Well, here I have my first short story. I wrote it during my senior year of high school in a sudden burst of inspiration- or maybe it was Mad Cow disease. Either way, the story was done largely in the form you see it here in about twenty minutes. Enjoy.
Remembrance
They ran around the jungle gym, shouting and laughing, lost in the joyful oblivion that could only be identified as a symptom of childhood. It was paradise, sheer and absolute. Nothing could take their happiness away.
Twelve-year-old Robert opened his eyes. That day had been five years ago; yet it somehow seemed like just yesterday that his older brother and he had played tag in the park down the street from their house. Robert wanted it to be just yesterday. If it were, today couldn’t happen, and Robert and his older brother could still be happy together, still playing, still innocent.
His parents had told him that John wouldn’t be coming home in the near future. They didn’t know that he knew more than that, that John would never come home again. They also didn’t know that he knew why. He had overheard the man in uniform, when he described the circumstances of John’s death. John was a hero, the man in uniform had said.
The insurgents had come from a mosque declared off-limits to the soldiers because the locals didn’t want it damaged. John had held his ground while the others ran for cover. He had kept his rifle level, aiming carefully, giving his comrades precious seconds and drawing fire to himself. A grenade had landed nearby. John had thrown it back and kept firing. Two more grenades came in. John hadn’t stood a chance. He had died where he had stood, finger on the trigger of an empty rifle.
Robert’s mother had immediately broken down. His father had stood there, expressionless, a cold anger rising up. Then something snapped, and he sagged into a chair. Robert had never seen his father look so old.
“Can you teach me how to play your guitar?” Robert pleaded.
“I can’t, Rob. I have too much homework tonight. Maybe another time.”
John must have seen the look of bitter disappointment on Robert’s face. This was, after all, the third time his younger brother had asked him in a week. He sighed and said, “All right. I’ll teach you the strings. Now, this is the C string, and this...”
The man in uniform had tried to break the news lightly, knowing that Robert’s mother was pregnant. He made a point of saying that John was a shoo-in for the Medal of Honor. Robert wanted to know how a metal star made up for John being dead. He wanted to know why John was dead. He couldn’t be dead. He was John. He couldn’t be both at the same time. He was the one that was always saving someone (usually Robert) from bullies. He was the captain of his school’s football team. He had tossed linebackers aside like they were made of marshmallows. He had been trained by the world’s best military. The good guys in the movies always lived, even when they were fighting armies single-handedly. Why had John failed to do the same? Why did actors in movies survive, while John died? The bad guys couldn’t be that tough.
One by one, the kids were yanked to their feet by strong, tanned hands. They each held a bewildered look on their face, as they tried to figure out who the guy was who had interrupted them. Was he a teacher? He certainly looked old enough, but his face showed a youthful anger that teachers never expressed. They watched as he helped the boy they had been beating up to his feet.
“What’s going on here?” the stranger demanded, looking them each in the eye.
The other boy spoke up. “They stole my Game Boy.”
The stranger turned to the other three, his face transformed into a mask of fury. “Give it back to him right now,” he commanded.
The trio may have been bullies, but they knew when to follow an order. One of them reluctantly reached into his pocket and produced the toy, then proceeded to slowly hand it over to its rightful owner.
“Now beat it,” the stranger said. The boys didn’t have to be told twice. They ran to the other end of the playground. John sighed. He turned to Robert. “I thought Mom told you not to bring that thing to school. You knew that it was going to get you into trouble.”
“I just wanted to show it to my friends,” Robert whimpered. He didn’t want to disobey his mother; his friends had pressured him into bringing the toy to school. John seemed to understand this. He sighed again and shook his head.
“Well, we obviously have to tell Mom what happened,” John said after a few moments. “She isn’t going to like this, but I’ll try to soften her up.”
That was John, all right. He was always Robert’s hero. No matter when or where Robert got into trouble, John was there to help him out. Now there was no way Robert could repay his debt. Why couldn’t he be there to help John out, when John needed him the most? Of course, Robert couldn’t go with John when John was called to Iraq. He wished he could, however.
