Weird Times

There's been some blowback against the outpouring of support from the world to Paris somehow, but I think it's hard for people to make coherent arguments for why they feel a certain way to rebut the charge of racism.  I think this is a successful attempt at explaining why many feel for Paris more than Beirut, or Kenya, or other places.

Princeton is getting into the immature protesting nonsense fun.

I always wondered why people from other parts of the country never mentioned mac and cheese for Thanksgiving.

Apparently doing yoga (unless you are Indian) makes you a Western-centric imperialist.

Responses:

1. The fervor of the various "ignorant hipsters" that their food of choice is so much better than yours is matched only by the intensity of their wrongness 18 months later.  It's a hilarious cycle.

2. Does this mean we should expect J.J. Watt to endorse Special-K soon?

3. I remember hearing about this last year or the year before.  It's a neat idea, but I wonder how long it lasts, as well as how it weighs against the other factors (e.g. physical appearance) that we consider.

4. I could go for that apple crisp.  I enjoy apple turnovers, but I wonder about using applesauce instead of apples - I wonder if I'd miss the texture.

5. Maybe we can make this one our year-end posts.

R2R:

1. I mean that Ally Financial has to pay money based on this.  Maybe you are less sympathetic, but we've represented this bank and clients like it, and I would hate to have to tell my clients that this was happening to them.

4. I suspect that there were some initial negotiations, first internal to the frat, and then with Rolling Stone.  They also probably wanted this to take place after the spectacle of the scandal had died down so that Rolling Stone would be more amenable to a settlement.  You know more about litigation than I do, but I imagine that when issues are heated, it's harder to negotiate.

6. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  And yes, these protesters seem to have an answer for everything and everyone.  If you are white, then you are blinded by privilege, and if you are not, then you are a traitor and a sellout.

R2R2R:

3. It's such an easy setting involving people who typically know each other (Jerry Seinfeld and whichever guest he invites), and they talk about common interests and experiences in a humanizing way.  I like reading Chuck Klosterman because he's good at making me care about stuff in a different way or care about stuff I didn't previously care about.  I don't think pop stars are universally loathsome, but I attach a presumption because I don't trust most people to survive what pop stars have to survive with their normal social skills intact, and I am skeptical of the kind of people who want to become pop stars generally.

4. I like the way this guy thinks.  The Gold's Gym in Rosslyn had a poster on the door that said "half of the battle is showing up."  And I think that's true - not because showing up twice will equal a full workout, but because once you get yourself going, once you get started, that inertia makes it so much easier to finish.  I don't think I've ever quit in the middle of a workout because it was too hard, but I've definitely decided not to go at all because I was tired/sore/busy/hungry/depressed.  And every time I've gone when I've felt like staying home, I've finished and felt better for it.  I like this mantra.

R2R2R2R:

4. We live in a world where people tried to boycott Chick-fil-A.  Also, do you think these boycotters care about the quality of their kids' toys over the self-righteous stand du jour?

R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:

1. I agree, but some people decide to hide behind idiosyncrasy or quirkiness because they want to rationalize laziness, prejudice, or worse.  Also, there is a difference between a dealbreaker, a quirk, an annoying habit, or just a thing that is not common between two people.  I notice that you put in parentheses that the guy was bad at everything.  While his lack of skill at bowling may have been symbolic for you, I tend to think that you would not have broken up with him over bowling if he was an otherwise competent person who just didn't bowl or didn't like bowling.

But more to the point, we as individuals in a society evaluate the decisions that other people make all the time, if only to affirm or question the decisions that we make ourselves.  This is especially true when we consume media.  Most people would think it odd to respond to Chandler or Seinfeld breaking up with someone over some triviality by saying, "It's his life, and I don't have an opinion - he can do what he wants," at least in part because the character is fictitious, but also because one big thing we all do is decide whether what the character did was good, bad, or otherwise.  Some people may not object to the move, but they would instead say, "I think it's fine that he broke up with her because that was important to him," while others would call the character petty or shallow.

With real people, I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others, but that is true in that we accept our friends and the autonomy of strangers.  We shouldn't stop being friends with people because they break up with their significant others for petty reasons, but we can certainly think for ourselves whether that was good or bad based on the information we have, and we should certainly talk to our friends about their and our decisions, since that's one way to be smarter about living life.  If I had a friend like Chandler, I would almost certainly call him out on his pettiness in dating.  And as for my example with the cats, while it was meant in jest, I think it's also somewhat symbolic (based on male acquaintances I have who have or like cats), and I would never advise anyone to make a decision based solely on that fact.

B