I enjoy these a lot. I really do. I'm part of a group on facebook that basically does nothing but compile these things (in the form of de-motivational posters), the majority of them being original creations by members of the group - and the number of images grows exponentially. What is a meme?
1 : an idea, belief or belief system, or pattern of behavior that spreads throughout a culture either vertically by cultural inheritance (as by parents to children) or horizontally by cultural acquisition (as by peers, information media, and entertainment media)
2 : a pervasive thought or thought pattern that replicates itself via cultural means; a parasitic code, a virus of the mind especially contagious to children and the impressionable"
Well that's all well and good, but what does that mean to the average person? You've seen tons of memes. In fact, my posting of a definition was probably totally unnecessary. The internet meme is basically any image, sound, phrase - anything - that gets passed around, via emails, links posted in forums, blogs, etc.
Anyone with access to the internet since 2000 or earlier has seen their share of memes - here are some of my favorites over the years.
(This post is nearly two years old now if not older, but I just found it in my drafts so I'm posting it. Enjoy.)
Munching instant noodles, gulping Aloe Drink and watching basic cable this morning, I had an extremely morbid thought concerning the residents of Sesame St. (And by the way, when did Conan O'brian start doing bits on Sesame St. ...? Truly frightening.).
Even as a kid, I only watched the show sparingly. Something about a vampire that counted things freaked me right-the-hell-out - by the time I was 4 I'd already seen enough horror flicks (yes I was watching scary movies at 4 years of age) to know what vampires did. I didn't want one counting at me and then laughing.
However much certain characters have evolved - Elmo has his own segment sort of like when Joey from Friends moved on, Cookie Monster kicked the habit of his "sometimes foods" (cookies gave him type 2 diabetes - I'm not joking, look it up.) and has picked up the healthier "anytime foods" (veggies and fruits), Bert and Ernie are nearly out of the closet about their relationship - they've all remained more or less the same.
I watched with mixed feelings as two characters I'd been familiar with since childhood – baby bear and telly monster - took nearly a full minute to read a 6-word book title - "The wild adventures of Action Dog."
Let's take a moment for that completely harmless scene to sink in.
Now, I know, I know - this is a children's show. There are pop culture references and spoofs of adult programs in order to encourage older family members to watch the show with children instead of turning Sesame Street into a "TV babysitter," and I know that doesn't neccissarily mean that the show has to make sense or be realistic in any way.
But while characters seems to come and go - the episode I sat through this morning, Big Bird was no where to be seen, but there was a new "child" fairy character, and "Baby Bear" (around for at least a decade, what's going on there) both made major appearances. The point of all this rambling: Live action characters on the show grow old, move on, and leave the show. The puppets, being puppets, don't. But if they are presented as real, living characters to the children watching the show, why is it that they never get older (though they can have children) and evolve like the human characters do? God forbid a puppet die (though maybe one did and I've missed this, I'd appreciate any messages on the subject) and teach children about that life event (though there's an HIV/AIDs character in Africa!).
The simple act of reading that title - done by a supposedly 'adult' monster, depicted as an adult since I was a kid - frightened me. They never change! They never develope! What the hell happened to the citizens of Sesame Street?! Were they labotomized?! Or is it that they are part of some horrible government expiriment and the "live" people are there to monitor them...? Maybe it's all part of some psych ward inhabitant’s hallucination! You never know! With the bright colors, music and sometimes nonsense logic followed by a volley of spelling and numbers, the show is sort of reminiscent of a bad trip - think about it. It's a lot more entertaining when you view it that way.
In any case, my salute to Sesame Street - here for your viewing pleasure, other people's parodies of Sesame Street. Yes, I am that lazy.
In order of how funny I think they are.
Dave Chappelle's take on Sesame Street.
A surprisingly funny "unnecessary censorship" video of Sesame Street clips.
Being too lazy to check, I'm just going to assume that one of my first posts contained a warning that at some point I might use this blog to record any dreams I found particularly interesting.
Last night's was one of these. So, unless you like reading the strange dreams of others, feel free to disregard this post.
The dream started more or less with a man (who looked strangely like a real life version of "Quagmire" from Family Guy) wearing construction worker's clothing, in the middle of some sort of massive attack on the planet earth - the sky was red, flaming rocks were falling from the sky, people were screaming, etc. etc.
His wife - a teacher - was trapped down at the school and was trying to call his cell phone, so he could find and save her. He was panicking, but a friend ran up to him and told him, "Vince! Calm down! You're not helping her by freaking out! Now go!" Vince, typically "Vinny," suddenly understood what his role was - and took off towards the school. While visually stunning, the sequence of him running half-way across a quaint southern town really didn't interest me that much so I won't describe it.
When he arrived at the school, it was half crushed by falling debris and damaged by missile fire. He forced his way inside, and found his wife trapped in the auto-shop. He rescues her, and suddenly the dream shifted direction.