“I have to board the plane now,” John said to Robert. He had already said his goodbyes to Mom and Dad; he always saved Robert for last. “We won’t be seeing each other for a while, so I want you to have this, to remember me by.” John took the chain with his guitar pick off his neck and put it around Robert’s. He kept the pick on the chain so he could play any guitar, any place.
“One other thing,” John said. “Whatever else you do, I want you to be me,” he gestured to their mom, who was just beginning to show the first signs of pregnancy, “but I also want you to be yourself.”
Robert was still puzzled. What did that mean? John had offered no explanation.
It was a huge event. Everyone was coming to the Battle of the Bands, if for nothing else than a cheap concert. Robert sat halfway up, listening to screeching guitars, cracking voices, and banging drums. He wasn’t interested in these clowns; he was merely waiting for his big brother’s band, nicknamed Quick Fix, to make their appearance. He wasn’t the only one. Half the crowd stood up and cheered when John and his band mates walked on stage. They played through a variety of cover songs and their own originals. John’s performance was flawless. He never forgot a line or chord, never hit the wrong string, never made a single mistake. The other members of Quick Fix were equally perfect, and the audience showed their approval. Quick Fix won the Battle, receiving a trophy and gift certificates for their efforts. The next day, the members of Quick Fix, and especially John and Robert, were the most popular students in the school.
Robert took the pick off his neck and looked at it. He thought of what his brother had given him and everyone else. Then he remembered his soon-to-be baby brother. Suddenly, he knew what John had meant.
Robert’s parents looked up when he entered the room. Robert strode over to his bewildered mother, crouched down, and addressed her swollen belly. “I’ll be him,” he said, “but I won’t die.” He then stood up and walked out, leaving his parents utterly confused.
They heard him walk up the stairs. A few minutes later, a few uncertain notes from an electric guitar came floating down from above. The notes stumbled at first, but they quickly grew in strength and confidence. Before long, the notes smoothed out into a slow, thoughtful riff that seemed to echo throughout the house. Robert’s mom broke down into tears. His father slowly smiled, the first time he had done so in three days. “He’s going to be all right,” he said, standing up. “Rob’s going to be all right.”
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Guardian, Kate Hilpern, and Freedomain Radio: A Critical Analysis.
As mentioned in my last blog post (i.e. a few minutes ago) I am a member of Freedomain Radio, and thus paid special attention to an article by Kate Hilpern of British newspaper The Guardian.
This article can be found here, now, live and in color.
Of course, being the kind of guy who spits on my knuckles and jumps up at the slightest sign of injustice and adversity, I was compelled to write a paragraph by paragraph critical analysis of the article's content, tone and overall quality. There are so many people exalting the article as the greatest muckraking expose (put an accent mark on that last "e," if you don't mind) of all time that I can't help but post my response in a place where it'll hopefully be read:
(note: by "paragraph by paragraph" I mean that each paragraph in this response exactly matches the sequence of paragraphs in the article itself.)
A detailed analysis of Kate Hilpern's article:
Paragraph one.
We have an immediate problem here. The article starts out speaking from the mother's perspective. The title and subtitle smack of this, and make it sound more like a missing person mystery.
Paragraph two.
The story continues from the mother's perspective.
Paragraph three.
The article implies that Tom's choice of the form letter is simply him parroting what the website telling him to do, instead of deciding that the rough layout of Stef's suggestion for the letter was the best way to go.
Paragraph four.
The mother (henceforth referred to by her name for brevity's sake) comes across as stalkerish and calculating. "She worked out that if she ordered a cup of tea, he would have to listen to her for about a minute." She planned the attack ahead of time, hoping to trip his wires and get him to come back into the fold. It doesn't say what else she said besides "If you ever want to come home you can." I'm betting there's more to it than simply that. Barbara also doesn't get that the content of the site is what matters, not the site itself; she also can't conceive that "an ordinary family" might not be a *good* family.
Paragraph five.
