Why My Generation Doesn't Want to Work

I have a very long answer to this, but today I had a very short experience that captured it perfectly. Brought back all the memories, and the ache in my stomach. Why don't we want to work? This shit.

Today I noticed that a small flyer for a job hiring event had been slipped into one of my bags at Kroger.

It is January 25th, 2:55pm.

I've been looking for a little extra money in between jobs, and a temp job day-stocking a brand new store would be perfect. So I threw on some clothes, grabbed a resume, and flew out the door to make the last hiring event.

I get there at 3:27pm, no cars, no nothing, just this sign on the door:

Here?? Where "here"??! There's nothing fucking here!

The building isn't even finished!

No indication of today's events, but there's a bunch of info about future events. Wondering, "WTF?", I look around, reconsider a white tent by the Kroger gas station, and decide drive over there to ask if this is it. There are no signs or indications of any kind on or near the tent.

I park, get out and approach a lady near the tent. She's probably in her 50s, dressed about as casual as it gets.

"Is this the Hiring Event?"
"Yeah" (with attitude)
"Oh ok there--"
"Did you fill out the online application?"
"No I did not."
"You have to fill out the online application before we can interview you here."
"Oh, that's required?"
"Yes, you have to fill out the online application before we can interview you here."
"Oh, okay, I'm sorry, the flyer didn't say it--"
"You have to fill out the online application before we can interview you here."
"Okay thanks."
"There is a schedule of future hiring events posted on the door of the store over there."
"Okay thank you."

I walk away, pissed and offended. As I drive away, I notice the bitch is still staring at me. Seriously?

Let's go over all the communication errors that occurred in this hour:

1. The implication on the flyer that this was the last hiring event.
2. The implication on the flyer that the online application was optional. (Standard connotative meaning; "Pre-Apply Online", not "Must Apply Online") How about "Must Apply Online", and then don't even mention the hiring events to the applicant until after the application process, totally digital. Might also be a good time to mention the white tent.
3. Communication inconsistency concerning dates and times from the original flyer to the window poster.
4. No indication that the hiring event still even existed on the window poster.
5. No indication on the tent on the other side of the parking lot that it had anything to do with Kroger or the hiring event.
6. Don't even get me started on tent bitch.

I can already tell this is going to be yet another quality-of-life-draining job if I take it.

I hate having my time wasted and being treated like I don't matter, while simultaneously being forced to kiss the ass of those people or companies who regard me that way. They have no intention of making those things better. Oh I'm sure there are people in management trying to make it better, but the big guys really don't care if they do. They only care about their numbers. And as long as every other company in our country that these people can get jobs at treats them the same way--"worship thy ass, for thine ass has no choice"--the numbers will not change, and growth will continue. The big guys will continue to ignore pleas from management and spurn their great ideas.

You might say, this is why we have unions. But unions can go bad, too. And you can't just apply unions as a fix-all band-aid to everything. A unified, healthy, alive society and culture would be more than enough to counteract abusive employers. But this is an aching, decaying culture.

Communication. Accountability. Respect. Things our society is severely in need of.

There are many more facets to this answer that have a lot more to do with post-modernism/post-functionalism, and especially the information technology that has allowed us to find out just how easily technology could take care of so many problems and replace the worst low level jobs, but also just how much the system and powers that be have been keeping these technologies from us, starving our economy, wallets, and souls. Suffice it to say there's a lot of shit that doesn't work, and we just don't see the point in participating. There's no point in living your life if you can't LIVE life. We don't have the answer, but we know this isn't it. Maybe if our culture had a little accountability and a little less ego, we could at least stomach these jobs when we had to.

I hope I never have to deal with one again.

The Five Phrases that Can Change Your Life: Adam Braun

THIS.

Social Dogma Debunked: "Kill Them With Kindness"

I hate the idea of "killing someone with kindness" or never getting upset because it burns so much more for the other guy when you don't react. I think this phrase needs to be replaced.

