|
| Collateral Damage and Damage Control
This entry is inspired by and dedicated to the irresponsible and inconsiderate halfwit who decided to puke in the shower gutter where I happened to be showering today. The putrid smell of gastric acid made my day. Here's to you, asshole.
UPDATE AS OF 10/19
As much as I love to cynically point out what's wrong with individuals and society I love it more when I am proven wrong. Yet, lo and behold, as I stepped into the bathroom to shower tonight I saw a pile of shit in the shower gutter. In fact, it was located in the same shower gutter where I found the puke which inspired this entry the night before. Welcome to UCLA, the 24th top university in the nation (according to U.S. News), attracting the cream of the crop- society's future lawyers, doctors, politicians, and scientists. It is these people who inflate their egos and fool themselves into believing that they are responsible and considerate individuals, when the reality is that all of us shit and puke in communal showers (in some metaphorical way).
As young children we all tend to be destructive to a certain extent- we color on walls with marker, throw bowls of cheerios and milk all over the floor, or trample over and kill plants in the backyard. In fact, as young children we are experts at creating messes. Fortunately we have mummy and daddy to clean up after us and since we are children we practically get away with murder. Adults excuse our behavior and clean up after us because they believe that we "don't know any better." This point is debatable, but I will write upon the assumption that as young children we actually do not understand the consequences and effects of our actions upon others; that as young children we actually "don't know any better."
As we grow older society as a whole expects us to become more aware of our influence upon other people around us. This is a tenet of maturation: learning that you are not an autonomous, isolated being whose actions only affect yourself; learning that people are interconnected and that our actions affect each other. Once this lesson is learned the expected behavioral course of action is to 1. Avoid behavior that creates collateral damage (look that up in a dictionary if you don't know what it means) and 2. If behavior that creates collateral damage cannot be avoided, be one's own damage control and clean up after the trail of dead that you create. If one fails at 1, one is being irresponsible and inconsiderate. If one fails at 2, one is being inconsiderate, selfish, and juvenile. I recognize that societal expectations are socially constructed and not inherent truths in the universe, but I adamantly defend these expectations of maturity that society holds us accountable to because I believe that they create a more harmonious, considerate society and breed individuals of noble responsibility.
These societal expectations of maturity (coupled and associated with aging) can be demonstrated in a simple hypothetical situation: How do you react differently to a toddler painting on a bathroom wall with his feces versus a student in middle school doing the same thing? Sure, you'll get angry in both situations. But you're more likely to excuse the toddler's behavior as a product of ignorance and clean up his/her mess, while you're more likely to reprimand the middle schooler by making him/her clean up his/her own mess and dealing out additional punishment. How would you react differently if the situation was middle schooler vs. college student? It seems that as we grow older, even into our college years and beyond, society expects us to be constantly and consistently maturing. Referring to the paragraph above, that would mean taking courses of action 1 and 2 more prevalently than we did when we were younger.
Yet I don't see this happening amongst people of college age, which is why I want to get the hell out of here in three years. I'm looking forward to and hoping to (this is me being optimistic for once) encounter larger numbers of increasingly responsible, considerate people in the adult working world. I'm not getting on a high horse here- I know that I'm no better than the college students I'm discussing. My mother has pointed out to me time and time again that I notoriously avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of my actions. It's just that the irresponsible and inconsiderate choices I make (and their ensuing consequences) look much different from the choices I witness other people in college taking, thus it is easier for me to see their errors than it is for me to see my own. I also know that I'm being very general; that adults aren't necessarily more responsible and more considerate than college students and that not all college students are irresponsible, inconsiderate assholes. Reality is a gigantic puzzle and each of us experiences a different piece; I am just trying to relate to you the piece I am experiencing. And in my puzzle piece I see college students 1. Deliberately making irresponsible, inconsiderate choices that create collateral damage and 2. Ignoring the damage they create and inconsiderately, juvenilely, and selfishly depending on others to act as damage control for the consequences of their irresponsible and inconsiderate choices.
Example 1 (true-life example):
- The aforementioned shower-puke guy deliberately drank too much alcohol tonight (don't tell me he did that on accident or else your are naive about college parties) and he decided to puke in the shower gutter. If he was responsible and took course of action 1, he would have avoided getting wasted to the point of pukage. But since he didn't do that, course of action 2 would have been to puke in the toilets, where he could have then flushed his own puke down the drain instead of depending on the janitors to mop up his puke (which was too thick to go down the drain by the way).
