Monday morning I woke up missing having nowhere to go.
I pack hastily but efficiently: I’ve gotten good at that, it is a byproduct of when home constantly changes its shape and meaning.
That morning it was just me and my popo. Her daily routine has a lithographic space within mine. I recognize the shift in her breathing as she stirs awake, the soft jangle of jade and silver against her wrist when she turns down the covers, the notes of caffeine from her daily brew.
In this pocket of time I’ve learnt when to cut across rooms and how long I have to fumble for clothes, masking the squeak of my wardrobe door under a gurgle of boiling water as she prepares her coffee. I’ve developed the skills of one-man espionage, learning her habits so well I can go virtually unnoticed by her in a modestly sized apartment if I wanted to.
And I wanted to. I like leaving alone.
In my old house, I rose first on weekdays and left before anyone did. Back then my route didn’t take me anywhere near the rest of my family. Those mornings were mine, and I loved it. I padded stealthily around taking in everything in vivid detail: my own thoughts, the temperature, and the furniture that seem to take on a larger purpose of its own when still unused before the day begins.
Those were the easy times alone I’d hoard every day before the madness of school, where it was difficult even to portion out enough attention for each friend, much less your self.
When I moved in with my popo, these times got harder, but I managed to carve them out all the same.
That morning, I managed to. But at the door, wholly ready, my espionage-level understanding of my grandma backfired. If I were to slip out through the gates without a word, trimming off the fat of fuss and hassle from her I so meticulously avoided, I knew exactly what would happen.
Popo, in all her octogeneriac vigor, would flit from room to room, peering in for my familiar shape sprawled across the bed or on the couch jabbing away at my phone. That image broke my heart.
Buoyed by sudden courage/conscience, I swallowed the sour of selfishness and yelled out a goodbye, hoping to make my way far enough before she had time to accost me with additional interrogation (去哪里？为什么这么快要回去了？婆婆要跟你去吃饭勒！)/reminders for general well-being (要带冷衣！那把雨伞！吃早餐先!)
I have, of course, underestimated my popo’s moxie when motivated by concern for grandkids. At an almost inconceivable speed she was at the door, the whole time screeching for me to wait up.
The interrogation/reminders, as fully expected, came in squalls.
Escaping this takes two parts dismissiveness, a part of firmness, and a final whisk of well-timed smiles and nods and “orh!”s. With that I took off, bearing the fuss, turning back to wave at her/wave her off. Both.
My popo shrinks perceptibly but strains to amplify her self in her desperation to get me to slow down. Clutching at the steel gates her head yearns towards my direction, in her typical soprano she repeatedly shrieks 几时回来？
Not exactly the sight I want to see just as I move out for the semester.
I don’t know how to explain to her that my reluctance to answer that: when I’ll be home, is not just a careless disregard of her concern. I don’t want to answer her because it’ll be awhile until I do, and it pains me a lot more than it does for her to be reminded of that.
5th November went by, as I predicted, without much fuss. We paid our GSTs, jostled for space in the MRT, met our deadlines. We scrolled our smartphones for news and were mildly amused by the sporadic net hacks by Anonymous. We tweet sardonic responses – whether in support or annoyance, and we went back to our lives.
This was pretty much what I expected, because I don’t believe think anyone – even those in support of their cause – believed Anonymous to be the revolutionary leaders they were looking for. And why was that? Because there is a difference between what you are fighting for, and how you are fighting for it.
Anonymous’ fundamental mistake lies in their organizational action. Given that they aren’t even a coherent organization to begin with makes this inevitable. They burst into the scene with arguable impact, but the follow up revealed a poorly planned (if at all) course of action.
My greatest problem with them:
Their execution mirrored exactly what they were against.
Their trivial attacks began with the whole ‘Straits Times distorts message’ issue, with a journalist singled out and threatened. The aggression, I felt, was uncalled for. But their intention for attack was somewhat justifiable. They were after all fighting for reporting that does not furthered the government’s agenda (I won’t label this as objective journalism cause I don’t think complete objectivity is possible).
Personally though, I feel that an attack on the Singapore government is an attack on Singapore. It was merely semantics they were playing with. They were posturing the government as distinct and even oppositional to the country at large, when this is not the case. Even if there exists discontentment towards the government, they are what currently holds our infrastructure together.