I was watching from my own body now, rather than the movie-goer's omniscient third-party point of view, and hiding behind a piece of machinery, because while it was still the same room, it wasn't the auto-shop in a school under attack - no, it was the auto-shop in an abandoned high school, the building was in ruins, and the couple embracing so tenderly across the room from me was no longer Vince and his wife (though they looked the same) but a couple involved in some sort of sordid affair. I was hiding not because I didn't want them to see me, but because I didn't want the axe murderer sneaking up on them to notice me and possibly shift his attack. When I was sure he wouldn't hear me, I ran - -straight down a hall that hadn't been there before, to a door outside. I wasn't being chased, I was trying to catch up to a group of friend who were going to a local anime-convention that I didn't think I'd be able to attend. There was a long line to get tickets, and the costumes looked great this year. I looked around trying to find my friends, and spotted some of the guys I've met playing Dagorhir, dressed in their gear. They took off, Jared - the leader of a guild - calling me to chase after.
I followed them at a run down halls and up and down stairs, having to stop and look around every time I turned a corner because they'd disappear into the crowd. I figured out that if I shouted "hail," he'd respond with "here" before taking off again, and so I eventually caught up, but only once they'd stopped to get lunch at an indoor food court where the convention was being held.
...And suddenly the axe murderer came charging out of the crowd after me, so I turned and ran again, this time as a young farm-boy named Tom, and I dashed through a door into some sort of under-ground home, like that in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 movie. Dusty, dirty, and full of unpleasant things. I continued running until I hit some sort of parlor, which was actually pretty nice and had a large-screen television. There was a decorative iron stove, a huge one, and hearing someone coming, I climbed inside and closed the door.
The door opened and - this is the funny part - EVIL Ben Franklin walked into the room. He looked around (I was watching through a crack in the door of the stove) and he spotted something wrong about the stove. I held still as I could, but he started towards me, picking up a poker, and as he was about to open the door, I kicked it open myself and jumped out and ran to the other side of a large table nearby, clutching a length of wood from by the stove. He laughed, dropped his poker, and picked up a length of wood as well, saying something about playing fair. There was some short verbal exchange, and we circled the table - and suddenly a rattle-snake that had found its way into the parlor bit his leg, and he started screaming and jumping around. I thought about attacking him while he was distracted, but realizing that evil Ben Franklin was too big and strong for a small 9 year old farm boy to fight, I, as Tom, ran again - the door opened back into another part of the nasty areas of the under ground home, and seeing a drainage hole, I jumped in. It was a bit of a tight fit, but I managed to shove myself through just as I heard him coming after me. I came out the other side in dim sun light, and heard him trying to come after me - and realized that due to his size, he'd get stuck. So I ran back inside with the length of wood, thinking I could beat him up while he was still stuck, but as soon as I got back inside, he was coming back into the parlor, and I hid again by standing as still as I could on the other side of a very large cabinet, hoping he wouldn't see me again. He was swearing about the bite on his leg and approaching my location when, with my eyes shut so tightly, trying to control my breathing,
(The front of the DVD case on the right here claims that "The realism of WHITE NOISE with the sheer terror ofTHE EYE" is what you'll find in this movie. Realism being quack -scientific terms being thrown around in the hopes that no one knows what they're talking about, and sheer terror being a bizarre story line that leaves you wondering what the heck is going on between the living and the dead, with one creepy-ass little boy wandering around reenacting his death)
I just had the time and interest to view "Silk" otherwise known as "gui si," a 2006 Taiwanese horror about a team of scientists and a sniper ("Tung," pictured on the left in the poster below) hired by the government to work with them in studying a ghostly boy using a new protein in the form of the "Menger sponge," a structure that acts like a black hole sucking all manner of energy into it at a microscopic level, somehow allowing you to see ghosts when it is put into a liquid then sprayed into your eyes (apparently embedding itself permanently in there - can you say cataracts?)
(Chang Chen as Tung, Yosuke Eguchi as the bitter scientist Hashimoto) The movie is well reviewed and summarized here - with more skill and effort than I could possibly muster in regards to this flick - but long story short, "Silk is one overstuffed film. It tries to be a ghost film, a supernatural thriller, a character drama, and even a pulse-pounding action flick, complete with a familar-sounding score from Peter Kam (Purple Storm, Tokyo Raiders). There's also some unexpected humor, and even some effective heartbreak involving Tung's relationship with his comatose mother. It's all a bit much, but Silk manages to string things together thanks to an involving storyline, well-developed tension, ace production values, and Chang Chen's charismatic central performance. Chang has always been an actor to watch, and Silk is worth seeing if only see this veteran of Wong Kar-Wai and Hou Hsiao-Hsien films stalk all over Taiwan shooting ghosts with Menger Sponge-enhanced bullets. Yeah, it all sounds a bit silly, but this is clearly a commercial film intended for international appeal, and it achieves its aims in an efficient and entertaining manner. It's not scary, nor is it really that conclusive, but hey, it's also not bad. (Kozo 2006)"
It's stuffed to the gills with completely bogus sounding pseudo-science and strange lighting, freaky-looking ghosts in the tradition of the Ring, Grudge and Eye, but if you're looking for a good time with a scary movie that's more thought than jump-tactics horror, have 108 minutes of spare time, and if you don't mind sub-titles, I think you'd enjoy seeing "Silk." Here's a taste in the form of a partial English, partial sub-titled preview. (I apologize for the horrible sound quality, but this isn't my video)
(warning, the following post contains spoilers of the movie "Untraceable") I'm assuming it was because you were curious, or just blew it off as a creative title (which it really isn't, but the intention was to get your attention.) However, the idea is, people really don't seem to get it. "It" being the internet, and the profound effect it has on how we - we as people, we as a nation, we as a race of sentient beings - behave.