Sure, he may argue "but it's their job to clean up after me". Sure, it's what they get paid for- to clean up after other people's messes; Which makes being a janitor, in my eyes, one of the most frustrating yet noble jobs one can hold. The job of a janitor is counter-intuitive to our society's expectations; our society expects us to be responsible by cleaning up messes we make, yet we have a thriving labor pool based upon the fact that people do not clean up their messes. If we all agree that other people should be responsible and considerate of others by avoiding collateral-damage creating behavior and acting as their own damage control when they do create collateral damage, how can the demand for such a labor pool arise?
My argument is that people usually fail to choose the two aforementioned courses of behavior primarily because of negligent parenting and later on in life (in teenage years when friends become more influential than parents) negligent friend-shipping. If a person grows up in a household where his/her destructive actions are consistently cleaned up by parents or older siblings who do not reprimand the guilty individual, that person will not fully come to understand his/her influence upon society. Later on in life the same situation continues with friends. Parents and friends deprive their children/friends of learning how to be responsible and considerate individuals by constantly cleaning up after their children/friends (literally and metaphorically) and failing to reprimand their children/friends for inconsiderate or irresponsible action. Parents/friends don't deliberately create assholes though; they just have a desire to be loved by their child/accepted by their friend and they obviously didn't learn enough from Machiavelli (who mused that it's better to be feared and respected than loved). Although I would argue that those two are not mutually exclusive that's another discussion.
Example 2 (hypothetical example):
- Raoul (6th grade student) has been consistently disruptive in his history class by cracking Helen Keller jokes with his neighbors during SSR (sustained silent reading). The teacher calls for a meeting with the child and his parent. The conversation flows something like this:
Teacher: Your child is a very bright student but I have a problem with him interrupting the studies of others during quiet reading time. He keeps making jokes during the reading time. Although I believe they are inappropriate that is your call because you are his parent. However, as a teacher I am concerned about the education of the other students, which he is interfering with.
Parent: I understand. What would you like him to do?
Teacher: Simply save the jokes for outside of class time.
Parent: Ok.
Teacher: Raoul, do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Raoul: (spoken apathetically) Sure. (He doesn't understand nor care by the way, he just wants to get this out of the way and play Halo 3 later).
Parent: I'm sure we'll talk it over later on (they don't by the way). He's normally a good boy, I don't know what's been getting into him. I guess he's been hanging out with the wrong people, you know. It's 6th grade and they're still figuring out who they are. Middle school's always that awkward stage. I'm sorry about his interruption, thanks for letting me know. Let me know if this or anything similar comes up again, and I'll happily meet with you.
(Conversation ends).
Let's see, what went wrong here? Raoul didn't have to apologize because his parent apologized for him. He didn't have to process and think about his actions in order to attempt to formulate a believable fake apology, like most of us would probably do, because his parent rationalized his behavior in a way that displaced his responsibility. All he had to do was say yes. He was acquitted from his actions the moment his parent stepped in to apologize for him. In this situation, of course, the fault lies not only with the parent but with the teacher as well, who does not second-guess Raoul to make sure he means what he says when he says he understands his actions. Although teachers and parents play gigantic roles in the maturation of children, I give some leeway to the teacher because I understand that, when it comes to discipline, teachers must walk the fine line between educator and parent. And when they cross that line legal issues arise, parents get offended, and well, you know sue-happy California.
Example 3 (true-life/hypothetical example):
- I was walking up to my room one day earlier in the quarter and I overheard two friends discussing the price of textbooks and how they were so expensive. One guy said, "I can't decide what to buy- textbooks or handles". Yes, you read that correctly and yes, he was saying that phrase with the serious tone of an individual actually debating between two mutually exclusive choices. Obviously, buying handles instead of textbooks is more likely to lead to lower grades, but I'm sure if he proceeded to buy handles and his GPA went into suckage mode he wouldn't take responsibility for his own actions. I must note that this time the damage isn't collateral- it affects the individual making the irresponsible choice. Yet, a believable excuse he would make for his 2.0 GPA (sorry if that's your GPA) is that the professor is too hard (displaced responsibility by projecting it onto someone else) or that he's just not good at math (displaced responsibility by inaccurate self-characterization). In fact, he may actually be brilliant at math- he just made an irresponsible choice to buy handles instead of the textbook, thus never doing the homework except when he copied it and getting screwed when the midterm and final rolled around.