More concretely, we take the threat they made to cost the government financial loss by “aggressive cyber invasion”. If you’ve had any 101 on Econs, a loss to the government directly impacts us. In fact, any form of attack on the government becomes an attack on us because state and sovereign are inextricably linked. Then again, for a citizen who already views him/herself as wholly at odds with the government, this might not be the case. So alright, I’ll give it to Anonymous that the attack could be justified.
But that aside, I have serious issues with the attack on Ridhwan Azman.
Of course, because Anonymous is a disparate (?)organization(?)/group, this might not be representative of the Messiah/group as an entity.
Of course, their petty choice of attack may also be due to technical constraints or incapability to infiltrate into wider, more important networks.
Of course, Azman appears to be an ignorant wife-beater, which is Not Okay anywhere, anytime.
But that doesn’t mean what Anonymous did was right.
The justifications they gave was that Azman has been “dissing the legion” and claimed that they were a joke. Regardless of the veracity of his statements, Azman is entitled to his own opinion. How is Anonymous taking offense to negative remarks against it ANY DIFFERENT AT ALL from the government taking offense to a citizens’ dissent?
Some may argue that they were not attacking Azman in particular, but symbolically reminding all that they are serious – that they have the ability to put those against them in place, that they are not to be messed with. Does that not sound UNCOMFORTABLY familiar?
Regulation in our country operates largely on an automatic basis. We internalize a fear of prosecution – generated from the few instances where explicit legal action has actually been taken – and self-censor. How many of us even know what exactly constitutes as illegal content? We just tread carefully around imagined OB markers.
My point is, Anonymous clamping down on dissent against them serves this very purpose. With an example of someone ‘dissing’ Anonymous being hacked, do we not become more cautious when criticizing Anonymous online? Relative to legal prosecution, where the justice system still provides (to some extent, no matter what many argue) protection for non-malicious statements based on some truth, there is no way to prevent persecution by the Anonymous, or predict the way they persecute you. It can go beyond hacking your social media accounts to infiltration of confidential or financial data.
The fear is there. Anonymous attempted to replace the regulatory framework installed by the PAP with their own, equally restrictive one. What Anonymous did was to posture themselves as an opposite camp, as powerful as the regime, and force us to choose sides.
Personally, they appear as patronizing as the government.
A main complaint against the government is that they suffer from self-righteousness, thinking they know what’s ‘best for us’, and implementing regulations accordingly. Anonymous, by independently formulating their political agenda before calling for support (and threatening persecution of those who challenge them), reflect the exact paternalistic attitude they swear to loathe. What makes them think that all of us are ready to trade complete freedom of speech for financial stability? Perhaps many of us do, of course, but it shouldn’t be pre-assumed.
There is nothing revolutionary about them, they are just fighting lightning with lightning.
Why they seem ‘revolutionary’ to some is because they are new, and positioned themselves against a recognized antagonist. But with closer examination, their framework eerily parallels the regimes’. Okay firstly I need to qualify that I don’t think either party is evil or malicious. In fact, both have good intentions. What I’m trying to say is, what goes against what you go against does not always = you support. It’s not as formulaic as that.
I’m not saying that the government is perfect, or that such opposition isn’t needed. There are problematic issues with regulation that definitely needs reforming. Mainly, the vague regulatory markers we operate within severely restricts the political space citizens dare venture into. Also, there’s a lack of trust given to citizens. Yes – idiots are aplenty, so explicit rules against what should intuitively not be said (e.g. racial slurs) are spelt out. But we need to be given credit for being a lot more self-aware than we are thought to be. Even if we aren’t, we need to make those mistakes to learn for ourselves.
Another issue lies in ourselves. A good majority of us appear politically apathetic. The ‘battle’ between Anonymous and the government was a source of entertainment, and rather frivolous remarks were made about them, few politically relevant. Admittedly, I do quite enjoy those comments: “Eh hack into uni account and help my bell curve leh”, etc. But it reflects the state of political (un-)interest within citizens.
Interest aside, there is also the issue of knowledge. We need better contextual knowledge politically, and to consolidate our stances according to what we know. Chances are you may be a huge supporter of Anonymous without considering their methods, what exactly are the legislations they fight against, or what you desire for a political outcome. Choosing stances with only vague political ideas yourself isn’t a crime, but ideally we should have a good think-through before we choose either sides or none at all.