Yes, I'm a little behind on the curve to be writing about this movie now, but just today, I finally saw "Untraceable" with Diane Lane. (If you're wondering why I waited so long, it's because there's a theater in my area that charges any where from $0.50 to $1.00 to watch a movie, when they show it long after it's been released.) In case you didn't see it, the movie follows the efforts of Agent Marsh of the Cyber Crimes division of the FBI, and her partners as they work to stop the actions of the mastermind/killer behind the website "www.killwithme.com," a site that streams live the videos of his victims deaths. Snuff? Yes. Typical? Not quite - the murders are all set up in such a way that if no one watched, nothing would happen. However, the more people who visit the site - thus boosting the numbers on the hit counter - the quicker the death mechanism goes off. The people of the internet - as revealed in the movie, actually just the people of the US - literally become the killers themselves as every hit to the site causes the deaths of the victims.
The theme of the internet being a method of death has been explored in past movies already, either as having no way out without solving some sort of puzzle under a time limit (fear.com, pulse) or being a method of meeting the killer through a chat room or luring them in some other way, like a predator meeting a victim (the movie Hard Candy), but it continues to find new ways to scare us. The internet, with its easy anonymity and utter vastness, can easily evoke fear: especially in those who have little to no idea of how it actually works, making it seem literally like magic with information and resources pop up on your screen.
But I digress.
The point I was trying to make was that people of all ages, from the very young to the very old, tend to abuse the ability to access the internet because of how easy it is to interact and effect others without ever having to show your face or say what your real name is. During this day and age, it functions under a very "wild west" sort of law system. "Inappropriate" or malicious posts - viruses, malware, etc - are held loosely in check by a system of private site admins, viewer votes and PC protection software. As a result, the internet is able to run rampant with the things we as humans seem to demand the most - sex and violence, and very often, a mix of the two.
The movie Untraceable received only a %15 approval rating at the popular review site www.rottentomatoes.com, and was reviewed as being only "run of the mill" when it came to thrills, shock, and horror tactics - a sad truth that people today are so used to such a thing being entertainment, as many scenes depicted graphic gore and death. However, was it realistic? I'd have to say so. While I can't attest to how many super-hackers there are out there capable of taking on the FBI head on with nothing more than a few towers and gadgets in their basement, being a self-proclaimed troll in my own younger years, I definitely say that yes, the depiction of viewer response was highly realistic. A forum window, available besides each depiction of torture, allowed viewers of the site to discuss the deaths and what was happening - while you did have the "YOU'RE KILLING HIM!!!!" protest posts, you did have such posts as "HAHA he needs better sunscreen" (death by heat lamps) or "what didn't he kill her" and "I tuned in for this?" comments revealing disappointment when the killer showed footage of Marsh's daughter, but didn't harm her. While these were all just part of a script, they were spot on when it came to the sorts of responses shock videos tend to receive.
Untraceable was a movie about - in the simplest terms - viral videos. Videos about killings, rape, violence and disturbing sex acts spread at an amazing rate among people who seem to be so amazed by the footage that they simply must show all their friends. The footage of Saddam's execution, caught by a video phone at the scene, was online and on youtube within minutes, and from there, to the news worldwide. Goatse, tubgirl, and most recently - two girls one cup - (shock images and videos) get picked up and spread like an epidemic, purely through email and word-of-mouth. There really isn't any purpose to them except to cause a reaction, and you don't gain anything from seeing them. No one, at least not that you'd know it, is hurt by their being viewed. But even if they were, people would click the links and tune in. The official fakeout promotional website for Untraceable offers an interesting bit of information on this - if you follow the link above and follow the buttons provided, you'll find that %89 of people still clicked "yes" that they would like to enter the website, even when warned that entering may cause harm to someone. It's possible that many people decided that it was simply a promotional website, but other websites - www.killwithus.com, for instance - thoughtfully provide real-time counters that show that, even as privately run websites that depict torture (fake, but real looking nonetheless) directly linked the viewer, they will still get an astounding number of views. Forums that provide sickening images - animal and human torture, death, abuse - show that many people, with no apparent risk of being tracked down and forced to defend their comments, will praise these things as highly entertaining, joke about them, and post their own images to add to the stew that makes up the garbage of the internet.
I mentioned that I was troll myself at one point - in some ways, I still am - but I no longer actively search these sorts of things out any more. I just don't find them entertaining in the way I used to. But that being said, while I could link you to all sorts of horrifying things used as entertainment on the internet found during my surfing, I'll instead leave you with this: No matter how bad things get, not matter how disgusting the content, no matter how sickening the imagery - whose choice is it to view it? It's not forced on anyone, and there wouldn't be so much of it if it wasn't in demand. Think on that.
...Well! After so much depressing ranting, here's something following a lighter track of mind - some kittens frolicking! Make sure to watch to the end. It's worth it.