The sentiment that this phrase was born from is great (the idea of responding to hate with love), but the propagation of the phrase itself creates a different sentiment of "winning" and "fighting back" that is bad. As people take it and use it for themselves, it gets used to disguise or enable their own hate in a self-righteous manner. All it does is bury the truth, prolong the grieving process, and undermine the real intention of the phrase. I love the idea of pursuing yourself and everyone, including your enemies, with love. But we need a different phrase for this idea that might be more healthy for our culture in the long run.

Is hurting someone, getting back at someone for something they did to you really the point of "taking the moral high ground"? Is it even really taking the moral high ground? Even THAT phrase, with the "high ground", implies that you are preparing for and engaging in war. Which is not the morally, ethically better place to be if someone is trying to start a fight or there's a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I think in most cases that the peaceful course of action suggested is the best one. But the motive is the worst. And motive is the most important part. You might as well just start throwing punches. Because it shouldn't be about getting back at someone, teaching them a lesson or getting what you want. That motive undermines the very principles that I suspect those sayings were intended to uphold.

You don't do it for your ego or for anyone else. You do it for the sake of your personal dignity, respect, and integrity. You do it because it's honestly the right thing to do by your heart. You do it because you have a responsibility to your community and yourself to stand as an example of peaceful integrity.

What you do is make a better decision with this current situation than your pursuer made with the problem under discussion. The decision is not better because you are better than them. It's better because their decision did not work. Better because if you throw the fight right back at them, it would just be your ego, and the fight would just continue, and the situation would end worse than it began.

So what about the old phrase, "turn the other cheek" from the Bible? I think people have misinterpreted this phrase in our generation to fit with the dogmas suggested by "kill them with kindness". I don't think Jesus meant turning your head, sticking your nose in the air, and walking away like a self-righteous prick. I think he meant to give the ultimate love--that if the person really wants to slap you in the face (and already did), turn the other cheek out and let them slap that one, too. Of course, doing this in real life requires an extremely high level of self respect and self love for it to not make you self-implode in depressive misery. And I don't think Jesus would expect you to turn the other cheek if you couldn't handle it. But we actually have examples of activists doing things like this today, chaining themselves to trees, standing in front of tanks, or lying down in front of construction equipment.

"Love your enemies as yourself." Much better. Also from the Bible.

When you are attacked, you choose to be better. Not better than them. Better than you. For you. For your attacker. For the greater good. The only way we can progress toward peace as a world is if each individual person makes this decision in those moments. Taking care of yourself is a responsibility you have to your world.

I love the idea of pursuing yourself and your attacker with love. If you'd like to explore that concept more, look into Aikido, a martial art based on love.

I would love to hear your ideas on a better phrase to capture this philosophy in a contemporary way.

PB n' BS: Honest Voices Need Honest Listeners

SOTU Yesterday

I long for a world where public figures feel like they can be themselves and speak and act honestly. I rail against them for not having more integrity, but we as the community are just as responsible for this problem. Because you can't expect a person to be real if they don't feel like the listeners intend to be understanding. If you want honest speakers, you need honest listeners.

Call it the media, the other politicians, or the people at large... truth is, everyone with a voice has a responsibility to have an ear. We all have a responsibility to pay the respect of an understanding, open heart and mind to whoever is speaking.

We've all had that experience: You're really nice and understanding with someone you just met. To the point where we wonder if we should be piping up and refuting their thoughts. But within 5 minutes, they end up spilling their guts. They get really comfortable and say things like, "I can't believe I'm about to tell you this, but...", while you think things like, "I can't believe this person is telling me this, but..." "Honest" listening creates an environment for honest speaking.

I think what's really happening is the more honest politicians just aren't winning elections because our culture can't handle that kind of honesty yet--we aren't good listeners. Perhaps the one place where we should react with strong sanctions is against anyone or anything whose ear is not at least as large as their voice. And perhaps selective hearing should not be tolerated.

I still think the best leaders should speak with integrity, even in the face of bad listeners. But it's a lot easier for them if we create the environment for that. The entire world will move forward if we all take responsibility for our part. If we want honest leaders, we have to become honest listeners.