Life is nuanced. Politics is life multiplied by the # of people involved, which makes it a complicated little weasel. Anonymous’ motivations were understandable, maybe even noble. But for real – and positive – change to take place, we need more than a single leader herding us in his/her desired direction. We need a generation shaped by individuals who know enough, who know what they want, and who know how to do it without trampling on the principles that underlie their motivations.
Most of you would have heard of Pastor Kong Hee and his statement about God’s apology, which setting off a wave of outrage and the subsequent retaliatory influx of people in defense of him.
I just watched the video, and came to the conclusion that
everyone is missing the point.
Pastor Kong’s speech (sermon?) might have made you slightly uncomfortable – you feel that something is fundamentally off about what he’s saying, but being lazy, we latch on to a convenient point of contention we then sensationalize and use for cyber-bashing.
In this case, the convenient point most have latched on to for criticism is that he claimed God apologized.
By doing so – by extrapolating that single statement for nitpicking – is EXACTLY what the anti-church camp often condemn churchgoers for: taking things (/the bible) out of context.
Essentially, they are bashing Pastor Kong Hee without knowing why they are bashing him (sounds familiar?)
This disturbs me because when I take a stand against or for anything, I need a sound reason. I want to think through and justify my resentment or love for everything, which sometimes can be tedious, confusing, but – in my opinion – necessary.
Pastor Kong’s ‘sermon’ made you vaguely affronted and uncomfortable because there are several fundamental problems rooted in the way he is running a megachurch.
These underlying issues are what we should be looking into and surfacing for discussion, not merely how God is apologizing etc etc.
And since the #godnehsaysorry movement has been mostly shoddy about ruminating and articulating what they really think, I’ll try to break down some of the things that should be brought up instead.
This is why Pastor Kong Hee’s speech wound you up:
1. Why is he so eagerly defending and justifying himself…
If it is Pastor Kong’s belief that God has chosen for him a path of suffering alone, I can respect that. But he has imposed upon a congregation this belief, and essentially voided what (he apparently thinks) God intends for him.
If he truly believes that God wants him to suffer, and to suffer alone, then what he should be doing is to humbly accept the public persecution and have enough faith to ride it out knowing that it would eventually end.
Instead, he is telling everyone that he is suffering, as a hero, chosen by God. He is glorifying himself. This is neither suffering, nor is it suffering alone. He has instead turned the tide of condemnation and harnessed it for stronger popular support.
Basically, this intense justification would not have taken place if he actually believes what he’s arguing for in the video.
2. …with it self-indulgently disguised as a sermon…
This is a prevalent problem with megachurches that really gets to me (and is one of the reasons why I left church).
A sermons’ main priority is to “talk on a religious or moral subject”. Its goal is to educate, to enrich the spiritual life of Christians through teachings. What is Pastor Kong’s message here?
Maaaybe that in instances of wrongful persecution, we should think of it as pre-ordained by God. If that were the lesson at all, it is a very self-indulgent one: it aims at soothing the self, instead of teaching you to live out God’s words.
To be a Christian is not just about having a religious balm for all your woes. It is about work, about servicing others, even if it leads to personal suffering that cannot be shared with others.
This is why I find Pastor Kong’s speech (I cannot, by semantical technicalities, call it a sermon) incredibly self-indulgent. Not only does he deprive the congregation of what should have been a religious or moral lesson, he imposes them with what can only be a a form of self-glorification and opportunistic justification.
3. …in such a contrived, rehearsed, and self-righteous manner?
Another gripe I have with megachurch sermons is that they reek of over-rehearsal and insincerity. In fear of over-generalizing, I shall just discuss Pastor Kong Hee’s speech in the video above.
Can anyone watch it and tell me it is not a performance? The gestures, the immaculate pacing, the contrived accent. The overdosage of self-references. I, I, I. God said to me, me, me. I am a sufferer, I am condemned, but I, I, I will persevere, I will take on this burden, etc, etc.
While I have dissected the fundamental issues with Pastor Kong Hee, the most pressing matter I want to push forward is this:
Everyone needs to step back and think more deeply about issues, by themselves, for themselves.
Guided not merely by your church, or by media sensations. Think more thoroughly about why exactly you have particular feelings about subjects. The problem is that we are stimulated by simple scandals but are reluctant to understand what we are persecuting.
This goes for BOTH anti- and for- camps.
