"A free mind,and a free market, are corollaries." - Ayn Rand
About this Entry
Posted by: derickhalley

Original: 3/25/2007 11:03 PM
Views: 47
Comments: 12
eProps: 8

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps!2 eProps! 2 eProps from:
davidngo
FaSheezy
rambling_on
JackWoodward


Sunday, March 25, 2007

Since When Does Emo Mean Anti-Social?

 

It was a bright, clear day; the hot-yet-not-severely-hot kind that screams "early summer." The school year was almost over, and it was one of those final lunch periods when the failures have already failed and the honor rollers have already... been honored, while we're all just waiting for the year to end. I was sitting at the end of a hall that protruded from the school, alone, back against the window, reading my worn-down copy of The Fountainhead under the fresh light behind me. Usually I went to my friend's house to play video games, but on this one I was alone and happy and learning through fiction.

 

"Why is Derick all emo in the corner?"

A sentence about the principled architect was suddenly interrupted by a voice in front of me, the speaker's face invisible behind the book. A few seconds past before I lowered it to look at him without moving my eyes and saw that someone was talking to me, as this was before I learned that third-person reference was totally the new second-person reference.

 

I blinked. "Emo?"

"Yes."

"Me?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

"You're all alone and sad."

"I'm not sad."

He snickered as though that was obviously a lie. My presumptious mind was all but certain that the thought in his head was "Alone and not sad? Preposterous! These are mere lies to protect yourself from embarassment!" He went off, apparently certain that no more comment was needed for my ridiculos assertion.

 

I returned to my reading and didn't think about the subject again until a moment ago, almost a year later.

 

In its worst sense, as a valid term, what does the pop culture word "emo" mean? A culture among modern teenagers characterized by being overtly emotional and dramatic, while using one's apparent psychology as a means of getting attention and sympathy. So why have I been noticing more and more that any sign of anti-social characteristics are called emo?

 

My theory is that so many (not all) people are so social-minded and shallow that they assume that no one could possibly want to voluntarily spend their time doing something other than bicker and joke with their peers about things they are convincing themselves they care about. So if one is alone one must be sad. And again, because of their social-mindedness, one must also only do things alone to attract attention and sympathy.

 

This is not me.

 

I promise. A lot of people hate me. In real life and on the Internet. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't hurt my feelings. I have a lot of friends too, just as many as anyone else, which is what matters, and I could hardly care less about the unusually high number of haters. And I do a lot of things alone. Not because I have to. Not because I hate the world. Because for some things, it makes more sense to be alone. The spaces in-between leave us room to grow, to use the most cheezy yet valid song lyric Neil ever wrote.

 

Don't cry for me. I won't cry for you and take pictures. Hell, I don't even HAVE a MySpace.
 Posted 3/25/2007 11:03 PM - 47 Views - 8 eProps - 12 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

12 Comments

Visit davidngo's Xanga Site!
i totally agree. there is an assumption in society that one must be with others, even if he secretly despises or is completely indifferent to them. I hate being around people i don't care about. and i certainly am not afraid of being alone. loneliness is only felt by me, when i actually miss someone i value or deem to be important. i don't seek the company of people for the sake of it. and those who do only fool themselves into believing their life is somehow happier or more complete when they are surrounded by people. don't give into that. find the people who share your values and who you admire. be around those select few. and don't accept anything less than those standards. those people who don't meet them are a waste of your precious time. life is short. don't spend it with idiots and sychopants.
Posted 3/25/2007 11:11 PM by davidngo Xanga True Member - reply

Visit FaSheezy's Xanga Site!
Hahah yeah I agree as well. People are always asking me why I don't go out more -- because I don't want to? Because I started this 800 page book and I'm only on page 400? Because I have homework? Because I just want to be alone?

Blah, whatever. Do what you do.
Posted 3/27/2007 1:43 PM by FaSheezy - reply

Visit rambling_on's Xanga Site!

Grow up? What are you 14, 15? Ha. And you like what, objectivism? The all consuming moral philosophy that states that the strong shouldn’t have to support the weak. Ah yes, I remember when I was in high school and first discovered Rand. Everything seemed to make so much sense.... then I did GROW UP. Howard Roark, genius/rapist. And John Galt, caused that little fictional universe of his to collapse because he didn’t want to have to what?, pay some fucking taxes? "But they would feed off his genius and exploit him!" Yeah, get over it, he’d probably get off on it. Do you even have a job? You think that because you’re gifted and qualified (not that I believe you are close to either) that guarantees you anything? You self-righteous little bastard, don’t think you can talk down to anyone because a bunch of other like minded little twits decided to comment on your some psychobabble that you typed up while hyped up on your nonfat mocha latte. Grow up, get laid, and go out more. You’re philosophical bullshit won’t change a damn thing.