(Photo courtesy of http://www.bobafettm.com/eryndor/page_joining/joining.htm, Dagorhir players from the 1980's - check out those weapons XD)
A little confused by the title? Assuming I must be talking about some bizarre game?
Damn straight.
For those of you who have never heard of LARPing (Live Action Role Playing), it's time you learned. In the late 70's, a group of friends in Maryland got together, dressed up, made some foam weaponry, and proceeded to beat the crap out of each other. Why? Because it's an amazing way to kill time, as well as each other (or at least pretend to, of course). While it is a full contact sport (yes, it is a sport), there are strict safety regulations and a large set of rules regarding weaponry and how you may strike your opponent. Weapons, garb (the costumes) and of course, the number of people involved, have all evolved and changed. There are hundreds of thousands of players world-wide.
I just recently got involved, though I'd known about related activities for years and wanted to try it for some time now - and now I'm hooked. For those of you who think it's dorky or lame, I'd like you to consider that while many Dagorhirrim (as players are called) are teenager-early 20's age range and are indeed interested in "geek" activities such as D&D, Renaissance Fairs and the like, many are also ex-military, practitioners of martial arts, actors and other interesting characters. You are, if you have no battle experience whatsoever, likely to get your ass kicked several times at your first practice... but those there will also take the time to show you what you're doing wrong. Not only will you learn something about fighting with a sword (and come on, who doesn't want to do that?) but you'll also meet some really unique people, have a good time, and experience something something solid and energetic however imaginary the idea may be. You create a persona, you put on their clothes, you pick up a weapon, and you charge onto the field of battle - perhaps to watch a movie and eat pizza later at your guild leader's house. It's a fantastic mix of history, fantasy and original creation, with warrior types ranging from Pirates, to elves, to orcs, to Romans to Samurai, with a wide array of techniques and fighting styles, costumes, languages and tight-woven groups of comrades and an open-arms approach to welcoming new players. Interested but don't know if there's a chapter in your area? Google Dagorhir or visit the official national website here, and check out whether or not there's a recognized chapter or unit that you can hook up with. Don't want to play, but still interested? That's fine too - this is some really fun stuff to watch. Sympathizers - people who like to be involved but not actually fight - are also welcome to become part of the story line and join in in events such as Ragnarok, the annual upcoming gathering of 1000+ Dagorhirrim in Ohio to battle it out, camp out and hang out. No unit or chapter in your area? Don't fear! Contact the High Council (emails available at the website) about starting one up yourself. It's easier than it might sound, and a good deal of fun as well.
To give you an idea of how fun this can be, here's a short 5 min and some "documentary" on Dag. Sums it up pretty well. And oh - yeah. Watch for the guy that falls down at the very beginning. >:D Enjoy
And a rather spiffy (if a bit un-energetic) student commercial for Dag.
Ever said anything astoundingly stupid online, or read something amazingly idiotic said by a friend online? Were these quotes the result of a typo, or due to ignorance of some sort? Did these quotes make you seem unintentionally homosexual, involved in an act of incest/bestiality/self humiliation? Whatever the quote, you were probably glad later that it was just an in-joke to share with the friends who were party to that chat, correct? It's not as though anyone else out there would know about the horrifyingly n008ish thing that you'd said.
Well, that is, unless your friends knew about Bash. Bash.org is a website which does nothing but compile such hilarious quotes, which can be viewed at random, by the latest accepted, or by the top 100-200 by rating from readers.
A sample from the website:
death09>my girlfriend broke up with me and sent me pix of her and her new boyfriend in bed ktp753>ouch. death09>yeah.i sent them to her dad
Be warned though, the website may be NSFW as many quotes make it onto the website because they are funny due to sexual/rascist humor, and many contain swearing. Understandably (at least I feel) because most of these quotes were submitted by people talking in mIRC, Instant Messengers, or in MMO's, and many of the submitters were speakers of the 1337.
So, if you consider yourself versed in the language of the nerd, or just enjoy the often unintentional stupidity of others, kill some time reading over at www.bash.org .
*note
You can copy and paste quotes from conversations directly into a "submit" form they have there. If it's stupid or hilarious enough, it may make it onto the site for others to enjoy. Hurrah!
I apologize, seriously. I meant to post about this when it was first introduced to me, some two weeks back, but I kept forgetting.
In any case, I'm talking about Don Hertzfeldt. Don Hertzfeldt is an animator who, even if you've never heard of him, you've probably seen a reference to his work. For instance, the pop-tart commercials: that's not his work, but it's closely based on his style. In fact, Don has never once made a commercial that actually aired on TV, though he has received world-wide acclaim for his animations and experimental methods.
"World-wide?" You must be thinking, "Then why haven't I ever heard of him?" Probably because Don believes that commercials are "lies," has a distaste for corporations, and seems to have a genuine appreciation for art and animation purely as a medium through which to express one's self. And what does he express?
Only some of the most twisted, surreal and at times extremely dark humor I have ever been witness to, as well as a talent to touch on emotions and themes we've all experienced and can identify with. Don uses simplistic black and white figures (for instance, Billy, as seen here) and a few accent colors, as well as easy to read facial features to make "stick figures" express more emotion in a shorter space of time than most professionals do in their first tries. Oh, did I mention? Don taught himself how to animate. That's right.