We need more incisive arguments on why we are against Pastor Kong Hee (not just that he is deluded about God apologizing), and why we believe and follow our religious leaders even when they come under fire (instead of just re-bashing haters).
I’d love to hear arguments either for or against this!
Edit:
I did a closer reading of what netizens had to say about the entire saga, hoping to find a post, or even just a comment, that regarded the larger issue instead of fixating on the apology issue, which is merely a manifestation of the overarching problem. The larger issue/problem being the structural leadership of a charismatic megachurch.
It was disappointing.
News reports focussed on the Sorry (although they are the media and their main aim is readership, so somewhat understandable although not admirable).
YouTube comments were painfully tacky attempts at wisecrack revolving around the Sorry (then again, it’s YouTube: watch and bitch is the routine.)
Other local forums involved equally intense debates… that were futile chasing of each other’s tails because um, it’s a non-issue to begin with. Did they even watch the entire video for context?
A miserable few alluded to general function of the church and his leadership. The miserable few did little to elaborate, or else their comments were mired in cringe-worthy shots at satiric humor (omg pls stop).
I call this the Stomp culture. We are a generation perversely hungry for news that expose another for very, very irrelevant and frivolous disgraces. Like reading newspapers on the floor of the mrt station and necking each other in clinics. I mean, whatever.
Can we want more? Can we BE more?
I am so sad and I wish someone would come and challenge me and tell me I’m wrong and why Pastor Kong Hee has done everything right and how megachurches are worthier than I thought so at least I know people out there are thinking along with their bitching.
Went to the zoo with brilliant company. I had fun, as I always do at the zoo. But this time round it was shaded vaguely by a strange sadness. At every exhibit, we would exclaim over the animals, mimic their sounds, and giggle over comments of the animal’s silliness. And then almost inadvertently we’d remark on how sad they looked, or how bored, or how lethargic.
This time, I was more aware of their captivity than I ever had. I know it’s an inevitable compromise: for us to appreciate and understand the animals, and raise awareness about their likely endangerment, we need to put them within observable proximity of the general public. Mandai Zoo brings out the message of conservation pretty well, and for that I admire them. And I can tell how much the people there really care for the animals, and they try their best to reconstruct their natural habitat. But. Still.
The most striking thing I’ve brought back from this excursion are these images: the lone polar bear blinking at the sun, its back to the gawking crowd. The crazed wolverine who ran around in endless circles. The lioness’ resentful and haughty, but weary gaze.
It may be true that many of these animals were born into captivity, and it may be me attributing too much to these lazy creatures of leisure. But there’s just something pathetic about the artificiality and inadequacy of the enclosures. I can’t help thinking that they know, somehow, that they’re being deprived of something grand and vast and beautiful.
Maybe it’s because sometimes I get bouts of wilderness yearning, when my inner jungle girl longs to be in the great plains of Africa leaping about with deers, but it makes me wonder how animals so innately wild can stand being closed off if even a severely domesticated creature such as I – with endless entertainment – desire the wilderness.
For a Christian and a potential political science undergraduate, i’d say i’m unusually ambivalent on all the major politico-religious issues out there. In a way it’s because i don’t want to settle on a stand before i’m wiser or learned enough.
But as an observer to The Homosexual Issue for more than ten years since i’ve coherently given the topic serious thought, i’ve finally come to conclusion: that everyone should mind their own business and stop asserting their personal beliefs on others.
Being in an IJ school at an impressionable age granted me a very strange, albeit interesting outlook. Firstly, of course, the strong Catholic influence at a young age planted a natural tendency to see homosexuality as ‘unnatural’. At the same time, it was a girls’ school, and an IJ one at that. That combination led organically to a hotbed of lesbians. Yes, at age 9 I bore witness to girls making out in dark alleyways while roaming around innocently eating curry puffs after school. So while ‘unnatural’, homosexuality also became – sort of – a norm!? A quarter of my school went through that whole homosexual experimental phase.
My take on it then was that homosexuality was constructed, and that people can’t possibly be born with it. This was derived partly from my own heterosexual orientation, the observable microcosm of society I had with its instances of sapphism, and what was taught to me religiously. It was just a personal opinion that I’ve never endeavored to solidify, but it remained my stance for years.
But over the years I’ve got to know people – sensible, real people, who are homosexual. There are plenty at my age – I suspect – who are still confused, still experimenting; but there are those who are undeniably homosexual; born – naturally and without the ability to change their predilection – to love the same gender. And once I was sure of that, there was no argument – they deserve every right heterosexual couples are given.
