that? Okay, go ahead, I guess. You didn't expect to have a pregnancy because you knew you can't support a baby anyway and having the baby could ruin your life? Well, all right. You had sex and got pregnant on purpose, and you can take care of the baby, yet don't want to? Well, that's where I have a problem. At that point, there's no good health/situational reason to have an abortion, so I don't see a reason why it should happen. That's the kind of thing that should be banned, if anything, not just abortion in general. But see, that's the problem I see with Conservatives on issues like this. They see one problem among a whole spectrum, but they want that whole spectrum gone just because of that one problem instead of having the one problem easily fixed. And I know I just generalized, but I see it so often that it's rare to see it happen the other way. Seriously, I can't even recall a time when that hasn't happened.

Despite said problem, there is another that people pulling for abortion can't control: terrorists. Religious terrorists. Christian terrorists. Not kidding, for those of you who are Christian and are reading this. Your side is just as perfectly capable as Al Qaeda, quite frankly, and I mean no offense in saying that. It's just a fact. Just to help show that it is a fact, did you know the Ku Klux Klan is a Christian terrorist group? Not only that, here's some of the stuff that's been going on in terms of anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence_in_the_United_States#United_States

I can understand why people would be compelled to think that way after seeing statistics like that, but they need to be smarter and do more research before they go blithering on about this kind of thing. That's a dangerous way to think, especially nowadays. Otherwise, we get premature judgments and bad shit tends to happen. Like making abortion illegal again would essentially cause bad things to happen. This explains why: http://www.livestrong.com/article/13934-nine-reasons-why-abortions-are-legal/

By the way, that first commenter in that last article is ridiculous for not at all considering women's rights on this matter. That person is a great example of a person who doesn't do much, or even any, research. Most people in that section don't seem to have any idea what they're talking about, really (partly because they are pro-life based on logic without research, but even the pro-choice people, sans one or two, don't argue well, either), but the first commenter is a prime example of what I'm talking about here. So fuck you, you insensitive assholes, and especially fuck the person who insulted this as just feminist propaganda.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

The Time I Almost Went to a WWE Raw Show

Well, technically, it was still the WWF back when it happened (before the other WWF sued WWF for the name WWF), but that's when the corporation was doing better anyway; the Attitude Era. That was around the time it was not only at it's most popular point, but arguably even at it's best ever otherwise. Considering this, and the fact that I was a big fan at the time (with thanks to my cousin), I was extremely excited to learn that WWF was coming to the city nearest me for a Raw taping. I wasn't quite “can't keep my feet on the ground” excited, but I really wanted to go see some asses getting kicked. Even seeing the heels had me excited.

Yes, even seeing Triple H had me excited.

What made my excitement jump up further was that my cousin said she was possibly going to bring me with her to the show. She and the girlfriend she had at the time were wanting to go, and she was hoping that she'd have enough money to take me with her. My girlfriend didn't mind watching wrestling, either, but she didn't care as much as I did. If anything, she encouraged me to go with or without her, so I didn't feel bad about going without her after she told me that. Anyway, there was still a possibility that I wouldn't get to go. That didn't bother me much at the time because I knew my cousin would try either way. I also learned that a few people I knew from school said they were going to see the show as well, including a close friend of mine at the time from the next grade up.

A couple of my schoolmates ended up not being able to get tickets (tickets sold out), but my cousin, her girlfriend, and my good friend got to go. However, my cousin was unable to get me a ticket, and I couldn't get one any other way. My parents certainly weren't going to help, considering they thought it was bad enough that my cousin let me watch wrestling in the first place. So I ultimately wasn't able to go to the show, but I was kind of close. Disappointing for me, but I got to see the whole show on TV, which was unusual since I normally had to go to bed before the show was over. I even recorded it on VHS. After viewing said VHS tape a few times, I was barely able to spot my cousin in the audience, since she could only be seen for a very brief moment and was small on screen. That means I was almost on TV, too. . .

As for the show itself, it actually turned out to be worse than it usually was. For starters, most of the big stars/my personal favorites either weren't there or just gave promos instead of wrestled a match. For example, Stone Cold Steve Austin was, according to my cousin, actually there. She saw him, but he wasn't on the show other than a clip. Also, my favorite wrestler, the Undertaker, only gave a promo, not even in the ring. If I were there, I would've wanted to see him wrestle the most. The only part of the show that was decent was the match that had The Rock facing somebody (can't remember who). Other than that, the show was kind of a stinker, so, really, I didn't miss too much.

Indeed the only thing cooking that night.

My cousin said it was more fun being there than watching it on TV, though. She at least got to see her favorite wrestler, Chyna. I'll admit, I would've loved to see Chyna wrestle as well, regardless of whether the match was good, but at the time, I didn't think too much of her, probably because she was a heel at the time.

