Just because I feel like it, I'm going to opine further on Craig's weird comments on my "Sports Things I Hate" post. First, I hope he was just being snarky. While I feel satisfied with my rebuttal to the "defining one's self by what one's hate" goofiness, I'm still shaking my head in confusion about the notion of "reveling" in hate. What does that even mean? Is it just another way of saying "wallowing" in hate? If so, that's more goofiness as listing pet peeves and expressing a level of hatred for those peeves does not suggest that I spend tons of time thinking about them. No. Like most people, I'm annoyed by a host of things I encounter in life and I don't believe it's the least bit unusual to occasionally speak of those things as things I hate.
Maybe it's just that I chose to speak of them on MY blog. What is a "blog"? It's an online journal. An online diary. An online log. It's short for "Web Log". I'm pretty sure Craig knows this. Is it unusual for those who keep a log or journal or diary to write about things which peeve or piss them off or even enrages them? I would say that constitutes a large portion of all the blogs I've ever seen. There's such a good amount of it that it seems appropriate to say that most people, including Craig "revels in hate" as much as I do, even if they don't express their negative feelings about an issue or topic in term of "hate".
But again, this "revel" thing is most curious. Are we "reveling" in hate when we live by these teachings:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hating-Evil
Is God reveling in hate for hating behaviors listed in Proverbs 6:16-19?
If one is asked about a series of bad behaviors, ideas, policies or laws, is one reveling in hate to affirm one hates them? Go ahead. Tell me there aren't a number of each of those things that you would deny hating! Tell me there are no songs which, when they come on the radio you quickly change the station thinking or saying, "I hate that song!" Or a commercial on TV. Tell me there are no commercials you hate.
Of course, while some behaviors...like child abuse...enrage and would be considered...I presume..."OK" to hate, there are a host of minor offenses and annoyances which provoke an "I hate that" response. Whether one creates a list of such things on "hates" or responds to a list presented by someone else which turns out to be things one "hates", how is the expression "reveling" in hate? I just don't get it.
In these cases, such as my post of sports things I hate, "hate" is just an expression of the mostly reflexive negative response to exposure to those things. I don't see how listing them can be considered "reveling" in hate, "wallowing" in hate, being consumed or obsessed with those things one says one hates. Even serious things...like child abuse...is not something with which I'm consumed 24/7. But I most definitely hate it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I hate that Craig felt the need to give me shit about my list of sports things I hate. What is he "reveling" that he felt that need? Was he still taken aback by my lack of ecstatic joy over the Chiefs' Super Bowl victory due to a stupid and unnecessary rule change provoked by whining...which I hate? Is he simply insisting I must have the same level of regard or disregard as for things as we see Dan insisting we do? Really. I'm flummoxed! I hope this post doesn't upset him!
Please tell me you were just being snarky.
9 comments:
I think you misunderstand, and certainly give me too much credit.
If you want to post about things you "hate", you do you. I don't think any of those things are worthy of "hate", but you do you. If you choose to take snark seriously and need to write one more post about how I'm pissing in your Cap'n Crunch, you do you.
In all seriousness, I think it's a bit strange to dedicate so much energy and "hate" into things that are minor inconveniences at best. I do think it's a bit strange for someone who's a believer to spend so much time and effort focusing on things you "hate" and then putting in the effort to write multiple blog posts about it. But, you do you.
Or maybe it's that you communicate that your "hate" for these things and your views on NFL OT are something more than your subjective complaints that the world isn't arranged for your pleasure.
Seriously, get over it and chill out.
You do you, and I've never (not once) been angry, upset, mad, pissed, or anything else. And I couldn't care less how you feel about KC. If you want to expend the time and energy on these sorts of negative,"hate" posts you do you. How about not getting upset when someone disagrees with you.
Ah! So you're saying you were being snarky??? That's good. I was truly concerned that you didn't just have a strangely wild hair up your ass. As you surely know, things like snark and sarcasm do not necessarily come across as such in this medium. That's why I mentioned my hope that you were being snarky right off the bat!
But again, to say "I hate Brussels sprouts" does not suggest a serious problem in any way, shape or form, except with Brussels sprouts. To add a list of other vegetables one might hate is also not deserving of denigration, as it's just a trivial exercise in small talk.
"In all seriousness, I think it's a bit strange to dedicate so much energy and "hate" into things that are minor inconveniences at best."
In all seriousness, I think it's a bit strange that you think I've dedicated "much" energy at all into posting this list of inconveniences. I certainly didn't break a sweat, figuratively or otherwise. If any was expended at all, it was in restricted my list of peeves to that related to sports, as it wasn't nearly an exhaustive list of all things which peeve me. Go ahead. Pretend you don't have a large list of your own. Take a single minute to list any of them and I've no doubt it would be considerable. To say that isn't true just wouldn't be true. It's just life.
" I do think it's a bit strange for someone who's a believer to spend so much time and effort focusing on things you "hate" and then putting in the effort to write multiple blog posts about it."
Again, I think it's far stranger for you to suppose I spend a great deal of time focusing on things I "hate", but more so suggesting I'm unique in putting in effort to write multiple blog posts about things I dislike. I've been reviewing four years of you doing that very thing. You might use the expression, "I hate it when..." but you're just using different words to express the same negative response to one issue or another. This post constitutes merely 2 which relates to "things I hate about...whatever". Stan does a weekly roundup about things which he hates, things which peeve him, things which he finds worthy of expressing some form of condescension or derision. But you do you, Craig.
"Or maybe it's that you communicate that your "hate" for these things and your views on NFL OT are something more than your subjective complaints that the world isn't arranged for your pleasure."