While I believe in God, I also believe in homosexuals. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. There are too many cogent arguments in support of gay marriages that do not contend or contradict with biblical beliefs, I don’t have to offer any more of them. What I do know is this: love is love is love. And if I love someone, there is no reason why I should be in any way condemned or disadvantaged.
In no way should I superficially be accepted but obviously categorized as ‘abnormal’, which I think is what is happening locally. The general political consensus right now is that homosexuals are allowed to lead their lives ‘freely’ and pursue their social activities, but within limits – in particular, they are not to ‘promote’ their homosexual ‘lifestyle’. I have never felt like homosexuals are in any way ‘promoting’ their choice. The reason why there is a pro-homosexual voice in society now is because they are rigorously restricted (a blatant message to society that what they’re born to be should not be accepted) and as ANY person indignantly oppressed for being who they naturally are, they make noise.
Homosexuals do not ‘promote’ their lifestyles. Heterosexuals do. We actively promote the ‘conventional’ family unit of father, mother, children – to the extent of forbidding any exception. Homosexuals are not asking others to be homosexual, all they are asking is for a right for them to be it. TO BE THEMSELVES. Which in my opinion is a very admirable non-intrusive attitude we should all adopt. Basically, the more intense the attempt to shelf this ‘lifestyle’, the louder they will get.
I do understand why a heterosexual will see homosexuality as abnormal and unnatural. Because, to be honest, I do too. I mean, obviously, if I loathe olives and can never see myself enjoying them, I can never understand how another can. It might seem disgusting to me. But in the same way, homosexuals cannot understand the sexual appeal of the opposite sex. To them, heterosexuality is unnatural. And if they truly feel this way, I cannot – in all logical sensibilities – tell them that they are wrong. It is a bloody tendency they are just… BORN with.
All I did was imagine myself as a heterosexual born in a homosexual world, with all the existing prejudices homosexuals are subjected to reversed and imposed on me – and it just made complete sense for us to stop. Stop making them so miserable for just.. being. It’s wrong. It’s bullying a black kid for being in a predominantly white playground. It’s morally wrong:
Making someone pay for having done NOTHING that harms or would harm another is morally wrong.
The one creed I wholeheartedly believe in is to love everyone and not to do harm on another. Legalizing homosexual marriage, as far as I can imagine, will do actual harm to NO ONE. Retaining 377A will, in one sweeping motion, disallow an entire group of people – many of which good and honest – from doing what the Christian God teaches one to: love.
The problem, I think, is that many people are still incapable of seeing homosexuals not as homosexuals but as people – which they are: before anything else, they are men and women. They are just.. us. With different preferences. If we think of them as people who want to love another, it seems counterintuitive to prevent them from. It’s this arbitrary distinction we’ve made between homosexuals and heterosexuals that makes it so difficult to see them as people with the right to want what they naturally want, and makes it difficult for us to understand that all homosexuality means is a different preference.
Like I’ve said before, I was pretty much ambivalent/apathetic about the whole issue, and had assumed that most people were tolerant, if not accepting. But a pretty horrifying number of people, I’ve discovered on the internet today, are just pure NASTY about homosexuality without the grounds to be so. Not only are their comments crude, they are out to hurt. About homosexuals being a disappointment to their parents (punctuated with smug, evil little smiley faces), and something about filthy shit sex or wtv.
And I was just like dude. You just. don’t. say that. To homosexuals or ANYONE unless they raped someone’s child and dumped the body in a lake. So far, anti-gays have not given me a single cogent, convincing argument that hasn’t been properly debunked by the opposite camp. All I’m getting is a bunch of insensitive, unfounded assaults that make the homosexual cause seem very, very much worth fighting for to me.
So yes, I guess after 10 years of observation I’ve made my conclusion and I do wish it hadn’t been such an easy one because the way in which heterosexuals are damning homosexuals almost makes me ashamed to be a heterosexual.
Soooooo i just read the Perks of being a Wallflower (stolen copy from my sister), and it was just as i suspected…
SEVERELY OVERRATED.
