iamashamed: (Default)
[Error: unknown template qotd]
I have OCD, so negative obsessions are not a foreign subject to me, but in my case they have been, and still are, very different from being passionate about something to the point of an obsession. Negative obsessions, for me, are things that sneak up on you, that won't go away no matter how much you want them to; things that makes you feel so pained and hurt, to the point of despair (if your obsession about something makes you unable to function, or hurt others, then it's also a problem, of course). And when I'm passionate about something, it's because it gives me happiness and joy, or because I think it's important. And even when I am obsessed, it still doesn't hurt me, really. So what if I've got Jon Stewart on my mind a lot, as long as it doesn't pain me to the point of wishing for death, or somehow hurts him/makes me unable to function, it's not negative to me. I try to separate my fannish/social- change obsessions from my OCD obsessions, because the difference lie in how the obsessions make me feel, and how it impacts others. And even if my passion about social- causes can hurt me, it's not directly thinking about the causes that pains me; it's how people treat/react to the causes. Does that make sense? The causes are things I want to think about, things that I want to care about, even if they can depress me; my OCD is not. And yeah, sometimes the two can bleed together, because my OCD shapes my way of thinking about things, and how much I think about things, but they're still two vastly different things to me. The only similarity, to me, is that they're both a form of an obsession; that's it.

Old writer's block, sorry, I know, but I just needed to rant a little. It's probably incoherent and full of mistakes, but whatever. 

I'll try to do a real update soon, I promise; today has just been too exhausting, because I've been pumped with all this new information, and I need to process it, before I can do anything else. Hope you are all well.
iamashamed: (Default)

I watch The Daily Show, I enjoy The Daily Show, and I respect and admire The Daily Show. But I also realize that I shouln't count on them for news, or take everything Jon Stewart says at face value. And I realize that they are only humans, and therefore have faults, and make mistakes, just like everyone else.

Lately, I have seen a lot of people criticize the Daily show, and their role in the media. And while many of the allegations have been very valid (sexism, racism, and ableism etc), there are some allegations that I do not agree with. At all.


More under cut: )


iamashamed: (Default)
[Error: unknown template qotd]

No, I don't. There are so many people who deserve attention, money, and recognition far more than celebrities do. (I'm thinking about people like doctors/nurses, therapists, firefigthers, and other people who's made a real difference it peoples lives.) Our culture is fucked up in regards of a lot of things, and fame is one of them; and although you can't put it in the same category as racism, sexism, and others forms of -isms, it still does some damage to our culture(tabloids, for one, puts up certain body images, invades privacy, and focuses on beauty to a scary degree).

Of course, how much fame is deserved, also depends on the celebrity. If you look at someone like Jon Stewart, he is famous for other reasons than, for example, Miley Cyrus is. In my mind he deserves fame, the money, and recognition(not as much as doctors, firefighters, therapists etc, but far more than Miley Cyrus), because he's famous for making a difference in our culture, in regards of things that matter.

And it is some very positive changes he's made; he's gotten young people into politics again, he has made them care more about different political issues, the news, and social justice. Even if this is done through satire and comedy, it has had an impact on a lot of people, and made a change in peoples lives(mine included).

When you compare that to Miley Cyrus, The Jonas Brothes, and Justin Bieber, who make mindless teen music, there's a huge difference.

And then you can take J.K Rowling, and compare her to Stephanie Meyer, and see what difference that makes. J.K Rowling can write, Stephanie Meyer can not. J.K Rowlings books are about love, loyalty, friendship and bravery. Stephenie Meyers are about sparkly abusive vampires, and being 'in love'. J.k Rowling has gotten a lot of children into reading again, taught them wonderful morals, and wrote them a fantastic story. Stephanie Meyer has glorified abusive relationships and bad writing, and made a sorry excuse of a story.