Well...it's not! Nor is it for anyone else any more or less than it is for me.
Actually, since The Fall, it's arranged pretty well for our displeasure, now that you mention it. But despite all the crap, I enjoy life quite well, as I have much for which I'm grateful. Doesn't mean I'm unaware of the crap. Life is more negotiating the crap and sailing clear waters to the point where one would be justified in spending more effort than either of us do pointing it all out.
"Seriously, get over it and chill out."
This is funny. Must be more snark rather than a legit presumption I'm not chill despite the crap.
"You do you, and I've never (not once) been angry, upset, mad, pissed, or anything else."
Sure.
"And I couldn't care less how you feel about KC."
Sure.
"If you want to expend the time and energy on these sorts of negative,"hate" posts you do you."
Once again, I appreciate your permission.
"How about not getting upset when someone disagrees with you."
Upset? This is like Dan calling me an angry old white guy. Indeed, your entire response to my "Sports Things I Hate" post is the inverse of what you "hate" from Dan. You chide him for daring to suggest you be as outraged at, say, Trump as he is. Now, you're giving me the same type of crap for not dismissing these peeves as you do. Ironic, no?
Not exactly. I might have been using snark and "satire" to (badly) make the point that these pet peeves are both subjective, and unworthy of "hate".
...all while giving more weight to the common use of the term "hate" to signify one's objection to or displeasure with things which peeve. And again, you're snark and satire is you insisting I must not object to things things as calmly as you might (assuming you've a problem at all with the specific points listed...which is neither here nor there) in the same way Dan insists you must hate Trump to the same degree he does. But if I had instead chosen to say, "I dislike" or "I oppose", what true difference would it have made? Are my points unworthy of disliking them or opposing them?
As to "subjective", of course these are MY feelings about these things I listed. So what? I get to do that. Indeed, I think we can all dispense with pointing out that obvious description of anything we oppose regardless of how serious the issue. It's a given that when giving one's perspective on any topic that perspective is, by definition, subjective and that's OK.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Your use of the term "hate" to describe your list of minor irritants overstates your actual feelings, or minimizes the meaning of "hate", and you acknowledge that your feelings are subjective. Thanks for agreeing, my work here is done.
Looking forward to the Bears draft. They have an interesting choice between drafting the "best" QB available who clearly doesn't seem to want to play there, or going against the conventional wisdom and getting Fields another WR. I suspect that they'll draft Williams, who they'll likely play immediately, and who'll end up being another QB disappointment. It's mildly amusing that those trying to put a positive spin on this draft pick have to go back to Sid Luckman to find a Bears QB that's been a franchise QB.
You, do you. Hate away. It's all good. If it makes you happy to hate things, than I don't want to stand in your way.
"Thanks for reinforcing my point. Your use of the term "hate" to describe your list of minor irritants overstates your actual feelings, or minimizes the meaning of "hate", and you acknowledge that your feelings are subjective. Thanks for agreeing, my work here is done."
1. I'm truly stunned there was any confusion about my use of the term "hate" is expressing my displeasure with the various peeves listed. But you do you.
2. I'm also somewhat amazed that the subjectivity of my list would be a point of confusion for you given it was a list of things I hate, not a list of objective truths.
3. Given "hate" is defined as intense or passionate dislike, I don't see how I've overstated my feelings nor minimized that meaning by my use in describing my intense dislike for those things I listed. If I was speaking of people, rather than of behaviors, rules, tendencies and the like of sports related things, then you might have a point. For example, I hate so much about LeBron James, yet I've expressed no hate for him personally. He says and does incredibly stupid things that I hate to hear him speak and I certainly hate seeing him prance around like he's all that.
4. Still not seeing how my lighthearted listing of sports things I hate is rightly regarded by you as "reveling". But you do you.
5. I find it confusing to hear you suggest that I might be "happy" "hating". That's f**king goofy, so it must be more snark.
6. You couldn't stand in my way if you were actually standing in my way.
As to the Bears' draft, I'm quite eager to see what happens. I've long ago rejected the notion that one can put any faith whatsoever in any college player. Way too many busts with regard to "can't miss" 1st rounders that I simply limit my anticipation to hopefulness than we don't draft one of those.
I've read enough reports on Willams which makes me believe he could be over-hyped, or at least that no one should regard him as a sure thing. Not following college ball puts me at a greater disadvantage with regard whether or not anyone, particularly the hapless Bears, has picked well.
In any case, I've seen reasonable arguments for both replacing Fields with Williams as well as keeping Fields and dealing the pick for more possibilities. The Bears have lots of needs and that might actually be the better move, given all college prospects are not proven on the pro level. Potential doesn't go all that far when stepping up to the pros. Fields has shown improvement in some areas, and was markedly better after returning from his last injury. Another good wide-out and upgrades on the O-line could do wonders.
There is one prospect who I think is worth pursuing given the report I read about him. I don't recall his name or school, but he's a big tight end who has wildly surpassed all tight end records. I like Cole Kmet, and having him and a new guy potentially better would be akin to having another wide-out if the report wasn't just hype.
One thing is certain...it's never good for a Bears fan to get the hopes up too high. These days, the same could be said for Chicago pro sports in general.
Yeah, this stuff isn't worth fighting over.
Yeah, Jesse. I wish Craig hadn't chose to pick a fight over my citing things about sports that bug me. However, sports talk is often about such things, with each side taking an opposing position one any of them and more. Such "arguments" are a fine diversion from arguments on more serious subjects. One needs a breather now and then.
Post a Comment