Why I am concerned with the irresponsibility of others? What is it to me? Enter example 4.
Example 4: (true life example):
- Last year, one of my roommates and his friend (now our mutual friend) were discussing how a person from their high school died in a car accident caused by the driver, who was driving with some ridiculous BAC.
I argue that not only was the driver irresponsible for driving clearly drunk, but the passengers were irresponsible for 1. Not finding someone sober to drive, and 2. When they concluded 1, they still hopped into the car anyway. If the passengers and driver in the car were responsible OR considerate, this accident could have been avoided. A considerate or responsible driver would not drive drunk with passengers for fear of his and their own lives and considerate or responsible passengers would consider the welfare of their fellow passengers or the fact that loved ones apparently care about them more than they care about themselves, and resort to safer alternatives.
There is something about myself that I know is sick in some way, yet I adamantly defend my position and opinion. I'm the person that says matter-of-factly, "they had it coming" or "they asked for it". These statements reflect the fact that I do not feel remorse or pity for people who suffer the consequences of their own irresponsible or inconsiderate actions, even if it results in their death. I feel pity and sadness for the loved ones of those who passed away, since they must now suffer grief and confusion because someone they love is now dead because that person made irresponsible, inconsiderate choices. It sounds sick and twisted but I must admit that I relish incidents and moments when people suffer consequences of their own irresponsibility. When my friend wakes up with a huge hangover and a headache the size of Texas, I'm not going to run out to CVS and buy him Advil. I want him to suffer and learn the lesson that his parents and friends didn't teach him: That his irresponsible behavior has consequences which, when they aren't hurting him, are hurting others, and that he cannot justifiably expect others to step in and help him avoid those consequences when they hurt him. It is inconsiderate, selfish, and juvenile to expect such a thing.
In sum I'm trying to point out that people tend the overlook the effects their irresponsible behavior has on people around them until that behavior hurts themselves. This failure to be aware of the hurtful effects of one's irresponsible behavior on others is inconsiderate, although I concede that both parties are at fault (irresponsible party for being inconsiderate, the offended party for not confronting the irresponsible party about his/her actions). Then, when one does suffer the consequences of his/her own irresponsible behavior, one expects other people to come in and do damage control, just like people (such as negligent parents or negligent friends) have been doing all along for the individual's irresponsible behavior that has affected other people. This is selfish, inconsiderate, and juvenile.
I would have liked to end this eloquently but it's 5 A.M. so I'm going to type what's on my immediate mind. Give this extended metaphor a chance- you can basically read into it everything I just discussed: Learn to wipe your own ass because the rest of us are smelling it- I'm telling you this now. And if you choose to ignore what I say the day will come when you smell your own ass and you will want me to wipe it for you-
"...and I'll whisper 'no'."
-Rorschach
| | |
| Firstly I must point out that I got the new Brand New album today (Daisy), I've given it a couple listens, and it's one of the most musically honest albums I've come across in a while. It's pretty raw and it doesn't disappoint, as long as you can understand that the sound of a band changes with the personal growth and evolution of its members. It might not be easy to listen to the first time around since it isn't as melodic as The Devil and God are Raging Inside Me and it scribbles outside the box a lot, but that's what makes it worth digesting. Brand New conveniently decided not to include a lyrical booklet for this album, just like the Devil and God, but this album doesn't even have an address you can send a letter to to ask for lyrics. And I think they did this for a good reason- this album deserves repeated listens and I believe it communicates heaps of emotion through the instrumentation alone that deserve attention.
Anyway, my dad watches America's Next Top Model (why, I don't know). So the other day I was watching part of it while he had it on and Tyra Banks has this ridiculous thing she calls smeyesing (I can only guess that's how you would spell it). Apparently she's supposedly the queen of smeysing in the fashion industry (according to whom I do not know). She made the contestants wear ninja-like suits that covered up everything except the portion of their face that contains their eyes and she judged how well they can smile with their eyes, or "smeyes".