Reposted from:
http://salscribbles.blogspot.com/2015/01/day-21-pb-n-bs.html

http://jonikcartoons.blogspot.com/

Sexodus Prequel: Hate + Hate = Hate; My Rant

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/this-is-what-happens-when-women-actually-accept-a-compliment#.vd209Ox1YN

Women: do not let this catch on. Share and squelch this now amongst each other, because it's only going to make things worse. I'm preparing a lot of shit on this topic for my blog, but this needs to be responded to now.

This is exactly the kind of religious dogmatic crap that I'm talking about. Right now the female culture seems to be clinging to an ideology of hating men to validate themselves, and I'm going to show you how this experiment proves it.

In short, this was not an experiment. It was a lashing out and a fighting back, goading their opponent into saying something mean so that they can validate their hate.

Social experiments are great. They can be very informative--I do them. But if you're going to approach something scientifically, you do it to give benefit of the doubt. You do it because you're trying to fairly see if there's an exception to the rule that you've come to accept. If you can't find the exception, your argument is strengthened. If you can, then you've discovered a flaw in your rule. Either way is a win because experiments get you closer to the truth. A real experiment is done in the spirit of the truth, with no other motive but to pursue the truth.

Now, without reading this article, you tell me what the fuck you think "accepting a compliment" means. I tell you you're pretty. You accept the compliment. What are your words?

Because I'm going to bet that your words are, "thank you". That's what a person who's not trying to start a fight says. It is a socially established way of accepting a compliment.

But that's not what these girls said. Instead of accepting a compliment, they agreed with the compliment in a sarcastic way, but sold it as acceptance. Their answer was "yes". And they weren't joking. Totally different message.

Now if they had thanked AND agreed, that's different. "Thanks, yeah I'm very fortunate" or "Thanks, I like my eyes too". No problem. Perfectly polite and normal, and it invites a conversation.

But they weren't interested in conversations. They were interested in proving that guys that give you compliments are just assholes. (I mean right there, isn't that about as religiously--ridiculously--dogmatic as a pile of shit could be?) Nope, they wanted to feel better about rejecting men they weren't interested in.

But instead of owning up to the TRUTH and taking responsibility for their feelings by maybe saying "thanks but I'm not interested", they'd rather just talk back like a spoiled twelve-year-old.

I am so fucking sick of people giving women credit for being the "community glue". Not in this country. Not in this culture. If aliens were to look at our situation objectively, trying to figure out which sex was trying to bring the world together more in this instance, I'm pretty sure they'd be looking at the sex who's initiating contact and pursuing the other one with nice things to say. And I really don't fucking think they'd blame the first for getting upset if the second responds with an egotistical sarcastic message.

And do you really fucking think that responding with hate will help the issue of hate that you're trying to resolve? Or, like this chick, are you really just interested in saying "fuck you" to any man who puts you in a situation you're to dishonest and immature to deal with?

http://thetruthiswithyou.blogspot.com/

Art: Why So Serious?

This was today's entry for my creation-a-day challenge.

One of my tricks as a designer for keeping the spontaneous creative inspiration flowing is that whatever projects I'm doing, try to alternate one project serious, one project funny/stupid/not serious. Such a key part of unlocking your ability to create original ideas out of thin air is to allow in your mind even the dumbest of ideas. Creating something that's genuinely funny to you supercharges and motivates you, but letting yourself play with some ideas that are just dumb lays a foundation for a healthy relationship with the inner workings of your mind. Because you want your subconscious mind to feel the freedom to hurl tons of ideas at you when you need them.

There are even a ton of examples in fine art. But that's enough of that. Let's look at something funny.

Someone punched a hole in a $10 million Monet and recently went to jail for it. You can read about it here (brace yourself). But this is the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. Now you're probably thinking, "Has Sal gone crazy? He is an artist--shouldn't he be upset?" It is definitely a travesty of art, Monet is possibly my favorite painter ever, and I am also an expressionist (salvatoreart.com), but read the rest of the story.