It was actually pretty bad, with the cardinal sin of being pretentious and hyped. Three pages in, Charlie started irritating me. Isn’t he supposed to be INTELLIGENT? He sounded not only ignorant, but also like a kid suffering from Asperger’s. Reminiscent, almost, of Christopher from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Except Christopher was SUPPOSED to be like that, they socially oblivious because that was what the book was about. In Perks, Charlie, i suppose, is suffering from post-traumatic disorder (which which as sem 1 psych student with an A- i can tell you is nothing like Charlie’s affect). Or is it because he is ‘introverted’ and ‘socially awkward’? Introverts are usually the most ruminative and eloquent so, nope.
Well okay but i wasn’t expecting much, really. Any novel-turned-motion-picture that my sister purchases tend to be shit anyway. It’s like my sister has this thing about reading literature that i abhor. ANYWAY. I’m alright with it being shitty, i just don’t like the hype surrounding it. And what gets to me most about the hype? THE QUOTES.
Really, people.
Do you even KNOW what’re you’re quoting? In fact, did CHBOSKY know what he was writing and did he do so deliberately intent on spawning millions of die-hard wannabe hipster romantics littering online media with strings of words that do not make sense? Ok see, i wouldn’t mind if i was swamped with overused by clever quotes. The ones in Perks aren’t clever. They’re just PRETTY. They just sound like they mean something deep and ~infinite~. It doesn’t MEAN anything much. It’s just a twinkly ornament you’re putting up on your porch that has no practical function besides being twinkly.
But that’s okay. Prettiness is a thing i can live with. What i am NOT okay with, is when people INSIST that this twinkly piece of junk has some sort of pragmatic use and refuse to admit that they just want to prettify your porch. It’s so.. i don’t.. even. anymore.
Something needs to be done. Therefore:
Top 3 Perks of Being a Wallflower Quotes Everyone Loves and Use ~Infinitely~ With Much ~Emotion~ But In Fact Means Nothing
1. “Charlie, we accept the love we think we deserve.”
BEHHHH, wrong. If the entirety of history has taught us one thing, it is that human beings are utterly INCAPABLE of balancing their want of something with the perceived amount of need. Haven’t you noticed that (while not always true), there is a general trend for the insecure to end up with someone completely devoted to them; the confident ironically with someone who seem nonchalant towards him/her? The theory is that the less confident thrives on the assurance and affection (but would never believe him/herself to be deserving of, thus perpetuating the sense of insecurity – which usually manifests in neurotic and abusive behavior towards the partner [we’ve all heard that one, the possessive ex who’s always on his/her partner’s case despite partner’s almost foolish devotion], but that’s for another day). And that you see the typically assured, assertive type deliquesce in a helpless mess with someone who treat them like, as Sam would say, nothing. Is that because the secure type believes they ‘deserve’ this amount of attention? N-uh it’s more of a challenge for them, the need to acquire something or someone you currently don’t possess. It is only with underlying confidence of success that you’d set up to pursue someone apparently out of your grasp.
Generally, the theory of accepting the love we think we deserve isn’t as universal as people believe it to be, while of course it may hold in some instances. Furthermore, it is a truism. It’s something we all inherently know can be true at some point of time, but is given the attention only when inserted pretentiously into a pretentious book. So while i can’t say it’s totally untrue, i don’t understand why it’s such a huge deal.
Such a huge deal that people are fervently making this their life motto, getting it permanently inked on themselves or spending hours prettifying the quotes on their moleskin notebooks then snapping a million shots of it for Instagram. No, people. Bad. Stop. I can give you another right now: We seek the love we think we’d never get. This is another sometimes applicable truism you may now obsess over. Enjoy.
2. “And in that moment, I swear we were infinite.”
This one always gets to me, firstly because it so obviously reeks of pretention. Secondly, it’s kind of a sore spot for me because i used to be quite in love with describing all things as ‘infinite’ thinking it made everything beautiful and touching and delicate and literary.
BUT I GREW OUT OF IT K AND SO SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE.
Sure, infinite – the quality of being vast and limitless and forever and.. it’s just pretty isn’t it? It’s alluding yourself to a concept we can almost never comprehend, it’s putting yourself on the league of the entire universe (which by itself is kinda assuming isn’t it?).
But c’mon people. Isn’t it just a weeee bit overused? Also, it’s the lazy way out of everything. Like the semantics of the word, the function of infinite is, also, infinite. You can use it on almost everything. It’s like a statement pair of jeans you used to complete all your looks. Classy and complementary and always looks good. Except after the fifth dinner party your friends would be wondering if you ever put them in the wash.