Barbara admits that Tom did not follow her expectations; that he'd be living with her until he was 40. This is chilling; what kind of parent expects, much less wants, their child to be living at home at that age?
Paragraph six.
A charming little paragraph on special trips to this and that place. This, of course, ignores that such nice, happy rainbow infested days would not have been the norm. The paragraph also takes care to mention the opinion of one of Tom's older brothers, because John thinks that they had a great childhood.
Paragraph seven.
Nothing special to report here, except that it shows that as soon as something like computers entered the home, they were considered to be often more valuable to spend time with than the rest of the family. If the family is so great, then why all the computer time relative to family interaction?
Paragraph eight.
Barbara admits that she didn't often make any special effort to show interest in her childrens' lives or communicate with them. Also, apparently Tom is a really, really nice guy. I'm sure that the necklace wasn't cheap. So why is such a nice guy so wrong for deciding that he'd rather not be around her anymore?
Paragraph nine.
A generalization is made which implies that any and all family ties should (instead of simply can) be cut. It also makes an offhanded and sarcastic generalization that the only friends you'd obtain by engaging in the ideas discussed at FDR would be the other members of FDR. When paired with the tone of the paragraph overall, this would be conceived as a negative connotation to the unsuspecting reader.
Paragraph ten.
A generalization is made on what is primarily discussed in the chatroom and what the call in shows are about.
Paragraph eleven.
Nothing in particular about the content itself, but it's written completely outside of Tom's perspective and doesn't make any attempt to reason about his motives for his behavior or his interest in FDR.
Paragraph twelve.
By now it seems that Barbara herself might as well have written this article for all the objectivity it displays.
Paragraph thirteen.
More from Barbara's perspective. Only one minor specific given about Tom's "accusations," along with an a priori denial of his allegation. No reasoning given as to why it wasn't true.
Paragraph fourteen.
More from Barbara's perspective. "We really did try our best." Doubtful. "Who does have a perfect relationship?" Who does live freely? I mean, since nobody does, there's no sense in trying to live freely, right?
Paragraph fifteen.
"One day" on a dark and stormy night, "when Barbara got in from work, Tom had gone." Dun-dun-dun! *Lightning flash.* "She read the note and was devastated." The poor, poor mother's illusion of security shattered! "For a moment," actually a day, until further stalking confirmed the opposite- "she wondered if he had run away with his girlfriend, (who has also since cut off her family to devote herself to FDR),"-the disease spreads!- "but she and Tom had recently split up." Gasp! The plot thickens! The entire paragraph is written like a Lifetime movie, not a news article. It is clearly meant to keep us implanted in Barbara's shoes and make us sympathize with her, while Tom remains the ambiguous, rarely seen figure in the story.
Paragraph sixteen.
"Then Barbara thought of the website and began to investigate." i.e. She began to stalk. Note how, when she realizes what he's done, how she jumps to the conclusion that since he's dropped her from his life, that he will instantly spiral into the oblivion of total failure. Also note how Nick joins in on the stalking.
Paragraph seventeen.
The poor, dear mother has barely caught tantalizing glimpses of her son.
Paragraph eighteen.
The poor, dear mother struggles to live without her son. In the meantime, her son continues to live without her, without stalking her in turn.
Paragraph nineteen.
Barbara keeps tabs on Tom enough to know that he's not living within easy stalking distance anymore. She also wants to be part of his life-never mind whether he wants her to be a part of it or not.
Paragraph twenty.
Policy statement from CIC that refers to cults in general, with no actual statement that FDR is a cult. However, pairing that with Barbara's statement that she uses this policy statement as an excuse to further harass Tom insinuates that FDR is a cult.
Paragraph twenty one.
There is an assertation that FDR is what Tom considers his new "family," with no statement from him that this is what Tom really thinks. (Not that there's anything wrong with such thinking, necessarily.) Barbara admits to more and more stalking, even obsessing over Tom's actions online.
Paragraph twenty two.
Poor, dear mother isn't allowed to stalk anymore.
Paragraph twenty three.