But alas, that was the only time within the Attitude Era that the WWF came around. After that, I lost interest for a while, found it again, and now, in some way, I'm losing it again. I still watch wrestling, but not nearly as often as I used to. If anything, I watch for certain wrestlers, or I just watch TNA. Hell, sometimes I even watch independent promotions. But I'm glad that Sheamus won the WWE Championship, because I'm sick of seeing John Cena's smugly ass face next to that Goddamn belt. Er, I mean, I'm tired of seeing him in the spotlight constantly.

Yes, I can see you, and the sight's not pretty.

I could write a whole new post about the problems that WWE has now, but I at least wanted to discuss how I almost got a see a mediocre show during it's greatest time period. Hell, WWE's so bad now that most of the time my girlfriend and I try to watch nowadays, we're usually either throwing popcorn at the TV (not for dickweeds like John Cena and Randy Orton, for how bad the show is), or just change the channel.

The only redeeming part of the show.

Actually, I'll mention one thing about a particular showing: I literally threw a book at the TV once during a show because Al Sharpton was guest hosting, which was a stupid move by the company. That wasn't why, though. There were advertisements going on every now and then during the show (endorsed by Al Sharpton, of course) that advertised something to do with blacks (can't remember what exactly) being the last civil rights hurdle in the country or something like that. Total bull shit considering I can't fucking marry in most states. That's a much larger civil rights hurdle right there. I changed the channel after seeing it appear a couple of times.

One thing that doesn't come to mind when you think of wrestling.

But would I go to a showing nowadays? Probably not, maybe unless there was something really promising. Or if the Undertaker is showing up to fight this time, and at that point, I wouldn't care who he'd face or how bad the match turned out to be.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Valentine's Day

. . . Is a crock. Allow me to explain why.

First off, simply put, celebrating love has nothing to do with the people this holiday is based on. They were just your typical martyred saints is all. Why that connection was made, I have no idea.

Either way, I have to wonder why people thought it was a good idea to dedicate a holiday to celebrating love. Why just celebrate love one day a year? My girlfriend and I consider every day Valentine's Day. In fact, we'd rather not even consider that. We just love each other every day is all we need, and we're happy.

That doesn't seem to be the case for a lot of people, though. Nowadays, partly because of advertising, media, and social influence, a lot of people expect gifts, whether it be something as small as flowers, or candy, or both, to expensive things like cell phones and laptops. It's gotten so bad that I even remember a commercial for some Crackberry that said, "Show your partner your love by getting *insert product name here, then insert list of unimpressive features here.*"

I've gotta have it. It's that important.

Of course, I love to buy video games and movies and books, etc., but I wouldn't expect my girlfriend to get them for me to show she loves me. All I need to do to show my love to her is show her that I care for her, trust her, respect her, share things with her, hug her, kiss her, fuck her, and she does all the same for me. Every now and then, if anything, we get each other something, but it's not for any special occasion. We do so mostly as a nice gesture, and we tend to do it randomly.

Also, this holiday obviously doesn't have the single person in mind. Sure, single people can still send valentines and stuff to people, but then again, they can do even better by surprising the person they like by doing so on any other random day (except for April Fool's Day). Otherwise, the holiday, if I remember correctly, was intended to celebrate a couple's intimacy, thus leaving the single guy/girl out, and there are plenty of people still left out regardless.

That's all of the points I can think of at the moment, but I will say that, although I don't care to celebrate Valentine's Day at all, it does make me hungry for candy. I actually do feel like getting a bunch of candy now and sharing with my girlfriend later, especially some Reese's. That's our favorite.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Why I (Apparently) Don't Understand Video Games

Psychologists have done it once again, and what I mean by "it" is that they once again used a completely illogical method of doing experiments and research.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10129243-71.html

In particular, I'm attacking this bit here: "His research shows that video games stimulate the parts of men that so many other activities just cannot reach: the need to conquer, stomp on, dominate, crush, destroy, maim, annihilate, and turn to ashes and dust.

Women, apparently, understand video games, but their neurology doesn't house the same desire to conquer, stomp on, etc., etc."

As a woman who has played video games ever since she was four years old, who is in a relationship with another woman who has been playing video games since she was five years old, has a cousin who has played video games ever since she was four years old, and has had many female friends who've played games since before they were ten years old, I can easily say that this is complete, one hundred percent bull shit.

This is a big reason why Psychologists need to take a look into Sociological studies. Often I see Psychologists trying to find Psychological or Biological reasons why men and women have different personalities. If they even take ten minutes to study what Sociology has found out about Gender Roles, they wouldn't study shit like this, or say shit like this, or even slightly consider shit like this, because it's Gender Roles, which are taught and learned behaviors (and that's been proven time and time again), not neural impulses or testosterone or estrogen, that shape the way each sex acts. Otherwise, if all men and women were the same, there would be no such thing as a tomboy like my cousin or myself. Just in that last sentence, I debunked this (as well as many other) article's findings, but sadly, some people still ignore logic like that. I have no idea why. Maybe somebody should do a study on that. Maybe it's because a lot of people don't like to admit when they're wrong.