The guy claimed to have accidentally fallen over and hit the painting with his elbow due to a heart condition. But a witness told the court that he lunged at the painting with a clenched fist like a hammer. Like superman. But he's trying to tell the court it was a heart condition. He had 48 -- 48! -- prior convictions that included having stolen maps from the 1600s worth thousands of dollars in his possession, and damaging other artwork. But he's saying it was a heart condition! He just does not stand a chance! There's no way. The event was even captured on camera, clearly showing him lunge like MegaMan at the painting. And his story is, "heart condition". He's just so screwed, the whole thing is hysterical to me.

To make it even funnier, you only have to search "monet punch" in google and it comes right up.

Rest assured, the incident was actually two years ago and the painting has since been repaired. I would be honored if one of my pieces was taken off this planet like this. It'll all eventually turn to dust; might as well happen in a fun way.

More about humor in art. Many of the pieces in the reactionary movements across art history are actually making fun of what they're reacting to. Even Whistler's Mother was deadpan (my theory). The easiest to look at is the current reactionary movement in contemporary art: postmodernism. We've been seeing it for decades en masse now, and now it's in all our media and art. It's all about questioning the established systems, exposing the problems, and trying to find the next step. There is perhaps no better tool for exposing and talking about those things than humor. There's so much truth in humor. Sitcoms, cartoons, comics, movies, music--in our generation humor is everywhere.






I always think of Calvin and Hobbes. A great example about how easy it is to hear a serious message from someone or something that is not usually serious. People are often most impressed by serious performances by famous comics. I think their craft in comedy requires them to work more closely with the truth than they get credit for.

In the high art / fine art world you've got names like Paul McCarthy, Jeff Koons, and Banksy. All that create work that's funny. It's not all funny, and sometimes the piece wasn't meant to be funny, but it is. I think that's a side effect of hitting you in the face with that much truth in that way that happens to be your sense of humor. And it is acceptable to laugh.

Train, Paul McCarthy

Banksy, Graffiti Artist

Banksy, Street Artist

On honesty and comedy, even your own train of thought is often funny if you just let it go word-vomit style.

Some day I will write a post with my full treatise on how to generate creative and original ideas, but for now, know the most important part, of everything, of it all: enjoy it. To what end is life if not to live?

Perhaps there can be no true art apart from comedy.

The Difference Between Tolerance and Love

Credit to Reddit user, thesockbunny

The difference is one word: Pursuit.

If you have a friend who never initiates contact with you, I don't think you can call that person a friend. Because that's not love. But it might be tolerance.

Have you ever had a friend who says that they love you so much and think of you so often and they seem so genuine, but as soon as you walk away from them, it's as if you never existed? A friend who never calls, texts, sends an email, or even mentions you on facebook? But maybe they seem so genuinely true and real when you have their attention? The one who's only there when you put yourself in front of them? Yeah, that's not love. That's tolerance. And I don't think its a real friend.

I've read about the 5 love languages--I know everyone has their way of feeling loved, and everyone has their ways of showing love that they're good at or comfortable with. I think the 5 love languages theory has true merit. But there's one love "language" everyone has in common, and it wasn't mentioned in that book: everyone wants to feel wanted.

How do you make someone feel wanted? Pursuit. Initiate contact. You just ask for them. You call them by name, you seek them out, you send them a text or give them a call... You feel wanted when someone--one way or another--invites you into their life. You feel wanted when someone sends you a text for no reason. Just to say hi, see how you're doing, or share a laugh.

When we feel genuine love for someone, we want to share it with them. Initiating contact with that person is natural and healthy. Both as a desire and an action.

So, while you might think, "maybe that person is just not comfortable with using the 'words of affirmation' love language," it's not that simple. In fact, what I have found is that these people are usually extremely loving with their words when you have their attention. And when confronted with the situation, they use a lot of words to try to prove their love. But every time, YOU have to get THEIR attention. You have to put yourself in front of them. And after all the conversation about the issue, they still don't initiate contact.

And don't get me started on the friends that get on your case because you haven't called them with an update on your life. As if it's your duty to keep them abreast by way of their own personal daily digest.