In order to help the contestants conjure up a smeyes Tyra advised them to think of something that makes them really happy (their boyfriend, cheesecake, etc.) and let that happiness show through their eyes instead of their smile. I have always held a certain disdain/condescending attitude toward the arbitrary b.s. nature of what makes something "fashionable" or what makes one model "better" than another, but the idea of smeyesing made me go to bed laughing. The notion that you can smile with your eyes is total bull. While I watched Tyra judge the girls I observed that they were basically just fiddling with the size of their eyes, opening them larger or squinting, hoping to smeyes correctly. And of course Tyra, in her infinite wisdom of smeyesdom, could accurately judge which one had a better smeyes.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that human eyes can convey certain emotions, but the cues for those emotions (wide eyed=scared or excited, narrow eyes=angry or irritated) are merely socially constructed, not physically inherent. And those cues have gained social meaning because of their widespread use in the media as well as in daily life. Tyra believed that she could arbitrarily judge for herself which contestant could convey a smile with her eyes the best. Of course, smeyesing is an emotional eye cue with too little widespread social use to have gained a socially constructed meaning. What it means to smeyes is in Tyra's head. Any attentive viewer who watched this episode would've picked up on the fact that not even the contestants understood what smeyesing is supposed to look like and they were just trying to guess their way to success. And when Tyra did demonstrate the difficult, mystical art of smeyesing it looked like she was simply staring at something intensely. Shoot, if that's all it takes to smeyes sign me up for ANTM. I stand a chance.
Not only does the whole b.s. notion of smeyesing make me laugh, but the fact that people buy into fashion bull like this, believing that they need to wear certain brands, wear their hair a certain way, or even smeyes a certain way to be beautiful saddens me. Since when did beauty become so commercialized? Since when did a girl's desire to be pretty become something to take advantage of and capitalize upon? People say that you can understand a society's ideals of beauty best by watching the television commercials in that society. People who turn on the tube to be entertained will only find entertainment in watching shows with good looking people, it's a simple fact- no one wants to escape to a fantasy world (television) if it is riddled with ugly people. I have a bone to pick with the major media outlets because I believe they shouldn't have the power to define what is beautiful. But they're only trying to do what we all want to do: make money. The problem does not reside in the mass media but in our weak, susceptible, play-doh minds: we give them this power. Our psyches are weak and after we are repeatedly shown what is "beautiful" over and over, we come to believe those ideals and then support them, which keeps the gears of the fashion industry moving. The thing is, even if you try to break away from this by supporting unconventional or deviant fashion that breaks off from the mainstream notion of beauty (such as the recent fads in magazines of showing "real" women who have stomach fat) these unconventional or deviant fashions have already been commercialized and marketed towards. Even the notion of "no fashion" is fashion in itself. You can't escape.
Just like everyone else, I am subjected to and vulnerable to what the media and my peers deem as fashionable. I have a couple items (flannel lumberjack-looking shirts) in my closet that I wear because at some point in time I succumbed to some sort of mainstream idea of fashion. But largely, for myself I deem something fashionable if it has meaning larger than just "looking cool". This meaning can reside in some sort of humanitarian cause (Whole Foods FEED bags, TOMS shoes, product (RED) shirts) or some sort of event that holds personal meaning to the person wearing it (concert tshirts, a Disney shirt bought at one's first visit to Disneyland). That's why my closet is full of band shirts, twloha shirts, and invisible children shirts. I wear these shirts not because I think they look cool (although I think some of them do) but because they mean something to me. They represent something more than just a cool pattern or graphic on a shirt. Sure, they're not V-necks. Sure, they clash with my jeans. Bite me, mainstream fashion.
| | |
| The college party scene: a psychological and physiological analysis
Note: I do not assert that I hold great authority on this issue, I am merely offering as much analysis as I can possibly give based on my personal experiences and the experiences of others. I have very little experience with psychology but I believe that the little I have learned gives me enough insight to talk about this. I must note that I have personal experience with apartment parties but have no personal experience with fraternity parties. That will change this year, as I am interested in going to one to observe what it is like.
Everyone has their personal reasons for partying and I have no doubt that there are many different reasons someone would choose to overconsume alcohol and then proceed to make a fool of themselves. I'm referring to the people that go to parties to really PARTY and get trashed. I'm not referring to the casual drinker or people who go to parties but control their drinking in order to maintain control of themselves. I'm talking about people who enter the upper echelon of drinking intensity.