We need to find another pair of jeans, world. This infinite thing has gone too far especially when everyone marveling at it as if it’s their first time coming across such a wonderfully convenient word. It doesn’t even mean that much. All it says, in other words, is that “oh. right now i feel limitless.” alright maybe i’m leaving out a lot of it’s nuances, but you get what i mean. Enough is enough.
3. “Welcome to the island of misfit toys.”
Made popular by the film trailer, also a brillant sifter of readers from non-reading movie-goers posed as one. I give it the credit for being a somewhat clever reference to Rudolph’s and way less mawkish than the above two. But it’s just that – a reference, and one that has been around for ages and ignored because it wasn’t framed by the prettiness of mass media manufactured indie-ness.
I think what sits wrong with me about the whole affair is the way people are holding on to these scraps as if they were the most personal, uniquely tailored, unconventional concepts they’ve ever encountered and are thus ardently proud of. When in fact it’s just mediocre and made even more mediocre because of the entire popular appeal the media hype has churned out.
There are millions and millions of quotes beautiful and personal only to you that can be found if you actually bother reading books that aren’t just on Kinokuniya’s best seller shelf. This whole jumping on the film wagon thing is the easy way out to finding books you love. It’s almost like buying a pair of jeans that’s advertised all the rage that fit but not perfectly and thinking it’s the best you can find just because you were too lazy to shop for and try on other pairs of jeans. Also, everyone i wearing the same pair of jeans as you.
And i do not understand my excessive use of apparrel analogy either. Kthnxbye.
fridays, you wake up and for that tiny moment before adjusting to reality you’re in the cradle of the universe for that tiny moment you remember your place in that entirety of the world it’s all around you not in you and suddenly you know that everything is and will be alright. saturdays, free fall into comfort whole and together because you don’t care about anything but the here and now and you’re you again and again and again. sundays, a string of old names and how fond you are of them.
Poor public walking etiquette. I hate it when people dawdle in front of me and take up the entire pathway while they’re at it. And then there are the people who’re distracted by their phones/something they’re looking at that’s not in FRONT of them, and they bumble forward without realizing that dude, people walk towards you. I hate that near/sometimes actual collisions because someone’s being a public retard.
2.
Nose diggers. (And assorted other unhygienic displays, including excessive head scratching; scab picking; foot touching; nail clipping; pimple tweaking; and/or being smelly in general. Frankly it’s disgusting it makes me feel like humankind are the most vile creatures on earth. Even more so than shit tossing monkeys. I GLARE at everyone one of them and send of tides of disapproval until they get so uncomfortable they stop.
Just yesterday, watched Gee’s musical and this ang moh man with the nastiest case of foot stinkies beside me removed his shoes and it was SO BAD, Beni, Cleo and Xin (three seats away) could smell it. Xin actually thought it was the guy on her other side, was that strong. I had to dab myself with liberal amounts of scent to override his, but it didn’t work. When the climax came with energetic singing and lights, combined with his putrid feet pong, i felt the violent need to upchuck. Eugh.
3.
Seat thieves. Common courtesy to give up your seat, but i’m alright when people don’t. What i think is VERY INAPPROPRIATE is when you deliberately KS a seat that’s obviously given up for someone else. This has actually happened to me a few times, the most recent being a primary school boy on the train’s reserve seat. I was beside him, and stood up pointedly for this standing old lady. Before she could sit down, he planted his bag on the seat i left. SHAMELESS. And another time i stood up for this poor disabled old man and this idiot indian girl RAN across the aisle with vigor to get the vacant place. The indian lady beside her was nice enough to stand for the old man, and guess what, indian girl’s dad made a beeline for THAT one as well. LOUSY.
4.
Proximity issues. People tapping my shoulder with too much force, or generally leaning in too close to me. I don’t like it because too often people have bad breath, and i have boundary issues when it comes to strangers or even acquaintances. Once i wanted to buy cake, and the very. friendly. shop assistant insisted on standing about 6 inches away from me, no matter how much i moved away. It was only when i very pointedly moved right across the other side of the counter to answer him that he quit tailing me. I hate it. I hate people cooties.
5.
