It astounds me the way some people can pick and choose what to hear then formulate an "argument" against the other person, twisting what they meant and leaving out key information just to make it seem like the other guy is awful. In the article, An Open Letter and Invitation to Nicholas Kristof, the blogger invites Nicholas Kristof to her campus to see that his beliefs about campus life is wrong and how he's wrong. But is he?
If you read her article first without clicking to his linked one, which I'm sure most do, she seems to make some valid points and the reader begins going along with what she says. After all it is well written and doesn't read like a hot headed rant. Though you can still sense a touch of saltiness in the words and, to me, it felt as if part of the story was taken out. So I scrolled up and clicked on his message and sure enough pieces of what he had said were cut out and placed out of context. The first bloggers whole argument was that the simple "notion" that campuses were living in "liberal bubbles" wasn't true. Which first of all, no not ALL of them are, but you can't ignore that plenty are. She brings up how he doesn't see the diversity in the colleges but if you read his article he clearly recognizes the age, race, gender diversity she so desperately tries to point out. He just recognizes that we don't care if they look different as long as they don't think different. Which I can see happening at my school, my home, even my work. We strive for physical diversity yet shun the thought of mental or opinion diversity.
I agree with her statement that diversity, "is generational and experiential". Each generation deals with "mixing it up" differently especially when it comes to education. But something that never seems to change, no matter your age, gender, or heritage, is if you don't a agree with the majority then you won't be heard or you will but you will probably be thought lesser of or simply ignored. There are those underdog stories where the little guy who thinks differently finally over comes the population, but that doesn't just happen in everyday life. You keep your head down, skate by, don't make too much noise. We are always told, "make a difference, stand for what you believe!" Yet when we do and if it doesn't agree with what others are saying its practically like we aren't speaking at all. I consider myself pretty liberal but that doesn't mean when I come across someone with conservative ideas I automatically assume they are bigots. Society makes it a point to try to never profile a person, never to type cast them... unless its about how they think right? And do you blame people for thinking our colleges are filled with a bunch of self righteous, touchy feely, gimme a puppy room, generation? Because time and time again they prove that they are.
Example, when Trump won, riots began, tears flowed, classes ceased, and the emotions took over. Their bubble was popped. And people lost it. Some people are so out of touch with what is happening, when something real happens they lose their "reality". Just because you don't want to learn about it because it goes against what you believe doesn't mean it isn't academic or that its irrelevant to you. Unless you believe you don't live in the same world as the rest of us and if that's the case you need to go get checked. We cannot keep spoon-feeding intolerance to things outside what you believe is true. Then all we will have is a bunch of mindless robots for the next generation.
People cannot seriously believe that just because where they are is perfect means the whole rest of the country, world, is too. That's just ludicrous. So to the girl who wrote the blog and others saying Kristof doesn't understand that its not as bad as it seems. Good for you. Either your college campus is that of myth or you are inside the infamous bubble you so whole-heartily believe doesn't exist. After all, "Insane people are always sure that they are fine" Same goes for the naïve, always thinking they know for sure what's happening in the world. Turn on the news, then get back to me.
"Let the wookie win". If you know Star Wars, you know the scene this quote is referring to. In this scene C-3p0 advises R2D2 to let this wookie win because it is known the wookie will fight while the droid will not. Recently, Hollywood has been called a coward because they pick more and more on Christianity than any other religion. Letting the "wookie" win. But is there a legitimate reason behind it?
Seth McFarlane was brought up for his mockery of Christians in his beloved show, Family Guy. But it has to be said that Christianity is not the only religion mocked on the show. He has numerous episodes type casting other religions, and him "picking" on the Christians isn't, in my opinion, a show of weakness by Hollywood, too scared to mock other religions. Seth is known for his dislike of Christianity, and HIS personal opinion shines through. This one instance doesn't mean there is intentional over mocking of Christians enticed by Hollywood, there definitely is. I'm simply bringing it up to try to explain that not all shows are under the "mock Christians" thumb of Hollywood, Seth just doesn't like them. Family Guy was compared to the other, equally raunchy show, South Park. South Park experienced their own run in with "don't mock my religion" when one of the main voices on their show threatened to quite after an episode was aired mocking Scientology. The creators, instead, ran the episode and simply got rid of the character. Too harsh or right? Hayes, the voice of Chief (the character that was removed from the show) said,"there is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins." Which is totally true and I 100% agree with that statement. But, you cant sometimes live by that and other times don't. The writers said Hayes, "has no problem – and he's cashed plenty of checks – with our show making fun of Christians, Muslims, Mormons, or Jews." Stone adds, "[We] never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begins." And I agree with that as well. You cannot say, "don't mock what I believe, but you can totally mock what others believe. Hell I'll join you!" I don't think it is right to mock one religion and just rail on it until it is a cliche joke. But it's not any better to defend your religious beliefs and hate on others. Pathetic and a hypocrite, awful combination. That's the definition of cowardness.
