iamashamed | Entries tagged with idek

[Error: unknown template qotd]
My lack of self-confidence/self-worth, in general, I think. I have a hard time believing in myself, and I struggle to believe other people, when they point out positive things about me; which means that I seek out constant validation from people, but don't take compliments well (when I get them); and that isn't exactly fair to the people around me. It's... a constant work in progress, basically. I do hope that I'll someday be able to be happy and proud of who I am, as a full person, and that I'll be able to accept all my faults as well; but it won't happen over night. It takes time and work, and I know that. I'm getting closer every day, though, so that's good.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

TL;DR under the cut:

( Rant about my best childhood friend under the cut. )

[Error: unknown template qotd]
We don't celebrate that here in Denmark. Showing your American centrism, yet again, LJ? :P.

[Error: unknown template qotd]
I don't really get this question, tbh. Why and how would you ever 'choose' the number of siblings like that? I have 3 younger siblings, and despite of all of the fighting and all the hurting at times, I would never choose to remove/change any of them; and I definitely wouln't just 'add' a new sibling for my own benefit. I love my siblings for who they are, because they are my siblings, not because of how many they are, or what gender they are. Idk, it just feels weird to me that anyone would think of their siblings in numbers/genders like that. But that's probably because I have siblings, so the thought of being able to choose like that is way too foreign to me. I get wanting siblings, though, but to think about 'how many' just weirds me out. I'd always wanted an older sibling, but I would never actually choose to get one, or to change things, even if I could.

or maybe I'm just reading too much into this question, lol.

[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.

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: )

[Error: unknown template qotd]
Not really, no. I've had a couple of anons on LJ trying to start shit, but that's it. No one has ever really harassed me on here, or elsewhere on the internet, thankfully.

[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.

[Error: unknown template qotd]
Critical bystander. I used to love the books, and the first movie, but luckily I saw the light. The abusive relationships, the crappy writing, the shameless Mary Sue/self insert, all became clear to me, and now I strongly dislike it. I'm ashamed that I was ever a fan, but I'm glad that I changed my ways. Twilight is a horrible franchise, that glorifies abusive relationships and lack of talent. It sucks young girls into the books, and it makes them believe that being stalked and controlled by a man is somehow romantic. Besides this, it's also a badly written piece of glorified fanfiction, and the main character is a self-insert Mary Sue.

People comparing it to Harry Potter are doing a good job of making me lose faith in humanity.

Okay, so I just read this article, about The Daily Shows lack of women, and how the show can be sexist sometimes.

It's true, The Daily Show needs more females on the show, and it's dissapointing to hear about their history with women, it really is. It's a big problem, and it's important to adress.

But that wasn't really what caught my attention in this article.

It was the stories about Jon being a jerk; throwing scripts at someone, having feuds with people, being full of joyless rage backstage, and generally not seeming like a very kind boss, that distracted me from the article's overall point.

If this is true? then it breaks my heart. I love Jon I really do, so much, but this is just so dissapointing to hear, especially when you hear about how well Stephen treats his cast and crew. Is Jon really like this? I mean, of course he is different from when he is on camera, but I did not expect this to be the case.

I feel like a bad feminist/woman because this is what I'm focusing on instead of the patriarchal ways of our culture, but I need to get over my fangirl heart-break before I can deal with any of that .

I really hope this article is disengenious, in regards of how Jon Stewart is like, because if it isn't? then I have definitely lost some respect for the man.

Lets hope that he really isn't like this article describes him to be.

I really can't imagine this to be true and I hope it isn't.

ETA: someone wrote this on TDS's forum on TWOP: "This doesn't fit at all with what I know. A relative of mine has actually met him and says that both he and his wife are some of the nicest people my relative had met in show business. Granted, this is strictly hearsay, but hearsay from a source I very much trust. I suspect some of what happens is that these people simply aren't cutting it and it just so happens that they're female. I've seen Lauren Weedman on other programs. She's a staple on VH1 and she's not funny.

As for Jon supposedly throwing a script, it's probably true. But haven't we all reacted in a way we later wish we hadn't? Given that it's not a story he tells or anything, I believe that if it did happen he's certainly not proud of it. And I also bet that he was feeling a lot of pressure back then because he wasn't American Sweetheart Jon Stewart, he was Dude With A Basic Cable Show Jon Stewart."

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?s=c764568ac67138eee741002ff1803878&showtopic=1162733&pid=13027500&st=39840&#entry13027500.

So yeah, I don't know.

ETA 2: Oh you guys; leave it to you to get some Jon-love up in this bitch:').<333

Profile

While everyone's lost, the battle is won...

Tweets I twatted.

July 2012

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Writer's Block: Breaking the habit
Writer's Block: You're my best friend
Writer's Block: That's one cold turkey
Writer's Block: Family matters
Writer's Block: Mark Antony, we hardly knew ye
I've finally put this into words. (a rant about The Daily Show).
Writer's Block: Personality goes a long way
Writer's Block: Star struck
Writer's Block: Twilight is nearing
:(

Style Credit

Style: Tropical for Bases by malionette

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Leave all your love and your longing behind...

...You can't carry it with you if you want to survive.

Entries tagged with idek

Writer's Block: Breaking the habit

Writer's Block: You're my best friend

Writer's Block: That's one cold turkey

Writer's Block: Family matters

Writer's Block: Mark Antony, we hardly knew ye

I've finally put this into words. (a rant about The Daily Show).

Writer's Block: Personality goes a long way

Writer's Block: Star struck

Writer's Block: Twilight is nearing

:(