Over eager shop attendants. I don’t like it when I get bombarded with questions first thing i enter a shop: “HOW CAN I HELP YOU?” “WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?” “A GIFT OR FOR YOURSELF?” But i understand they’re doing their job, and well, so usually i’d smile and say it’s k just browsing. (And yes i’m usually just browsing because i love entering strange shops just to look-see.) Some hover around you and would insist on interjecting with their own opinions and recommendations and THAT i cannot take. Once they open their yaps twice, i head straight for the exit.
And yeah! Most of my peeves are directed at strangers in public arenas. I don’t have much peeves revolving around friends or people i know, because if i like them enough they just become endearing quirks i tolerate/am amused by.
It’s weird, because i worry about EVERYTHING from peeing into cups to germs on bus poles to the numerical symmetry of things i eat, but if you ask me to point out one large looming worry that’s always on my mind i can’t think of one.
I’m not even that worried about university and the work load and having to eventually find a job.
I guess the only consistent worry i’ve had all my life is that i’ll get some sort of fatal disease.. When i was in primary school they had a poster with symptoms of kidney disease and i read it ten times every morning (exactly) to check if i had the symptoms i can still remember every one of them. For awhile i was convinced i had colon cancer (or will eventually get it) and diabetes and all sorts of nonsense. I think that’s hypochondria speaking..
I’m also perpetually worried about losing my intelligence and/or charm.
And i’m also always worried for my friends and how they’re doing.
Day 08: Five things that irritate you about the opposite/same sex
Usually i wouldn’t endorse this because traits are seldom gender exclusive, but i’ll try.
1.
Extreme or misinformed feminism in women. If there is a justifiable claim of women being disadvantaged (artificially), then as with any other cause it’s one worth fighting. But too many times women have a misguided sense of what feminism is about. What we want to champion here is egalitarianism. But so many rant and rave about female power/male inadequacy. They may see themselves as better than the male species – and ask for the population to recognize that. They may also demand for rights greater than those of the modern man. What they don’t get is that by doing so they’re not subverting patriarchy. They’re just establishing matriarchy. I believe in yin/yang and natural balance. I accept that, by nature, men and women excel in different areas. So by God, extreme feminists please quit bitching and making your own gender seem even dumber than we already appear to be. If you think men are inclined to attain better office at work – instead of channelling your energy into changing this with huge banners and bonfire bras, why don’t you work harder (than men, yes unfair but that’s life) so there’s at least one living proof that women can do well. Please.
Yeah you probably shouldn’t get me started on feminism.
2.
Men who try too hard to be gentlemen. I don’t know why this annoys me because it’s a generally harmless trait and usually leads to nice things like car rides and subsidized meals.. but it’s probably because I’m averse to phoniness and i think the concept of the Gentleman is a phony one. Why? Because, again, egalitarianism. If you were a good person, you’d be nice to both genders. The reasons why one would opt to be a ‘gentleman’ (which i interpret as someone who’s extra nice to ladies) rather than just a nice man: 1) ulterior motives, to score points with women, they want to make a good impression – but only with females because of romantic interests. THAT’S phony. 2) they think of women as the fairer sex who ought to be babied and taken care of. So in fact, by being nicer it just entrenches patriarchy/chauvinism. PHONY. 3) When i pointed the first two out to a friend who prides himself to be a gentleman, he debunked them claiming he just has a pure love for females – and that he genuinely thinks of them as superior to the male species. That’s relatively acceptable but i still don’t like the idea of a male/female superiority divide. I don’t get why people can’t just accept that men or women we’re just people of the world and honestly gender matters so little it’s just people who make a big fuss of things.
3.
That certain way women garble in public. Loudly, maliciously, and with frequent eye rolling. I know men gossip/gripe a plenty too – but there’s this certain frequency and aggression i’ve only seen women reach. It grates on my nerves.
4.
When men take themselves very, seriously. Lol. K this is a somewhat gender-neutral trait, but it’s more predominant in men because they are inclined towards narcissism. Men are often portrayed as the more laid back sex while women are worrisome and uptight – that about applies for general situations.. but when it comes to certain issues, there are these men who go all sensitive and take things personally. Women would probably sulk and passive-aggressive the hell out and i don’t mind that because i’m great with ignoring and i don’t take guilt trips. But these men take the offensive and go all self-righteous and want to challenge you. It’s a total minefield.. And they say women are difficult.
5.
I honestly can’t think of any more.. because there are so little things that irritate me i can consider gender specific. So i guess it’s a guy/girl tie-breaker yay! Egalitarianism!
Q 