Now to discuss the lack of fight from the Christian community. If someone has an issue with something but won't do anything about it then why are they constantly surprised that nothing has changed. If Christians want to pick a fight with Hollywood about the "special" attention they are getting then do it. Don't have a fit about it and how nothing is being done yet you yourself aren't doing anything either. But I don't think they should do anything drastic quite yet. The other question raised is, "why are Christians mocked the most?". But I believe it is quite clear.
"You have heard that it was said. And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary,whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well." Christians have been raised to turn the other cheek when faced with advisory. Not back down, roll over and take it, but simply stand with what the believe and turn the other cheek. But quite frankly, they've run out of cheeks. So why is the Christian faith ridiculed so much? Because there is no threat. Other religions would, and have, threatened and killed writers who mocked them. Christians will just complain and think its unfair, but not kill. That's not their way, that's that what they stand for. And I think that speaks wonders of them.
So to answer the question asked before, does Hollywood have a legitimate reason for choice ridicule? Yes and no. Yes because Hollywood has tried to pick on other religions and ended with some awful consequences. Example, the movie The Interview. The producers and actors who participated in the movie were sent death threats and the theaters scheduled to show it were sent bomb threats if they did. Christians, real Christians, would never do that. And if they did they would get ridiculed for not having a Christian attitude towards the event. And its not all Hollywood's fault either. Who goes and watches the movies and TV shows? Who gives them positive reviews? Why stop doing the thing brining in the views right? I say no because Hollywood is basically kicking Christianity when their down. Their practically beating a dead horse at this point. They know they wont get much, if any, backlash from the Christians. The Christians are waiting for their moment to rise and show everyone their beliefs shouldn't be the center of all the comedic digs. But the fight isn't in their favor. So why waste their voice yelling and bashing Hollywood for bashing them? They are living, in my opinion, by the words of John Mayer, "It's not that we don't care. We just know that the fight ain't fair. So we keep on waiting (waiting). Waiting on the world to change" And how will it change? It wont start up top with the "big dogs" like Hollywood. It starts with you and me and our neighbors, our friends. So I guess the real question through all this is, how do we get this constant hate of Christianity, of anything, of everything, to change? We can't all wait for the world to change to make a move. Then nothing will ever happen. And something, anything, must change.
2016 never ceases to surprise me. First the whole nation seemed to be in an uproar about the death of a gorilla, then a "genius billionaire playboy philanthropist" takes seat as head of our nation and now this new leader is basically appointing The Riddler as his national security adviser. Instead of picking out people with the highest level of experience Trumps seems to be choosing people who have their heads up his butt, basically people who are unqualified brown nosers.
For instance, Mr. Trump has appointed the well renown spinster of lies, Michael Flynn. Flynn was one of the only former military leaders to endorse and campaign with Trump so obviously that won favor in the new presidents eyes. Flynn has also worked side by side with another president, Obama, so you'd think he would actually be fit for the position with that impressive job history. Except for one thing. Obama fired him. Fired him for mismanagement. "The process or practice of managing ineptly, incompetently, or dishonestly." A grown man being fired for lying. His crazy stories and facts, which he spoke as if it was "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", got so frequent his staff referred to them as "Flynn Facts".
His staff said he always had to be right and even when he wasn't, he was. They referred to Flynn as a "Captain Queeg" character. How sad, to be compared by your staff to someone who struggles with morals and ethics. Michael is said to be paranoid and that any other view was wrong if it "melded" with his. Sounds like the kind of stand up guy you'd want on your cabinet right? Wrong.
Not only are Flynn's facts are skewed, but also some of his beliefs. He believes that Islam is "a malignant cancer"and a "political ideology". He, on multiple occasions, has used social media to publicly spread heinous rumors about Clinton and his former employer, Obama. Flynn accused Hillary and John Podesta (chair of her campaign) of being involved in a Satanic cult and running a child sex slavery ring out of a pizza parlor in Washington. He also said Obama was a "jihad" who "laundered" money for Muslim terrorists. He is certifiably insane and I truly believe a pathological bullshitter. Yet Trump seems to over look his ludicrous ways. Paul Waldman (who wrote the article that sparked this rant) said, " no one who believes that kind of lunacy should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office" So does that mean our president shouldn't be allowed in his own office? I mean he seems to show favoritism towards the known loony so maybe not. I was starting to sway my opinion on Trump in all honesty, how hes already taking action, some of the plans hes planned out, I thought "oh maybe i jumped the gun thinking he was crazy". But then he pulls this. Where he appoints who he pleases, not someone who's actually fit for the job. And no Flynn isn't the only odd choice in the cabinet, but he defiantly is a terrifying one. The job Michael Flynn has is to encourage a calm situation, not ensue unnecessary chaos with his even more unnecessary "facts". Flynn's advice would be the last Trump hears before making a decision in hopes of defusing a crisis. But how sound is that advice really? Trump still has time to appoint another instead of the infamous Micheal Flynn to his cabinet,and I am praying for him to change his mind. You should too.