You can be famous for a lot of things; unfortunately it's often the most shallow and non-important things that gets the most attention. So yes, our culture is messed up in regards of this, even if it does sometime get it right; (Jon Stewart, J.K Rowling, etc). I'm not saying that there's something wrong with mindless pop music, or shitty written stories, I'm guilty of liking some of those things myself(Lady Gaga), but the glorification and attention these things get, compared to others, is messed up, in my opinion.

The again, this is only my, very biased, opinion on this issue, so idk.

iamashamed: (Default)
[Error: unknown template qotd]
I'm against it. I don't believe that it is morally right to kill a person, as much as they might deserve it. Eye for an eye, or kill for a kill? I don't believe in that. It actually disgusts me that we still do this in 2010. I realize some people's crimes are so horrific, that they might deserve to die, but I'd rather see them locked up for life, than support the killing of them.

It's not that I feel for them, or that I support them in any way, it's just that I can't see myself support the death of a person, no matter how much they deserve it. I couldn't care less about the sick bastard who did the crime,  they deserve all the pain in the world for all I care; it's about my morals on the issue.

Which is pretty self-centered and might be wrong, but yeah.
iamashamed: (Default)
I thought that this commercial had finally stopped running on tv, but to my great displeasure, it wasn't the case. I saw it today, and I literally threw a pillow at the tv and raged. And now, I give you, one of the most sexist commercials of all time:

The point of this commercial it to imply that women don't understand sports, or that they are just plain stupid. The commercial starts with a scene of a football game, but what happens on screen doesn't makes sense, because the commentary is taken literally by the person who is listening, instead of matching up with what the different football expressions actually mean. Like, it shows how they are literally recieving a goal on the middle of the field, instead of showing someone/a team making/recieving a field goal, which is what the commentary actually means. Then it flashes to a women sitting and listening to the sports commentary, and of course she takes it literally, and  of course she  doesn't understand the commentary, because she is a woman. Then it flashes to a text that says "Der er så meget kvinder ikke forstår', which means: "There is so much women don't understand". Basically, the commercial implies that women don't understand sports commentary, and that they take everything literally; they apparently can't understand 'manly things', like sports.

Get it? women don't understand sports or man things! Because the commentary says that they 'recieve a field goal' she thinks that they ACTUALLY RECIEVE A GOAL!  ON THE FIELD! YOU KNOW, AS A PRESENT! hahahahaha isn't that just hilarious.

Fuck this piece of shit commercial. Fuck people finding it funny. Fuck the tv executives for letting this run on TV. Fuck the patriarchal society we live in. Fuck sexism and misogyny being an accepted thing. Fuck the stereotype that women are stupid and weak. Fuck how women are judged upon their looks and treated like objects. Fuck Denmark for making this commercial. Fuck how all this is making me so angry that I almost cry.

And no, I am not overreacting. I am sick of being told that, by everyone, and especially by men. This is my journal, and these are my feelings. If you think that I shouln't be upset by this, then kindly gtfo of this post, or explain yourself. If you don't think that this reinforces stereotypes that women have suffered from, for so many years,  then I would love to hear why and what the punchline of this commercial actually is.

ETA: I'm sorry if this is not translated properly, I did my best.
iamashamed: (Default)

Hypocrisy regarding misogyny and sexism on the left?

It exists, and I am so sick of it. What makes Bill Maher's sexist drivel any better than Bill O'reilly's? Why is it okay for Chris Matthews to be commenting on the looks of female pundits or politicans, instead of their work? Because they are on the left, we are supposed to 'accept it' or 'chill out', because they are on 'our side'? Hell no, misogyny is misogyny no matter what party you belong to, and I HATE seeing the same people on the left who complain about misogyny and sexism on the Republican side, accept and play down misogyny when it comes to the left. 

And yes, the right does this as well, obviously. There are Republicans who fight sexism against Sarah Palin, and then turn around and bash Hillary Clinton using misogynist slurs. These people are hypocrits, I am not defending that.

But this is not about the Republican party, because that is not what I'm talking about here. When I see Republicans say this stuff, I obviously get angry and hurt, like I should, but not as hurt and angry as when I see a supposed 'liberal person', who calls out Republican's sexism on regular basis, turn around and defend misogyny on the left, because the person who said it 'didn't mean it like that' or because they 'agree with other points the person makes'. What makes you different than a republican person defending misogyny on the right?