Posted 4/1/2007 11:53 AM by rambling_on - reply

Visit FaSheezy's Xanga Site!
My thoughts are consolidated. People who are older than you who have experienced more things than you know more about the world than you do, and that is just simple truth. I suppose I had presumed one would understand to take advice from someone that person would already have proven themselves to be of sound judgement. Sometimes it's merely a matter of listening.
Posted 4/1/2007 2:22 PM by FaSheezy - reply

Visit derickhalley's Xanga Site!

Considering that, your arguement makes a lot more sense Valara. Although even if I did trust the person's reaction, I may want them to later think it through and demonstrate to me why it was right.

R_O, if you are going to try to pull in random assertions about character in as a subtitute for real arguements (for this reason I stopped reading your paragraph after the first line, have you ever read "the arguement from intimidation" in VOS?) you may want to review some of the emotive self-hating babble you've been writing on your weblog lately. If you do not like having your personal thoughts judged by the public, and that's why you seem to be hurt, I suggest you don't post them on the Internet But on the subject of that first line: I am 17, you're about 19. That I told you to grow up should make my statement even more meaningful; or seeing as you seem to think that your extra two years automatically discounts me, should I go find someone in their late 30s who would agree with me, and then will my statement be valid?

Posted 4/1/2007 4:22 PM by derickhalley - reply

Visit rambling_on's Xanga Site!

I don’t feel the need to read anything to improve upon my argument skills, I’m past the stage where I get a rise out of a heated debate with a bunch of beret wearing neo-intellectuals. Also, they weren’t random assertions, your profile gives away most of those facts. It says you’re interested in objectivism and goes on to list your heroes. I’m not offended in any way by you or your elitism and the fact that you believe any of your statements should be considered meaningful is laughable. And by god I hope you’ve pulled another, "I stopped reading this after the first line because I’m so intellectually superior and I have better things to do." Under the guise of open-mindedness you prowl the pages of xanga hoping, waiting to initiate little duels of wit, and to what end? To make yourself feel better, superior? Well then, I hope I’ve made your day. Now go back to shunning all your peers in the real world while spouting off about how they’re all judgmental and intellectually inferior while the real reason you don’t get along with people is because they just don’t like you.

An as to the subject matter of late, one post in the last two months?, hardly a collection of self hate worth mentioning. You live in Canada, I am make the assertion that you don’t work, and that your biggest gripe is that people think you’re "emo." You’re ago doesn’t discount your opinions, your naivete to the situations that other people may be faced with however, does. Get over yourself man.

Posted 4/1/2007 9:27 PM by rambling_on - reply

Visit rambling_on's Xanga Site!

Two corrections that will bother me, fist one, "and*" not "an." Second, "age*" not "ago."

Posted 4/1/2007 9:30 PM by rambling_on - reply

Visit derickhalley's Xanga Site!
Honesly man, I didn't read that really long comment. You're not that important to me, and I don't think I have anything to learn from you. No hard feelings.
Posted 4/2/2007 12:08 PM by derickhalley - reply

Visit rambling_on's Xanga Site!
Done, bad day.  Have a good one.
Posted 4/2/2007 10:19 PM by rambling_on - reply

Visit JackWoodward's Xanga Site!
You're tight with that fucking philosophy man.

Don't try to mix objectivism and real psychology, though. According to Aynie, they don't mix. She was wrong about that... shame.
Posted 4/15/2007 10:06 PM by JackWoodward - reply

Visit JackWoodward's Xanga Site!
Rand dismissed Freudian psychology as something that was in contradiction to Objectivism , perhaps because she was indoctrinated with a bunch of tripe by Nathaniel Branden. You have to look at Philosophy as the study of humans as they should be and psychology as the study of humans as they are. (An overly-simple analogy.) Freud had a malovent view of human nature, where as Rand's was purely positive. In terms of philosophy, I guess you could call Freud a pragmatist. He saw the ideals of the mind as too weak to overcome the desires of the body, while Ayn Rand refused to accept the existence of the subconscious desires of the body. It's kind of like another version of the mind-body dichotomy, but within psychology. The central mental mechanism in psychoanalysis that balances out the ideals of the mind and the ideals of the body is refered to as the "ego," but with a different definition. Interesting implications, though.

There aren't any "objectivist psychologists" but there really should be. Freudian psychology provides Objectivism with a good foundation, if you work out the mistakes within it. If you really want to be a professional philosopher, I strongly reccomend some psychology courses. It's a very grey field with all the various theories of human development, but there is absolute truth to be found in it and someone needs to iron out the wrinkles.
Posted 4/16/2007 4:29 PM by JackWoodward - reply

Visit derickhalley's Xanga Site!

So much of what you just said is incompatible with Objectivism; you also call yourself a libertarian, which I wasn't going to mention, but sort of suppliments my thesis that you are a psuedo-Objectivist.

Posted 4/17/2007 10:14 AM by derickhalley - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to derickhalley's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in derickhalley's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)