I had meant to write a real entry yesterday, last night. One of the things I was going to mention is how for months I had to avoid I, So and Ok as opening words. Word creates a title for your document based on the first word, and yes, of course I know how to title my documents any which way I choose, but my titles are, at best, esoteric, at worst fucking cryptic as a hippo in spumoni. Hmmm, I suppose there is a few contexts wherein a hippo in spumoni is not cryptic at all, but therein lies the problem; Did I name the doc hippo in spumoni for context or just to fuck with the natural order of titles?
It’s a new year and so I can get away with a couple of handfuls of So, Ok and I. New folder, 2016. There’s a larger WTF at play than the titles too, like; Why the fuck did you save that? Why the fuck WTF indeed.
I’ve been watching this show on xfinity called Mr. Robot. I’d been avoiding it because the picture and the title made it look stupid. It’s not stupid, for what it is it’s clever, or, at bare minimum, well written. It’s a bit utopian in it’s dystopia though. That is not a hippo in spumoni. The drive train for the characters is the modern super-hero hacker with the standard hacker show moral dilemmas and shit. Those things can’t be too smart or too realistic because hacking itself is boring and the computer language is over most peoples heads, so something big has to be at stake. If you are planning on being a series there also has to be an extended motivation for recurring characters, especially the protagonist.
It’s got this sort of society and big corporations suck and killed my dad thing going on. Through the course of my own life I’ve seen and been involved in a few “Society-bad” type movements. Most of the rabble that isn’t there for chicks or adrenaline has an even fuzzier motivation; they personally feel disenfranchised, so Fuck You really means Fuck Me, Please? Pretty Please?
The last significant movement I can think of that had momentum and press was the Occupy Wall Street and then subsequently Occupy wherever you can get people to occupy. Like Mr. Robot, it was a movement more clever than it looked. First off, you can’t rage against society. There is no such thing, it’s a construct to simplify a time and place with a shared transient culture, but it doesn’t exist in any empirical sense and it barely exists as a construct except when you can envelop the metaphor in an analogy of amber. Occupy Wall street wasn’t raging against society, it was very specific in which aspect of time, space and culture lacked parity and justice.
Even though the media and such tried to make Occupy Wall Street look like a circus sans elephatns, dancing bears, ring master, pretty much everything but clowns, the movement effectively got across the message. Um, that’s all it got. Mostly, I believe, because a bunch of urban campers saying it’s unfair that those with money, power and influence can screw those without is self evident. I mean, I’m a big believer in civil disobedience and non violent protest, and even though I know there’s no such thing I’ll join you with a hearty fuck society rant, but, um, to move from money to guns isn’t much of a stretch, and “We don’t like you guys having all the guns” has always got people shot. There’s only two ways I know of wreking havoc on a financial system; with money or brute force.
It’s not the sort of cause people are willing to die for; fiscal parity. Some people are willing to risk their life to improve their own station fiscally, but not to bring parity to all stations. Ironically enough that would point closet to the heart of what the construct means, or at least a chunk of the pie chart of the construct “society” and yet it’s too abstract to die for. Historically people have put on war paint and ran straight at the spears for equally abstract shit like freedom, honor, god and other things that wouldn’t bring parity either. I don’t know, even closer to the heart of “society” is people. I is one. In theory if you want to “change” “society” (I gave each their own bunny ears because change is a neutral thing no matter how much people want it to be good or bad) get a significant number of people to refuse to participate. Construct or no “Society” doesn’t exist even as a construct without participants.
Oh, that was another thing. Usually when dipping a toe in the above waters someone comes up with this little gem; You either say Yes or say no, you either act or stand idle. In modern hacker shows they toss in bi-nary code zeros and ones to emphasize. In period pieces they use the Haves and Have nots. It’s a misrepresentation. I won’t argue the boring bits about how infinite zeros and ones can get or that there’s no such thing as Have and Have Nots. I will argue the very broad range of actions and inactions between yes and no, doing something and standing idle. Time is the only factor that keeps that range from being infinite.
The only time that argument is relevant is one someone has convinced you that the action they want you to take is the only option aside from standing idle. Both the relative good guys and relative bad guys have a lot invested in you thinking revolt or comply are the only two options. If my head wasn’t pounding I could add other options one at a time, simply, slowly and without question showing the fallacy of the concept. Time, however, does mitigate that. Time is why in the third grade you asked little joe “If there was a gun to your head would you kiss suzy or mary lou?” Because Joe would slip the hypothetical bonds without the gun, the gun representing the eminent need for a decision.
Ok. Bad head. Be Nice. Hippo. Spumoni.
Loading comments...