In the world of Hertzfeldt's imagination, balloons viciously attack small children, eyes explode, and sometimes people's legs grow regardless of their body. I highly recommend looking this guy up, and watching a few of his cartoons. Should you have any interest, here's his website, where you can read his journal, buy his stuff, etc., and here are some of my personal favorites, as seen on youtube. Enjoy!
For the past two days, I've been suffering a horrible bout of what I really do hope is just a strain of the flu. Short of mind-searing imagery, I'll describe none of what my body has been expelling via projectile force and instead whine about the headaches, the shivering, the constant chest pain, the dizziness, etc. etc.
My body hasn't rebelled against me like this in years, and I really am quite upset, but as my temperature has finally returned to normal and seems to have leveled off, I hope that this will all be over by tomorrow.
If you've read this far, don't fear! This entry actually isn't all about my illness. I'm actually updating to talk about something I did while ill: my recent viewing of the original "The Eye." Yes, for those of you that didn't know, "The Eye" is just one more of what seem to be a tidy package of horror remakes coming out of Asia (The Ring (1 and 2), The Grudge (1 and 2), Pulse, One Missed Call, etc). Now, I've had the privilege of watching most of the originals and comparing them to the American remakes, and I'm going to be honest - while the way we in America seem to destroy the story-lines of these movies always makes me feel a little bad, the production values and effects are pretty much always better. (I'm going to ramble a little and say, yeah, I know - our country as an audience are criticized for having weak imaginations concerning what we see on screen, visual dependency and a huge need for plot explanations at every turn, and therefore our effects "need" to be better to make a good movie (I don't believe this is always the case, but the general populace would seem to disagree with me, what with its love of explosions and all). ) In this rare situation though, I passed up on seeing a horror flick - that is, "The Eye" (2008), featuring Jessica Alba. I mostly discounted it because the story seemed so... well, used. Patient receives donor organs, starts doing/seeing odd things via cellular-memory, finds out donor was someone weird, blah blah blah - I can't tell you how many short films and stories out of the '80's and '90's I'd seen or read based on this plot. And it being an American remake, especially one whose previews seemed to promise a lot of jump-scares and action, it just didn't seem worth the cost of a ticket, not to mention the fact that it received absolutely horrible reviews from most critics, both acclaimed and blogger alike.
(For those of you who couldn't figure out the entire movie based on the previews, the movie is about a blind girl who acquires vision through a cornea transplant (I'm a little confused as to how in the world that would work, as the cornea has very little to do with the actual process of seeing, at least to my knowledge - in both movies it seems more like they transplanted the area directly around the pupil, or the iris), only to find that her new vision also allows her to see the spirits of the dead, as well as glimpses of the future, or oncoming tragedies.)
However, when a copy of "Gin Wai (or "Jian Gui")," (2002) that is, the original "The Eye" from Hong Kong, crossed into my hands for a short amount of time (free of cost) I couldn't resist watching it. What a delight! There really were no jump-scares to speak of, but the overall mood was lightly disturbing and highly intriguing. I found myself not so much attached to the main character, as to the ghosts she was seeing (an interesting twist which I'm almost positive was intentional). The artistic direction was also surprisingly strong - color schemes were subtle but constant for each scene and helped direct the mood, and I was forced into a sort of "nearsightedness" by a constant, nearly maddening blurring of the background that wore away as time progressed and, logically, Mun (the name of the main character in the HK original) adjusted to her new vision. While I'm sure I'll be greatly disappointed when I do finally watch the remake, I'm definitely going to rent or purchase it at first opportunity sheerly to see if it is one of the elusive examples of a direct translation of the original but with better effects. Why? Because of the previews! They were, from what I saw while watching the original, nearly frame for frame exactly the same thing.
Below are some of the images I was able to snatch off line based off comparisons I saw in the movie and what was available. I even managed to find some direct video comparisons on YouTube, so enjoy!
(ooh, spooky dead lady at the hospital, she's all blurry!) (Let's touch the spooky blurry dead lady! Seriously, who reaches out to touch a complete stranger, much less one who is moaning "I'm freezing" in a raspy, death-rattle-ish way, at least leaning forward like that?) (I don't know what Jessica Alba is doing, but Mun (Angelica Lee) was playing for a Blind Society type thing in her community) (Feet! The horror!) (The face that goes with the feet! Oddly, in the original, the old man wasn't bloody, his face was just sort of caved in.) (Kid jumping out the window. Hmm...) I really did want to post a comparison shot of this, but couldn't find it - aside from the amazing amount of glass, this exact shot showed up in the original, except with Angelica Lee instead of Jessica Alba (in that version, there were only a few pieces instead of a virtual storm of shrapnel). I just had to post this shot anyway because it really was so very close...
And the videos (make sure to turn up your volume!)
Depending on the gender of the person being asked, the answer is almost always a variation on "There are definitely creepy guys out there" (female) or "Women are all just way too uptight" (male - and perhaps a victim of the "creepy guy" label).
Why the difference in views?