Twenty three paragraphs in and we finally get some perspective from the guy who's apparently inciting good people to disobedience. Hopefully the uninitiated reader will not lose this in the middle of the sob story as told by Barbara through her ghost writing persona Kate.
Paragraph twenty four.
In very, very briefly discussing Stef's background Kate fails to mention that he also holds a master's degree in history, that he is a well educated man. It also implies that he is a hypocrite who shouldn't be having his own baby because he doesn't believe that there's anybody who is an example of a truly good parent, never mind that he can and probably has learned from the mistakes of others and intends to become the exception to this rule.
Paragraph twenty five.
Another all too rare quote from the actual person being accused of being the ringleader of this *dangerous, online cult.*
Paragraph twenty six.
The paragraph insinuates that subscription is necessary in order to participate in Freedomain Radio. This is so obviously false that it must be pointed out and laughed at. The critics also falsely assert that members never get closer to anyone else but each other (while insinuating that getting closer to each other is bad) and that if they're going to go to therapy, they'll waste valuable money trying to tell the therapist what they're already telling themselves.
Paragraph twenty seven.
Ah, finally, a concession of fact. However, this is immediately negated by the assertion that FDR is simply a trivial outlet for teen angst.
Paragraph twenty eight.
Very brief (and most likely skewed) summary of a call in show from April which insinuates that Stef considers Tom's birth an intrinsic form of abuse. Small wonder why Tom wouldn't want to talk to Kate.
Paragraph twenty nine.
Kate probably misrepresents the conversation further here, and further demonstrates her complete lack of journalistic ability by including her personal thoughts on the matter.
Paragraph thirty.
Another false line drawn between cult awareness and reasoning behind why someone might not want to talk to a nosy sensationalist. Also commits a serious tactical error by helping Stefan call this article out for what it really is, by quoting his thoughts on the matter directly.
Paragraph thirty one.
Apparently removing one brick causes the whole house of cards to fall down. Barbara admits that the situation has actually improved her relationship with Tom's brother, but apparently fails to equate this to the reason why Tom left.
Paragraph thirty two.
Another attempt to paint Stef as a hypocrite.
Paragraph thirty three.
There is hope for Tom and the poor, dear mother! But maybe not, because Tom is decisive and may not want to jeopardize his mental well being for the sake of his mother!
Paragraph thirty four.
The article begins, ends, and consists almost entirely of Barbara's perspective.
Conclusion:
Pulitzer would be proud; Kate has just written an article that is a throwback to the old days of yellow journalism. There is almost no attempt to see things from any perspective but Barbara's, and doesn't respect Tom's privacy in the slightest. Not entirely surprising, but saddening nonetheless.
This article can be found here, now, live and in color.
Of course, being the kind of guy who spits on my knuckles and jumps up at the slightest sign of injustice and adversity, I was compelled to write a paragraph by paragraph critical analysis of the article's content, tone and overall quality. There are so many people exalting the article as the greatest muckraking expose (put an accent mark on that last "e," if you don't mind) of all time that I can't help but post my response in a place where it'll hopefully be read:
(note: by "paragraph by paragraph" I mean that each paragraph in this response exactly matches the sequence of paragraphs in the article itself.)
A detailed analysis of Kate Hilpern's article:
Paragraph one.
We have an immediate problem here. The article starts out speaking from the mother's perspective. The title and subtitle smack of this, and make it sound more like a missing person mystery.
Paragraph two.
The story continues from the mother's perspective.
Paragraph three.
The article implies that Tom's choice of the form letter is simply him parroting what the website telling him to do, instead of deciding that the rough layout of Stef's suggestion for the letter was the best way to go.
Paragraph four.
The mother (henceforth referred to by her name for brevity's sake) comes across as stalkerish and calculating. "She worked out that if she ordered a cup of tea, he would have to listen to her for about a minute." She planned the attack ahead of time, hoping to trip his wires and get him to come back into the fold. It doesn't say what else she said besides "If you ever want to come home you can." I'm betting there's more to it than simply that. Barbara also doesn't get that the content of the site is what matters, not the site itself; she also can't conceive that "an ordinary family" might not be a *good* family.