Here's what I think. When this is happening, one of three things must be true:

1) The person doesn't love you, doesn't like you, and doesn't want you in their life, but can't admit it to you or themselves.

2) They really do love you, but they don't want the responsibility or accountability that a real friendship requires. In other words, they want one-way relationships. And they want to be on the receiving end. They also don't appreciate the responsibility they have to be honest with people, especially friends.

3) They really do love you, maybe they really do want a relationship with you, but they simply don't have time for you. Usually these people have so many friends it's a sin. They're very genuine and loving, but they don't know how to say "no".

In all cases, being in a friendship with that person is very unhealthy. Because it's not a real friendship. Especially if the person isn't willing to acknowledge or work on these issues with you.

So what should you do in a culture where this kind of broken entitlement is so common? Sit back, fold your arms and say, "fuck it, I'll wait for someone to pursue me"? Hah! Don't make me laugh. No, don't do that. Why? Because it's the most socially irresponsible solution. And you would end up doing to everyone what all the people who have hurt you did to you. And you already know you can't create real friendships out of that, right? So don't go thinking you should never pursue. Giving up even more social responsibility is exactly how to screw up the world even more. Don't be a part of the problem.

Here's my philosophy so far:

If you're grieving from some love pain, take some time for yourself. Don't pursue anyone but you. Grieve. But don't grieve for too long. Heal, but be eager to get back up and then point your energy and love to the people who you know will give it back. Always be willing to initiate contact the first time. Even the first few times. Give new people an honest chance to come around. Just don't ever let it go nearly as far as you did with these other people. I'm thinking, don't initiate more than 3 times with a new person if they have not yet initiated back. If they still haven't, take that energy you have for them, and give it instead to people you know love you for real. You'll forget about the first person in no time.

I think the trick is to cut yourself off early, but never stop believing--never stop trying to make new friends. This alone is may not be the key to world peace, but I think it's part of the solution.

----------------------------------
Some Epilogue thoughts:

I'm a Christian, but it is not at all surprising to me that this is happening in a culture that is so rooted in Christian religiousness. Religiousness. Ya know, one of the big things that the Bible and most "religious" texts actually warn against. Doing whatever you want and never taking responsibility. Surrounding yourself with people that buy into the same denial that you do, who have all the right answers but none of the actions to back it up. Their words say one thing, their actions say another, and anyone who points it out is stupid. This is very religious behavior of the Christian flavor. My friends who were church leaders were among the most un-loving, "tolerant" friends I've ever had.

I also wonder what applications this train of thought has for understanding race issues in the US. I mean, England was way worse when it came to slavery, and yet their country has grieved through it, and the black community there seems fine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but racism in the US is the worst in the world, when it should be the one place that it isn't an issue at all. Is this why? Is it because we keep pushing for "tolerance" instead of "love"? To speculate further, I wonder if there is a direct connection between the protestant christian foundations of America and race issues today. I think it makes sense, but it would require more research. And I would definitely want to hear more of my black friends thoughts on it before I made any confident claims.

Another afterthought:
I forgot to mention a very important part of this topic often times these "friends" will drop everything to help you if you are dying--if you're in a crisis of some kind. That can't count for nothing. But I don't like it. Because it smells like they're only helping because if they don't, then they're definitely NOT your friend. If they do help, they can always use it as a sort of ultimate proof of their friendship, even though they never seem to care about you when you're not throwing yourself in front of them. But here's the fundamental core of why that kind of behavior is wrong and unhealthy: Any health or medicinal practitioner of any kind will tell you that the best treatment is prevention. Too often, these crises could have been easily avoided had the victim had a healthy, actively-in-their-life circle of friends. Friends that might have helped this person identify and avoid a problematic situation in advance, or kept them from falling into a downward spiral of suicidal thoughts. Even on a metaphysical level, surrounding a person with active positivity only does good things for their life and keeps them away from crises.

In other words, a real friend is not the one who's only there for you at the last minute when you're about to die; a real friend is the one who keeps you miles away from death by being an active, regular part of your life.