But it's not just a gender roles thing, and the true reason most women don't play video games has already been highlighted by another blog post of mine that I made not too long ago. What I posted there is really as simple as that, and doesn't really need to be studied, just at least thought out logically, but it seems the people doing this study seemed to not want to think of alternative reasons and just say, "No, this is the one reason and that's that." If anyone had to do any sort of study on this, though, they should poll a lot of women on why they don't play video games. Even that may not help a lot, but it's still a lot better than shitty studies like this. It's ultimately judgmental to just assume things even based on studies (flawed or not) without taking in various other factors, or even just talking to the people you're talking about in your study, asking them why they do things, say things, and feel things.

And you know what, not every game is violent. I mean, sure, some of the more fun ones happen to be violent, and I love shooting dinosaurs and playing a specter ninja beating the shit out of people, but a game like Tetris or The Sims does not qualify as violent, and plenty of men and women play those games as well. Games can be fun regardless, simple as that.

I could say more, but the last comment in the comment section said well enough what I was going to say anyway, and at the moment, I'm feeling like playing Destruction Derby 64 or making out with my girlfriend or something, so just go and read that.

Speaking of comments, though, I must say that, although I only looked at the first page of the comments, the comment section seems to be devoid of intelligence, understanding, simple logic and common sense, except for the last two comments. Just read them and you'll see.

Now excuse me while I go play Destruction Derby 64 while I'm making out with my girlfriend.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Why I (Apparently) Was Bullied

First off, let me just say that I love Psychology, I think it's extremely important, and through it's studies, we have figured out a lot about ourselves, more than we could've imagined without it.

However, there are still many exceptions, such as this article that I read today, which literally almost made me cry, and I'll explain why:

http://www.livescience.com/culture/children-social-rejection-100202.html

As I said, I love Psychology, but some studies, their approaches, or at least their conclusions, sometimes can be downright ridiculous if you apply logic. Sometimes you don't even need to know a lot about Psychology to be able to criticize certain studies, such is the case here. Sometimes studying Sociology help, though, since it seems to me that sometimes Psychologists don't seem to pay much attention to Sociology's findings, which are, in my opinion, much more fascinating, and can discredit a lot of Psychology studies. In this case, however, it's not necessary to know a lot about either one. Arguing against this study just takes pretty simple logic to denounce, particularly for people like me who were bullied.

It seems to me that the article is suggesting, in at least some way, that it's the kid who's bullied/rejected who is at fault for not being able to correctly respond to nonverbal cues. They go on to explain five tips, which basically tell the socially rejected kid's parents how to teach their child better social skills, such as telling them, "Help the child identify the cue they missed or mistake they made, by asking something like: "How would you feel if Emma was hogging the tire swing?" Instead of lecturing with the word "should," offer options the child "could" have taken in the moment, such as: "You could have asked Emma to join you or told her you would give her the swing after your turn."" What's ridiculous about this is the fact that these researchers are assuming that the kids who are socially rejected are rude little twerps, hence is why no one likes them. They're basically saying people like me were rude to the other kids, so they were fighting against that, so I would've ultimately deserved it, I guess (by the way, this is why I almost cried while reading the article). Yeah, it has nothing to do with any sort of group or conformist mentality; making fun of others because they're different. Different race, sexuality, sexual preference, etc. Let me tell you something. The bullies at my school still would've rejected me whether what they're saying is true or not, because I preferred girls to boys, and because I was the only kid in the class who had red hair and freckles. As my school days went on, they found more reasons, such as my sense of style, the group of friends I had, my fascination with Science Fiction (I'm a nerd, basically), I was (and still am) and tomboy, and, although my cousin was well-liked and respected by most of her peers while she was in high school, most of the students that saw her after she graduated thought she was a freak, and attributed that to me as well, since I hung out with her often and looked up to her. So yeah, my being bullied had nothing to do with anything these researchers said in the article. In fact, it doesn't apply to anyone I knew who was bullied. Not a single one.

But here's my other criticism of the article. They attribute the rejected kid's rejection to their bullying, but have they ever thought that it might be the bullying that's making them socially inept like that in the first place?

Ultimately, all of that makes me wonder if the people doing this research were even bullied or rejected as kids. I highly doubt it, otherwise they probably wouldn't have done research the way they did, especially considering there's a huge mountain full of evidence that could easily prove otherwise, besides my logic used here. I could pick the article apart a little more, but not only did I want to attack just the main point of the article, the comments sections has good criticisms on the other ridiculous points made.

P.S. If anything, the five tips shown at the end of the article should be used for the bullies as opposed to the bullied.

EDIT: After reading this article for herself, my girlfriend actually did cry. Nice going, assholes.