One could easily argue the perpetuation of gender stereotypes which finds its way on and off again into media, classroom debates and workplace "sexual harassment" seminars nationwide. The idea something along the lines of "when a guy sleeps with a lot of women, he's a stud - but when a women sleeps with a lot of guys, she's a slut," type thing, which in this situation becomes "when a girl stares and flirts openly with a guy upon meeting him, she's easy - when a guy does it, he's creepy." But does this really cover everything? If it's just a stereotype, why is it that so many people can call up at least one instance of this happening to them? That one person who suddenly came on too quickly - guy or girl - with comments along the lines of "we should totally hook up, do you mind if I get your phone number?" within moments of meeting you, and quite possibly after you made it clear that you weren't interested. Perhaps it's the result of another stereotype, one which most people automatically assume but don't actually think to themselves - vulnerability. For most men, in any situation - at a party, with friends, at the bar - when a girl comes up and starts flirting with them, there is no sense of danger (unless she happens to be a body builder, that is). The general assumption there is that if he turns her away, he doesn't have to worry about her following him to his car and assaulting him, following him home, etc. Even if she did, so what? What physical danger does a girl present? While on the female end of this, even if a guy is relatively the same size, the moment most girls are confronted by a flattering, forward guy, motives come into question. A startlingly low number of women are happy with their bodies (should you choose to look it up) and therefore see any sudden flood of positive comments on their bodies or appearances as insincere, and probably an attempt towards an easy lay, etc. And, the vulnerability stereotype here being that a girl is less able to defend herself than a guy, worries concerning how to handle the situation and turn a guy away instantly arise. Does that mean that when a girl mentally declares a guy "creepy" that she's just defending herself? Not necessarily. While nearly every woman out there seems to have something they'd like to change about themselves (dyeing their hair, getting contacts because glasses seem too "bookish," etc), there are always those that quickly get labeled a "bitch" or "ditzy" for being confident or arrogant about their looks. Presumably, these girls being more physically desirable, would get more attention from so called "creepy guys" and have to deal with them more often - but the men, "creepy" or not, who get turned away by these women, are probably understandably upset and label them back in the aforementioned ways.
So what makes a man creepy? A quick search spits back these results: -Too much too fast -Staring -being emotional, touchy-feely or "too personal" before getting to know a girl etc However, when one is trying to get into a relationship, isn't that what happens? You do everything you can to get to know a person, and share yourself with them - you want to see them, and you want to tell them everything. So is the creepy guy label the result of a one-sided genuine attempt at forming a relationship?
The undeniable truth is, there are men out there just looking for an easy lay, but there are just as many guys looking for a real relationship who approach a certain girl the wrong way. Not to mention the constant propagation of the idea that all girls grow up with, that all men are just out to get in their pants.
My final thoughts? (Not that you really care)
It's unfortunate that the creepy-guy label exists. There are more important things to worry about. So a girl gave you a weird look and turned you away - chalk it up to experience. So a guy gave you the jitters and made you nervous - don't talk to him. Some people are even proud to be considered creepy. There are major government cover-ups, corrupt politicians and media, drug-abuse, disease, homelessness, war and - oh no! - work or school on Monday, at least for some of the wanderers reading this. You're worried about the word creepy?
Seriously now. But, after all that, some real humor, regarding creepy guys.
A couple of years back, a friend introduced me to the website www.bash.org - a great way to kill time, by the way. In case you don't actually feel like checking out the site, it's basically a compilation of quotes gleaned from conversations people have had over any net-based communication. These quotes are generally funny because they seem to be real, and reference unexpected, often ridiculous and sometimes nearly brilliant experiences or thoughts.
There was one quote among these that stuck with me over the years, bothering me time-to-time when it came to mind:
Let's say you have an ax. The kind that you could use, in a pinch, to hack a man's head off... And let's say that very situation comes up and for some very solid reasons you behead a man. On the follow-through, though, the handle of the ax snaps in half in a spray of splinters. So the next day you take it to the ax store down the block and get a new handle, fabricating a story for the guy behind the counter and explaining away the reddish dark stains as barbeque sauce. Now, that next spring you find in your garage a creature that looks like a cross-bred badger and anaconda. A badgerconda. And so you grab your trusty ax and chop off one of the beast's heads, but in the process the blade of the ax strikes the concrete floor and shatters. This means another trip to McMillan & Son's Ax Mart. As soon as you get home with your newly-headed ax, though, you meet the reanimated body of the guy you beheaded last year. He's also got a new head attached and it's wearing that unique expression of "you're the man who killed me last Spring" resentment that one so rarely encounters in everyday life. You brandish your ax. He takes a long look at the weapon with his squishy, rotting eyes and in a gargly voice he screams, "that's the same ax that slayed me!" ...Is he right?
I have no idea if I should have heard of this sooner - friends who heard me quote this rather unusual riddle too them seemed to have no idea either. Yet, a quick look with your favorite search engine reveals that this, and similarly worded riddles, have been used in forums for ages. It never occurred to me to look it up before now. The reason for my sudden interest in its origins?
Today while checking the latest page of a favorite web-comic about a Doctor who is also a ninja (www.drmcninja.com), I saw a link at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure what drew me to click it, which given what it led to may be a little concerning, but I discovered the e-book (now apparently also in print, and I plan to buy a copy) "John Dies at The End."