If you notice, these people are not alcoholics- at least not on the surface. They're not drinking constantly all day, everyday. Instead of drinking a steady flow of alcohol every day these people consume enormous amounts of alcohol at parties that occur sporadically (or, at least at UCLA, weekly). This reflects what may be an underlying form of alcoholism. These party-goers may not be physically addicted to alcohol in the sense that they do not suffer from physical withdrawal symptoms, but I believe that these people are psychologically addicted to alcohol. This is not a typical psychological addiction, however. In a typical psychological addiction these party-goers would be diagnosed as psychologically addicted to the action of consuming alcohol itself. I argue otherwise.
I argue that these party-goers are not psychologically addicted to the action of consuming alcohol; rather they are psychologically addicted to "letting loose" and doing something fun after times of stress or boredom. These party-goers are caught in the loop of a reward system in which they feel that after periods of stress or boredom they deserve a period of enjoyment and fun. They just happen to equate partying to enjoyment and fun. It is debatable whether this psychological reward system is healthy in itself. For the sake of discussion I will continue upon the premise that a psychological reward system such as this is healthy and acceptable. However, I believe that it is not- but that is an entirely different discussion I would love to have another time.
There is a psychological reward system that has undergone much study but it does not result in rewards through enjoyment/entertainment. Rather, it pertains to obesity. Basically, many obese or simply overweight individuals hold a psychological reward system in which they reward themselves with tasty (high-fat) foods in unusually large quantities after undergoing periods of stress, boredom, healthy dietary behavior, or healthy exercise habits. Many individuals of normal or acceptable weight may actually hold a similar reward system in their psyche, but what exacerbates this reward system in obese individuals is a lack of dopamine receptors in their brain. As you may know, dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter in the brain's reward pathways- it is also released in the brain when you have sex. In obese individuals this lack of dopamine receptors prompts them to eat more in order to feel as satisfied as lean individuals. If you are interested in reading the article I read about this you can read it here on Science Daily.
What does this have to do with the college party scene? Well, as previously mentioned before, many individuals probably view partying as a reward in their psychological reward system of stress/boredom-->enjoyment/entertainment. This probably applies to most individuals that attend parties. However, what about those individuals at the parties that push the limits and get completely trashed? The people having repeated drunken sex back to back in one night? Or the people puking in toilets? What makes them different from the mild/medium party-goers? I believe it may be a lack of dopamine receptors in their brain. Like obese individuals, it takes more (insert reward here) to make them feel rewarded. If their reward for times of boredom and stress is enjoyment and entertainment, they need to entertain themselves unusually more than normal individuals do in order to feel satisfied. If a lack of dopamine receptors in the brain can cause obese individuals to overeat I believe it can cause individuals to overdo on fun as well.
Overdoing "fun" may be a problem in itself, as some people say that too much of a good thing can make it terrible. I would agree with this mindset under most circumstances. However, for the sake of discussion, I will continue as if overdoing fun is not a problem.
If overdoing fun is not a problem in and of itself these individuals in the stress/boredom-->enjoyment/entertainment reward loop run into a problem when they equate partying to fun and make it the reward in their system. Excessive drinking at parties can lead to behavior that can damage one's physical and mental health, result in death or injury, or at the very least damage one's relationships with others and one's reputation. A possible solution one can choose to undertake to avoid this problem is to change the rewards in one's system. I hope that I don't have a reward system built into my psyche but if I do I think my rewards consist of purchasing cd's, attending concerts, occasionally gambling, buying the occasional piece of clothing or book, and going to Disneyland. Individuals who have a lack of dopamine receptors but do not hold partying as a reward in their system may hold more "extreme" forms of fun as rewards such as skydiving, playing ultimate frisbee, skateboarding, etc. These are rewards that probably result in much higher levels of adrenaline and dopamine than the low-key rewards such as the ones I hold.
I personally believe that not holding a reward system in our psyches is psychologically healthier than holding one. But if I must hold one in my psyche I prefer to have a reward system that is not exacerbated by a lack of dopamine receptors in the brain. And if I must hold a reward system in my psyche that is exacerbated by a lack of dopamine receptors in the brain, I prefer that my reward is something other than partying because that equates to excessive alcohol consumption which can lead to behavior that physically harms myself or others or figuratively harms the relationships between me and my friends, family, and God.