Paragraph five.
Barbara admits that Tom did not follow her expectations; that he'd be living with her until he was 40. This is chilling; what kind of parent expects, much less wants, their child to be living at home at that age?
Paragraph six.
A charming little paragraph on special trips to this and that place. This, of course, ignores that such nice, happy rainbow infested days would not have been the norm. The paragraph also takes care to mention the opinion of one of Tom's older brothers, because John thinks that they had a great childhood.
Paragraph seven.
Nothing special to report here, except that it shows that as soon as something like computers entered the home, they were considered to be often more valuable to spend time with than the rest of the family. If the family is so great, then why all the computer time relative to family interaction?
Paragraph eight.
Barbara admits that she didn't often make any special effort to show interest in her childrens' lives or communicate with them. Also, apparently Tom is a really, really nice guy. I'm sure that the necklace wasn't cheap. So why is such a nice guy so wrong for deciding that he'd rather not be around her anymore?
Paragraph nine.
A generalization is made which implies that any and all family ties should (instead of simply can) be cut. It also makes an offhanded and sarcastic generalization that the only friends you'd obtain by engaging in the ideas discussed at FDR would be the other members of FDR. When paired with the tone of the paragraph overall, this would be conceived as a negative connotation to the unsuspecting reader.
Paragraph ten.
A generalization is made on what is primarily discussed in the chatroom and what the call in shows are about.
Paragraph eleven.
Nothing in particular about the content itself, but it's written completely outside of Tom's perspective and doesn't make any attempt to reason about his motives for his behavior or his interest in FDR.
Paragraph twelve.
By now it seems that Barbara herself might as well have written this article for all the objectivity it displays.
Paragraph thirteen.
More from Barbara's perspective. Only one minor specific given about Tom's "accusations," along with an a priori denial of his allegation. No reasoning given as to why it wasn't true.
Paragraph fourteen.
More from Barbara's perspective. "We really did try our best." Doubtful. "Who does have a perfect relationship?" Who does live freely? I mean, since nobody does, there's no sense in trying to live freely, right?
Paragraph fifteen.
"One day" on a dark and stormy night, "when Barbara got in from work, Tom had gone." Dun-dun-dun! *Lightning flash.* "She read the note and was devastated." The poor, poor mother's illusion of security shattered! "For a moment," actually a day, until further stalking confirmed the opposite- "she wondered if he had run away with his girlfriend, (who has also since cut off her family to devote herself to FDR),"-the disease spreads!- "but she and Tom had recently split up." Gasp! The plot thickens! The entire paragraph is written like a Lifetime movie, not a news article. It is clearly meant to keep us implanted in Barbara's shoes and make us sympathize with her, while Tom remains the ambiguous, rarely seen figure in the story.
Paragraph sixteen.
"Then Barbara thought of the website and began to investigate." i.e. She began to stalk. Note how, when she realizes what he's done, how she jumps to the conclusion that since he's dropped her from his life, that he will instantly spiral into the oblivion of total failure. Also note how Nick joins in on the stalking.
Paragraph seventeen.
The poor, dear mother has barely caught tantalizing glimpses of her son.
Paragraph eighteen.
The poor, dear mother struggles to live without her son. In the meantime, her son continues to live without her, without stalking her in turn.
Paragraph nineteen.
Barbara keeps tabs on Tom enough to know that he's not living within easy stalking distance anymore. She also wants to be part of his life-never mind whether he wants her to be a part of it or not.
Paragraph twenty.
Policy statement from CIC that refers to cults in general, with no actual statement that FDR is a cult. However, pairing that with Barbara's statement that she uses this policy statement as an excuse to further harass Tom insinuates that FDR is a cult.
Paragraph twenty one.
There is an assertation that FDR is what Tom considers his new "family," with no statement from him that this is what Tom really thinks. (Not that there's anything wrong with such thinking, necessarily.) Barbara admits to more and more stalking, even obsessing over Tom's actions online.