I'm only 16 pages into it at this moment, and I am completely addicted. I have had to take a break to keep my eyes from melting, and my brain from trying to climb out the back of my head to take a breather. But I digress- that strange, nonsense riddle is actually part of the opening to said book (what I have posted above is actually a very shortened version of the full riddle) and pure idiot-babble that it may seem to be at first, it now makes complete sense to me.
The first page of this e-book warns that you will go crazy trying to figure that riddle out - and I had my moment of hesitation, being the paranoid that I am. But now I've started, and I'm going to push through this sucker to the end. Said sucker is a high-speed, often almost stream-of-though novel (which I almost wish was presented as non-fiction to really mess with people) about a man named Dave Wong (not his real name - Wong just happens to be the most common surname on the planet) and his friend John whom, as the titles suggests, is probably going to be dead by the end of the story. Psychics, spirits, ankle-deep pools of feces, talking dogs, people that aren't there, cell-phone bratwursts and monsters emerging from puddles of urine with chin-strap wigs, insinuations as to the aliens, demons, angels and the end of the world - and like I said, I'm only on page 16.
I have never been for stories that do nothing but intrigue - as an audience or a reader, you expect some give, some time to breathe and figure things out, but this story just keeps pushing and pushing and handing you very little. Just enough, in fact, to keep you from giving up altogether. Over 50,000 people have read this e-book to the end, and as a banner on the site proudly proclaims, 97% of people who bought the book on Amazon.com gave it a 5 star rating. I'm sure I'll do the same.
I've always had a fascination with warning labels - especially on toys and machinery. Why? Because they have to try and convey the full extent of what can happen to you yet still not frighten you from buying or using the product. But because like most rules or warnings, they are not preemptive... that's right: That means that if there is a specific warning against something on a product, that probably means that someone, somewhere, did something that the producer now labels that item, and similar items, in the hopes of avoiding future law suits.
Think about that the next time you see an "external use only" label on a untensil.
However, I don't mean to be completely morbid - another reason I enjoy graphic warning labels is because they are so completely absurd. Again, they have to communicate danger to people of any language, so they are utterly simple, so utterly horrifying... yet, more often than not, the "victims" in the images look so much like the "male" symbol on the bathroom door that it looks a little to me as though he got bored, left his post, and paid for his mistake with his life. Or at least a limb.
Still, while images appeal to me because of the idea of a "universal langue" which should very easily explain why not to use a particular item a particular way, I find that disclaimers, especially for medication, are also often disturbing in their own special way - that's why I've included them in this.
I would also like to mention that I'm not including the "silly" warnings - for instance, "do not feed to fish" (found on a certain brand of dog shampoo) - but warnings which I have seen for myself and caught my attention in some special way.
In any case, enjoy my top 10 favorites.
10: Choking Hazard
This is self explanetory. I do, however, want to point out, that this was NOT always present on toys with small parts! While the dangers of giving small children hard candies, nuts, rocks, keys - anything which could easily be ingested and cause asphyxication - have almost always been left up to common sense for parents to decide what is and is not safe for their children to come in contact with, this still means that at some point, a child died because they were given a toy with small, possible detachable or already seperate pieces which they swallowed because someone wasn't thinking. A simple warning, yes, and usually very subtle, but the message is chilling nonetheless.
#9: Caution: wet floor
Ah, the lawsuits that must have caused this ever familiar sign's existence. The cracked skulls. The broken hips. The bruised dignities. I simply love this warning because it does not appear to me as though the stick-victim is falling: no, he is about to throw down and impress the stick-ladies with his mad break-dancing skills. Bravo, stick-man, bravo.
#8: Toddler drowning
Again, wanderer, the presence of this warning on buckets, large containers and other plastic bins indicates that it has happened at some point or another. This is only #8 because neither is it all that comedic or graphic: it is, however, still disturbing. It is very clear what is happening - a child is climbing or falling into a fluid filled container in which they will presumably drown. Yet, the "no" slash is what draws my attention - who in the world would make the mistake, without the slash, that the picture indicates that a child should be allowed to play in the container, with or without fluids? This suggests to me that somewhere, there is such a parent: woe to their offspring.
#7: May Crush a Limb
This makes #7 because of it's oddly graphic, yet non-graphic approach to warning potential users. A bit like a cartoon character being run over by a steam roller, your limb will apparently become flat but otherwise be fine - still, the idea is painful. An oddly graceful approach to a warning users of common machinery-related injury and that they should be aware of it.
#6: Explosive force
Oh my! Explosives. The verbal equivalent doesn't come anywhere near it: "do not store near heat." I definitely favor the visuals on this one because in no way do those 5 words express the "impact" of what may happen should a compressed gas container be exposed to high temperatures or be punctured while a person is near.
#5: Danger Corrosive Chemical
This one always makes my hands tingle a little. Be it battery acid, polish, a dissolvent or other, the idea of a liquid chemical burning sizzling holes into your flesh - anywhere, really - is just plain horrifying. Yet, the hand shown just seems to be... sitting there. It makes me imagine someone pouring corrosives on a severed hand, or the hand of a dead body or - horror! - a living but catatonic person. How gruesome. (As a side note, what in the world is that black bar supposed to be? We're torturing chocolate as well? Or are we protesting censorship?)