Ask yourself: Do I have a reward system? Analyze your past behavior to find out. What do you reward yourself with? Is it possibly dangerous to yourself and/or your relationships with others? Does it bring out something ugly in yourself that you'd rather hide? Does it bring out a side of you that you're proud of? Know yourself.
| | |
| This fall will be amazing for various reasons:
1. Music music music! Oh September, sweet September, thou bringeth divine music. Thrice- Beggars (Sep 15), Brand New- Daisy (Sep 22), Paramore- Brand New Eyes (Sep 29). Paramore/Paper Route show Oct 1, Brand New show Oct 17. I'm starting this school year with a bang. Who needs parties when you've got concerts?
2. Second year of college. There is still much to learn, much to avoid, much to try.
3. The lack of facebook in my life. I'm sure I will find that I have much more free time to use as I please this school year than I did last year. And that free time will be used for...
4. Regaining my cardiovascular fitness through taking up running again. It's been bugging me since last year when I stopped. I guess I can't resist the burn of lactic acid. But this time I'm starting at the bottom, which I haven't done in five years. This will break me for the first couple of weeks, but I'm up for it.
5. Bringing my bike to school to bike around with my cousin. Exploring LA is easier via bike than public transit, I hope. Just as long as I don't get hit by a car.
6. I hope to bring my skateboard to campus as well. Bombing down parking structures, anyone?
7. I hope to get integrated into a campus fellowship, something I did not do last year that I found was something I missed out on.
8. Get involved in Habitat for Humanity!
9. Disneyland, Disneyland, and more Disneyland! (minus the summer crowds). My Buzz Lightyear score better improve or else that's just pathetic. (199,600 is my highest recorded score, I think).
I assume that, like my first year of college, I will drop the ball on many of these goals/intentions/hopes. Does knowing this make me immune to my own hesitancy and shyness? I sure hope so.
| | |
| Disneyland, Pt. 2
So I wrote about Disneyland wedding proposals recently and I mentioned this video in my discussion. We can all agree that the proposal in this video was staged- that it was cleverly put together and planned. But my question was whether it was a real wedding proposal or whether the wedding proposal was fake and was merely created by Disney for marketing and advertising purposes. Sadly, I found out right now through an online article from the OC Register here that the proposal was indeed fake and created for advertising purposes. I'm not very surprised, namely because the high quality audio and video recording of the proposal (with multiple camera angles and multiple mic'd cast members) are something Disney would probably pull out only for itself. Plus, as my cousin pointed out, Disney and "free" do not get along together, and in that video the guy gives away a free Fantasmic sword (which Disney could probably get away charging $20 for).
Although I am not particularly surprised to find that the proposal was fake and created for marketing purposes part of me still feels let down. Knowing that even the heart-wrenching, emotionally uplifting moment of a wedding proposal is not sacred and safe from the advertising tactics of the corporate machine of Disney kills me a little inside. Ha.
But then again this advertising tactic should come as no surprise because Disney has always used emotional appeal to market itself. The whole "dreams come true", "everything is magical", and "believe" slogans and campaigns have used the emotions of hope and inspiration to draw thousands of people to the park, sitting underneath those starry skies to watch fireworks explode and Tinkerbell fly.
I must admit I am one of those people. At 19 years old I still get suckered into Disney's childish, un-jaded notions of the transforming powers of hope and belief. I look up at the Sleeping Beauty Castle with fireworks exploding behind it and Tinkerbell and Dumbo flying over it, I hear the broadway-like, sappy string-filled soundtrack, and part of me gets lifted away from the harsh reality we know as this world. Part of me is filled with hope and inspiration to not let the world phase my positivity. And yes, I get that warm and fuzzy feeling inside (awwww).
And then the show ends and I finish the remnants of a $5 sticky bun, refill my water bottle at the water fountain like I have been doing the entire day so I don't have to spend $30 (literally) on bottles of water, and I return to the parking structure where I paid $12 to park.
Boy, hope and inspiration do come with a price. And Disney has set that price high. But the feeling I get while I'm at Disneyland is like a drug- it probably isn't healthy. It's a high. So I dug into my bank account and forked out the money for an annual pass. It is by far the best decision I have made this summer and is probably one of the best decisions I could have made this whole year. If not the best, at least the most gratifying.
In short, Disney uses the uplifting emotions of hope and inspiration to market itself and simply do what we all want to do: make money. The corporate machine of Disney abuses and leeches off of these emotions we naturally possess as humans to reap a profit. Does this bother me? I know that it should, but it doesn't. Knowing the fact does not make me immune to its effect. I guess I'm just weak.
| | |
|