Paragraph twenty two.
Poor, dear mother isn't allowed to stalk anymore.
Paragraph twenty three.
Twenty three paragraphs in and we finally get some perspective from the guy who's apparently inciting good people to disobedience. Hopefully the uninitiated reader will not lose this in the middle of the sob story as told by Barbara through her ghost writing persona Kate.
Paragraph twenty four.
In very, very briefly discussing Stef's background Kate fails to mention that he also holds a master's degree in history, that he is a well educated man. It also implies that he is a hypocrite who shouldn't be having his own baby because he doesn't believe that there's anybody who is an example of a truly good parent, never mind that he can and probably has learned from the mistakes of others and intends to become the exception to this rule.
Paragraph twenty five.
Another all too rare quote from the actual person being accused of being the ringleader of this *dangerous, online cult.*
Paragraph twenty six.
The paragraph insinuates that subscription is necessary in order to participate in Freedomain Radio. This is so obviously false that it must be pointed out and laughed at. The critics also falsely assert that members never get closer to anyone else but each other (while insinuating that getting closer to each other is bad) and that if they're going to go to therapy, they'll waste valuable money trying to tell the therapist what they're already telling themselves.
Paragraph twenty seven.
Ah, finally, a concession of fact. However, this is immediately negated by the assertion that FDR is simply a trivial outlet for teen angst.
Paragraph twenty eight.
Very brief (and most likely skewed) summary of a call in show from April which insinuates that Stef considers Tom's birth an intrinsic form of abuse. Small wonder why Tom wouldn't want to talk to Kate.
Paragraph twenty nine.
Kate probably misrepresents the conversation further here, and further demonstrates her complete lack of journalistic ability by including her personal thoughts on the matter.
Paragraph thirty.
Another false line drawn between cult awareness and reasoning behind why someone might not want to talk to a nosy sensationalist. Also commits a serious tactical error by helping Stefan call this article out for what it really is, by quoting his thoughts on the matter directly.
Paragraph thirty one.
Apparently removing one brick causes the whole house of cards to fall down. Barbara admits that the situation has actually improved her relationship with Tom's brother, but apparently fails to equate this to the reason why Tom left.
Paragraph thirty two.
Another attempt to paint Stef as a hypocrite.
Paragraph thirty three.
There is hope for Tom and the poor, dear mother! But maybe not, because Tom is decisive and may not want to jeopardize his mental well being for the sake of his mother!
Paragraph thirty four.
The article begins, ends, and consists almost entirely of Barbara's perspective.
Conclusion:
Pulitzer would be proud; Kate has just written an article that is a throwback to the old days of yellow journalism. There is almost no attempt to see things from any perspective but Barbara's, and doesn't respect Tom's privacy in the slightest. Not entirely surprising, but saddening nonetheless.
Introductory:
Well, folks, here it is: the first official post on my first official, independent, blog. In this blog you're going to find not only my semi coherent, sometimes seemingly a priori ramblings, but also stories, poems, dissertations, recipes, revolutionary manifestos, blurbs and thoughts on stuff I find around teh Intarweb, jokes, puzzles, and the occasional scream.
Background on me: I'm a college age sometimes college student in the first year of living completely on my own. That means I'm young, which means that I'm not exactly an expert on anything. However, my age does not denote automatic ignorance either. I love to read, I love to write, I love to watch movies and play computer games. I'm a hopeless romantic, an individualist, and yes, I really DO wear that hat. I have a flair for the dramatic, and have been known to both exaggerate and understate in the same sentence. As you have probably already seen, I obviously use a fair bit of sarcasm as well.
Notes on how this blog will work: I will attempt to update it at least once a week. There will be no particular rhyme or reason for what I choose to post, other than what I feel is appropriate for that particular time. As for reader input: it's absolutely welcome, even if you're going to troll. Hell, I've trolled too. I know it can be fun. Just don't be malicious about it, and don't attack other people who choose to post here. If I decide to take action and delete a post of yours, you are free to PM me and contest my decision, and I'll gladly hear you out as to why your post should remain up.