#4: Risk of Amputation
Point blank: this machine will cut off any limb in the way of it's moving parts like shears through a hunk of meat. While much more graphic than the usually accepted stick-victim, who in the world drew this? A 6 year old? This is, by the way, a real label found on a crane at a local construction lot.
#3: May Cremate You
Cremate: that is, reduce to ashes. Keep in mind, again, that warnings this specific suggest that somewhere, this actually happened to someone. The machine I found this on specified that, if you were to touch the device while it was in contact with a bare power cable or the like that this would be the result, but the only other labels on the machine were the usual warning against being in its way while it moved, or being in the way or moving parts. It is, in that way, awkward and out of place - making it seem even more so that this may have actually happened. Just imagine! (note: the label pictured is incorrect, will be corrected as soon as possible)
#2: May cause Suicide in teens
I understand that teenagers are flooded with chemicals that cause reactions to hormonal treatments that vary from those of most adults past puberty. However, this makes it all the way to #2 for these reasons:
-We are living in a world where so called "anti-depressants" with these effects are still allowed to be given to teens. If there was a children's cough syrup with a warning saying that it may cause violent diarrhea and vomiting, would you still give it to the child?
-The announcer who says this in the commercial sounds just so darn cheery-yet-concerned that it's hilarious - the tone of voice is just so "teens may kill themselves and that's sad, but if this medicine works for you, that'd be great!"
And, my all time favorite:
#1: CONTACT CAN CAUSE DEATH
There is no room for doubt. If you get caught in the moving parts of this machine, you will die. Simple as that. I have seen this on industrial meat grinders, giant blades for certain types of fans, and several chemicals - but this specific label was found on the shield to the blade-tiller on a large tractor. I'm not only curious as to whether or not the human body can actually distort like that without ripping to shreds, but also who this first happened to for the makers to be so sure. Why is it #1? Simply for the shear comedically gruesome nature of the image. Bathroom-logo stick-man down on the farm, got caught in a tiller and died.
My sincere condolences to bathrom-logo stick-woman.
Welcome to the dreamless state. This is what some would call my “hello world!” post - space filler so that my brand-new blog doesn’t look empty and unkempt.
Still, I am brand-new to the blogging game (could it really be called a game? What are the prizes, then? And how does one win?) so excuse me if I ramble a bit. I promise that future posts will have a little more substance - substance being defined as, at the very least, a slightly more entertaining way of killing time.
A little about me - I am female. I will not be posting my age or location, because I am a paranoid female - thus the blog’s title (well, that and I am a Stephen King fan, so hats off to my favorite author). I will also not be posting images of my face. I do this because, fair reader, unlike any other public forum - a shopping center, the street, the coffee shop where a man with dark hair watches me carefully - if you were to look at my face or hear my voice, I might have the chance to do the same, and easily know you were seeing me. In a situation like this, there is very little probability that I’ll ever see your face or know you’ve seen mine. I know, I know - it’s an irrational fear. Countless people see my face every day, and I’ll never know who they are, where they go, or what they do with their waking hours. Yet - there is an appeal to the anonymity of the blog, which I’m sure you understand.
In addition to owner-ship of working ovaries, I thoroughly enjoy dreaming. I’m not one of those new-age types who believes in astral-projection or the like, but I have had some amazing experiences concerning REM sleep. I have found myself lucky enough to have vivid dreams nearly every night, and in most dreams, control of my actions and even the environment around me. So, be forewarned, upcoming posts may be focused completely on odd dreams that I’d like to record or dream related studies I may find online - I have a great love of dreams and dreaming in general.
The last thing I will say here is that I’m very fond of all sorts of art - musical, digital, physical - myself, I love sketching, painting, ect: I also dabble in digital art. In addittion, I enjoy creating puppets and recently became interested in small scale sculpture and jointed-doll making (photos hopefully to come soon). So, excuse me if some of my posts become cluttered with images of what I may be working on, or something that I have seen recently. All in all, I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to read this n008’5 post, and hope you’ll return again some time soon to pass the waking hours.
http://gcpdot.com/
Basically, the collective human ability to project/sense future events has been found to cause spikes right before events that caused global reactions, such as Princess Di's death, or 9/11. More on how it works at the site above.
Screw the national alert color scale, this is one paranoid insomniac who's going to go by the collective subconscious of the human race. 6,602,224,175+ people can't be wrong, right?
Insomniacs, every one of you - News
It has recently come to my attention that the links in my blog don't work correctly for everyone. I'm doing my best to fix this issue. Sorry for the inconvenience.
INTRODUCTION TO THE CHANT Webster's American English Dictionary defines insomnia as the inability to sleep - to someone like me, it defines any form of life in which sleep is not the current state.
I'll be the first to admit the flawed reasoning and laziness of preferring dreams to reality, but every waking moment is, by my consideration, insomnia. (After all, if you discovered the ability to dream every time you slept, much less control those dreams and remember them, wouldn't you want to spend more time there as well...?)
Welcome, insomniacs one and all - I hope that, if nothing else, this blog will help pass a little more of the time until sleep comes to you again.
#2: May cause Suicide in teens