A Democrat, fighting sexism on the right, who then starts to make remarks regarding Sarah Palin's looks and body, and calls her for misogynist slurs, is no better than the person they were calling out before that.

The Daily Show, which I love and adore, has made some borderline sexist comments in the past, and I call them out whenever I can. It is possible to be a fan and still call out these things, and as long as Jon stewart don't start to regularly making outright misogynist remarks, I can deal with it. 

But what I have never heard Jon Stewart say or joke about, is stuff like this, which Bill Maher has uttered/joked about, more than once:

1. In regards of Tila Tequila, he started victim- blaming while using misogynist slurs: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/reproductivejustice/142662/newsflash%3A_bill_maher_is_sexist_and_annoying/.

 2. Him making sweeping generalizations about women in politics and in general: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/2/83236/46536.

3. And finally, here he is, making these remarks regarding breastfeeding: http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/09/bill-maher-is-misogynistic-anti.html.

How is that okay? Really? I don't care if Bill Maher has made other great points in regards of other things, at the end of the day he is still a misogynist and I don't care about what party he belongs to. When I see people, that I know, defend this, I get angry and frustrated.

"But women make sweeping generalizations regarding men as well, so it's not sexist, it's just something that people do."

Yes, and that isn't okay either. But do we have a history of oppressing men? Do we have the male privilege in regards of work and social status? Check out this blog and come back to me: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/.

This just really bothers me, and it isn't okay. Am I alone in this? I am sick and tired or seeing progressive people defending statements like these, because it's the left making them.

iamashamed: (Default)
[Error: unknown template qotd]
I've had several rare moments, and when they happen, they almost make up, just a little bit, for some of the tragic failures of humanity.

Jon Stewart is one of the people who continuously gives me faith in humanity. I can't even begin to explain why, because the love and respect I have for that man goes beyond words. He brings laugther, joy, and sense into a world that has so many flaws. His show gives me a sense of not being alone with my thoughts and feelings on everything from politics to basic human decency.

He also does a good job killing the stererotype of what ALL Americans are like. Living in a socialistic 'sissy' country that Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck have so often used to create fear and fuel ignorance, it is refreshing to see opinions from an American who doesn't hate us or our values with a fiery passion, and who still doesn't shill for any party. And, as it turns out, there are many other Americans just like him out there, and I've met a lot of these people through mutual love of his show, and it has changed on how I see America and Americans. So thanks for that.

He is also supportive of basic human decency, like gay rights and helping the poor, which is some of the things that, in my opinion, makes a person very good. Him, being rich, outright saying that he wouln't mind paying more taxes to help poor people, gives me faith in the notion that some people, no matter how rich or famous they get, don't forget their basic human decency. He is one of the people who often create those moments in my life.

There has been other things, just little things, that people do sometimes, that gives me faith in humanity. Whether it is hearing about a child trying to earn money to help a family member out, seeing normal everyday people helping after a disaster or an accident took place, or people standing up for what is morally right. Moments like these, when people come together, in love, and help each other out, are heartwarming and gives me faith in humanity.

I often hate humanity and the bigotry of people, but there are moments where people do show their goodness and their compassion, and those moments mean a lot to me.
iamashamed: (Default)

1. Jon is a comedian, making fun of people and pointing out their mistake is his job; HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BE A JOURNALIST, NO MATTER HOW MUCH PEOPLE SEE HIM AS ONE. I have thought a lot about this and the fact of the matter is: Jon doesn't claim to be a journalist, so, no, he can't be expected to be one. This has nothing to do with 'having guts' or 'being edgy' because Jon is still a comedian; and giving your opinion on things/pointing out stupidity/making fun of people; STILL FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A COMEDIAN. And he is not the only comedian to do this; he just happen to be more honest and factual than others;  but that still doesn't make him a journalist. Saying that he doesn't go after the people you want him to, not always do hard-hitting interviews,  doesn't matter, because he does his show from his point of view, and is under no obligation to do what the news should. Critisizing the news doesn't mean that he should take it upon himself to fix it, that is not his job. The fact that he is more factual and balanced than the other news channels, is a bonus, and says something about the state of the media; not the state of him or his show.

