I’m not going to write about my trip yet. That’ll come later. I have some things I want to get off my chest that have been bothering me during the (total) 23 hours I spent in the car over the past three days.
I’m finding myself again in a situation similar to one I had with Michael a couple of months ago, when he saw fit to correct my grammar in one of my posts. A while back, I wrote an entry here that concerned, in part, someone that I hadn’t heard anything about in quite a while. Thursday, after Michael had caught up with what I had written in the past, oh… eon or so, he came to me and acted upset that I had written that entry, since, of course, he had told me that he had seen David on the street one day, and that meant he was fine. Oh, of course. Only he didn’t tell me. And the statement that he was seen walking down the street with gold hair isn’t particularly reassuring either. Nor would it probably have changed the post much. But Michael was still upset, like I had delibrately not listened to him about something I seemed to care about just to have something to write about. Not true.
But then Hannah started on the subject. She proceeded to tell me rather bad things about David that, while I didn’t know these things, didn’t terribly surprise me. I think that she felt that I had some sort of… pedestal for David to rest on within my mind, perhaps to alleviate him of his troubles with his family and life. Perhaps she felt it her duty to enlighten me to the “real” side of David, the un-cool side. I spent 20 of the my 23 hours in the car insulted that Hannah, the one who had written me (and thus, expected me to understand and probably agree) concerning the fact that most (if not all) people have two “selves”, an inner and an outer that is presented to the world, felt that I was so naive as to think and believe that what I saw in the five, maybe ten minutes a week I saw David was what I felt was his “inner self”. That I am incapable of discerning that people are always, always more complex than the facades they show, and the expressions they put on for the public. That I’m so fucking gullible as to believe everything anyone says about their past. And that any of this new information should change my concern for David’s well-being.
But with three hours left in my trip, I decided to look past the insult that I was (and am) sure I was imagining and think about things from a slightly different perspective.
For instance, I have to wonder why what Hannah told me should (if it should at all) influence my concern for David. I cannot, for the life of me, name a single person who has never made a bad choice in his life. Not a one. Most have made several. This is a fact of growing up, and maturing, and choosing a lifestyle. It should be noted that I don’t feel a decision someone else makes has to be okay with me before it is okay for him. If you know me at all, you know this. But if I should stop caring about people that make choices different from what I consider ideal, or “right”… What kind of hypocrite does that make me? And I still don’t understand why I should stop caring. Whether circumstances and someone else’s choices left him in a funky situation, or if he chose to steal and walk out of that house… why should I not care in one situation and care in another? Isn’t that more the distinction between pity and… something else? I genuinely don’t know. I doubt Hannah meant that I should care less given this new information, but these thoughts did cross my mind.
Something else I thought about was the opinion Hannah perceived that I had of David from that post. First and foremost… it was a paragraph. If my concern is someone’s well-being, I’m not going to spend the entire paragraph giving a completely balanced view of anyone’s personality (as if anyone could have a balanced view of anyone’s personality), then proceed to list all of the facts I know about his past. The first reason for that is, of course, everyone is entitled to some privacy. His and mine. Secondly, I’m not any type of seasoned writer. I write what’s on my mind, right then, and damn the consequences. I wanted to express my concern, not the fact that I understand that David is a multi-faceted individual with a good and bad side, yakkity-smackity. It’s understood. Or at least, I feel it is. Who the hell isn’t multi-faceted with good and bad aspects to their personality? Why don’t I write about everything of that nature whan I mention someone? First, privacy again. Secondly, time. I do have a life other than this blog. Actually, it’s just in the other areas of this site, but that’s valid, too. But if you don’t think I watch and learn about your personality when I am and am not around you… that’s to your disadvantage. If that’s your mindset, you should probably gain a sense of caution about people; don’t assume computer nerds have never picked up a psychology or body language book in their lifetime. And I am by far not the most perceptive of people. So to read a paragraph of anything I write here an assume that I have the ability to fully and accurately express the extent of my thoughts… well, sorry, kiddo, but Literature and Language may be my minor, not my major.
Along a similar vein of people perception is the fact that I made a decision, when I wrote that post, to mention good things about David. There are about… 5 people that I consider real friends. They are my friends both in spite of, and because of the aspects of their personalities that I may not like overly much. It’s a concession, but it’s worth it. I don’t mean to sound like some sort of martyr or someone that suffers eternally when people are around, but there is a choice that must be made; whether these aspects I like should outweigh those I don’t like. I’m cynical enough to see the bad in everyone, but I choose, in the interests of actually having friends and getting along with people, to focus often on the positives. I’ve seen how the alternative can make people, and I don’t want to be that way.
Another interesting aspect of Thursday’s lunch is that Michael got all riled up and in arms about the fact that the Boy Scouts of America do in fact allow homosexuals to be troop members (and thus achieve their Eagle Scout), as I had written, but just not become leaders. I think he may have even said, “For obvious reasons”; I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt (and three days separation) and not say for a fact that he said that. But I can’t figure out what is more insulting: the thought that gays are “unclean” and should be banned from the BSA totally, or that they are pandering sickos that will rape your children, because whether Michael agrees with that or not, that is the sentiment behind such a policy. Maybe I’ll toss the question at Micah and get his response. Or maybe I won’t, given that a homicidal Micah is not a good thing. I’m also not going to discuss the fact that the pandering priests were not, in fact, homosexuals, in the event that someone wanted to make a case of them. Or that pedophiles are not expressing sexual preferences (in terms of homo- or heterosexuality) when abusing children. No, I think I’ll just leave it alone. Otherwise I might become more than merely pissed at the opinions of organization that spends the majority of it’s time telling young boys what’s right and what’s not through words and examples such as these. Nope. I should pick on Christianity’s views of such things instead.
But what bothered me
the most about this entire fiasco is that I spent almost my entire lunch period hearing criticisms of my site and being almost challenged to defend myself and what I wrote (and, it’s assumed, think). I could draw numerous parallels between this and another situation that occured with a fellow IBer and her buddies not to long ago… But I won’t go there. If you disagree with me, fine, and if you want to talk about it, fine. But talk, don’t stand over me with a list of notes that you made on your fucking PDA as you read my site of things you have issues with, telling me that I’m wrong here, or I need to change what I wrote about the BSA. No. If you feel strongly enough about it, you’ll either write about it on your own site or find a much nicer way to discuss it with me.
No, I changed my mind. What bothers me most is that I actually sat down at my computer, after 11 hours in a car, and tried to defend myself against those accusations.