One more disclaimer: THIS IS TEH INTARWEB. Act accordingly.
Background on me: I'm a college age sometimes college student in the first year of living completely on my own. That means I'm young, which means that I'm not exactly an expert on anything. However, my age does not denote automatic ignorance either. I love to read, I love to write, I love to watch movies and play computer games. I'm a hopeless romantic, an individualist, and yes, I really DO wear that hat. I have a flair for the dramatic, and have been known to both exaggerate and understate in the same sentence. As you have probably already seen, I obviously use a fair bit of sarcasm as well.
Notes on how this blog will work: I will attempt to update it at least once a week. There will be no particular rhyme or reason for what I choose to post, other than what I feel is appropriate for that particular time. As for reader input: it's absolutely welcome, even if you're going to troll. Hell, I've trolled too. I know it can be fun. Just don't be malicious about it, and don't attack other people who choose to post here. If I decide to take action and delete a post of yours, you are free to PM me and contest my decision, and I'll gladly hear you out as to why your post should remain up.
One more disclaimer: THIS IS TEH INTARWEB. Act accordingly.
Freedomain Radio: Insight from a member.
Well, the story goes like this: there is a website known as Freedomain Radio where a gentleman by the name of Stefan Molyneux runs a podcast series, forum, book corner and chatroom to discuss the ideas he puts forth as a methodology for figuring out how to better one's life, particularly in terms of personal relationships. A major focus is on familial relationships, the effect they can have on an average individual, and how those relationships are so often utterly twisted into something monstrous and inhuman. When the familial relationship in question is particularly bad, and no other recourse is possible, Stefan does remind people that they don't have to be in that relationship. The process of extricating yourself from such a damaging relationship is known on the site as "deFOOing."
Of course, both members and haters have taken this all and run with it, twisted it around and made it sound like Stefan thinks that everyone should cut EVERYONE out of their lives who doesn't PERFECTLY match the moral ideals that Stef has laid out. More specifically, haters have taken the ideas of FDR to mean that ALL familial relationships should AUTOMATICALLY be cut off. This is simply not the case. As someone who has deFOOed, I can tell you that I only cut ties with members of my family as they proved to be more and more negative influences on my life. For instance, I cut ties with my parents after they advocated and enacted violence and verbal abuse upon me. Same with my brother. As for my sister and her family, I cut ties with them after they tried to dictate morality to me and threatened to cut me off when I wanted to have a drink for my 21st birthday. A. Drink. I'm one of only a handful of FDR members who has actually gone through a deFOO.
In conclusion: FDR has been totally misinterpreted by a great deal of people, and I fear that this misinterpretation will be spread to people who will thus have no interest in exploring the site at all, or worse, will come onto the site as trolls and then think that what they were told is confirmed when Stef brings the banhammer down on them for being adversarial, condescending and totally closed to any ideas but their own preconceptions.
Of course, both members and haters have taken this all and run with it, twisted it around and made it sound like Stefan thinks that everyone should cut EVERYONE out of their lives who doesn't PERFECTLY match the moral ideals that Stef has laid out. More specifically, haters have taken the ideas of FDR to mean that ALL familial relationships should AUTOMATICALLY be cut off. This is simply not the case. As someone who has deFOOed, I can tell you that I only cut ties with members of my family as they proved to be more and more negative influences on my life. For instance, I cut ties with my parents after they advocated and enacted violence and verbal abuse upon me. Same with my brother. As for my sister and her family, I cut ties with them after they tried to dictate morality to me and threatened to cut me off when I wanted to have a drink for my 21st birthday. A. Drink. I'm one of only a handful of FDR members who has actually gone through a deFOO.
In conclusion: FDR has been totally misinterpreted by a great deal of people, and I fear that this misinterpretation will be spread to people who will thus have no interest in exploring the site at all, or worse, will come onto the site as trolls and then think that what they were told is confirmed when Stef brings the banhammer down on them for being adversarial, condescending and totally closed to any ideas but their own preconceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