2. You are a fucking idiot. You say that 'enough liberals do' so it's okay to make generalizations. Well, hmm, most of the teabaggers I've encountered are dumb, racist, ignorant, calls Obama for Hitler, and believe that Obama is the Anti Christ/not born in America. By your account, that makes it okay to make generalizations, right? Except, you don't think so, because it's people you agree with, which makes you, wait for it, A HYPOCRIT.

3. I can't wait for Jon and The Daily Show writers to own you on this; or even better, ignore you, because you don't deserve to even get mentioned on their show; THAT'S HOW PATHETIC YOU ARE. Join the ranks of Tucker Carlson, Jim Cramer, and John Gibson, bb, cuz soon that will be all you have.
iamashamed: (Default)


There is a difference between being on CNN and on Comedy central; or there should be. Jon has always said that he and his show concentrate on the things that they have opinions on, not that they are 'truth tellers' of some kind; because they aren't.They're not trying to get people to change their minds about things, they don't claim to have all the answers, so whether people agree with them or not, it doesn't matter, because they do their shows out of their point of view, and are honest about it.

The media, on the other hand, claims to be unbiased News, when they are actually creating a certain narrative of their network, and then they try to maintain it by being biased, leave out facts, and have opinion shows on it.
The difference between CNN/FOX/MSNBC and TDS, is that TDS doesn't claim to have all the facts, they openly admit that they are biased,  have opinions, when the 'real news' don't. 

I don't think of The Daily Show as a news; they might be less biased than the real 'news channels', because they try to keep facts and earth logic in their shows, but they still show their point of view on things; I just happen to agree with them. This is why people have come to count on them instead of the 'real news', to get a more honest view on things. But despite this, the fact is, that they still do their show in of their point of view, point out things *they* find stupid; not things they want other people to believe.

They just don't have a narrative to maintain, so they can often be more honest, show both sides of the media, while proving their points.

A lot of people agree with what they point out, and that has put them in a place where it gets harder and harder for them to deny their own impact; the impact that they never asked for in the first place.
Jon is not the one claiming to be a journalist, yet people are focusing on him and expecting him to be doing a job that the media has long since abandoned. The media has stopped doing their job, and because of The Daily Show pointing out this, people have come to expect them to do the job instead, which they never claimed to do.

It should be said, though, that they do sometimes use this impact to their advantage, which does make them look hypocritical. They use the comedy defense when people critisize them, but point out stupidity and certain situations, when they know people are impacted by it, and believe what they say. But the difference, for me, is that while they do this, they never say that people should take every word they say seriously, like the MSM does.

I do wish that Jon would be honest about this, talk about it, and recognize what many people perceive his show to be. I wish that he would adress this directly without his self-deprecating remarks or jokes, and I hope he will at one point, because he can't have it both ways.

For me, though, it still comes down to this:

There are the media claiming to be news/not biased, but are, giving people biased information, creating a narrative of their network.

Then there is The Daily Show, pointing out this, because no one else does, while still not claiming to be part of the media.

I don't think that it's TDS there should be focus on, but the MSM instead. Jon isn't the one causing the most damage to the society, imho.

Also, I want people to know that despite my Jon stanning I do see other people's valid points about him/TDS and I do think about it. I'm honestly not as blinded by him as people might think. I call him out when I feel like he mess up, and I hope people can see that.
iamashamed: (Default)

Because I hate life in the moment, I'm posting a video-spam that will hopefully make you guys laugh, smile, cheer up, even if you are having a bad time right now.<3
Click to see: )These always crack me up, I hope they do the same for you:)<3


iamashamed: (Default)
While everyone's lost, the battle is won...

July 2012

12345 67


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags