Feb 20, 2016

Pop-culture bullying - Oh yeah, it's damn real, and you are a loser too!

I want to take this opportunity to discuss and raise awareness regarding a grave social issue traumatizing millions of people on a daily basis, both in real life and social media. It is called pop-culture bullying.

Fans/followers of any particular pop-culture phenomenon (hereinafter referred to as superiors) look down on people who haven't had the chance to experience the said phenomenon or those who couldn't care less about such phenomena in general (hereinafter teetered to as losers). In fact, it has been scientifically proven that such superiors make judgements about losers as intellectually barren, worthless souls within moments of encountering them. In addition, the superiors form the me/us vs. they social delineations faster than the well-established biological norm of 180 milliseconds of coming in contact with perceived threats.

One striking aspect of this bullying is that the superiors of one pop-culture phenomenon can be losers of another. This, of course, holds true for losers as well. Previous research findings indicate that  the superior:loser ratio for phenomena is generally 1:10,000. Studies also indicate that ratio of the phenomena in which individuals consider themselves as superiors to those in which they are considered as losers by others is approximately 1:10,000. The similarity in the ratios is so uncanny that some researchers have claimed that it may be universal constant similar to the speed of light. Further research is required to confirm/deny this claim.

Readers may identify as victims (losers) for several phenomena without having a friggin' clue about them being the culprits (superiors) in the few phenomena that tickle their brains. It is needless to reiterate that the several million losers (like you) need need support from other losers (like you) to resist the superiors in the respective phenomena. Superiors, on the other hand, must come to grip with the fact that what they consider themselves as superior in is just another pointless, annoying side effect of human evolution, which has resulted in the constant, demotivating struggle that humans have to be in with their relatively primitive bodies/brains.

In conclusion, it may me useful to remember that you are a loser in more aspects that you can possibly comprehend and that losers like you need support from other like-minded losers. Because you are always more of a loser than a superior, all self-identifying superiors need to chill and reflect on how much of a loser they really are on phenomena that they don't have a friggin' clue about.

Be supportive of losers because in all likelihood you are an equally big or bigger loser.

Jan 14, 2016

LGBT comic book characters

Hi, guys! Happy another-completed-revolution around the Sun. :)

Just thought of sharing New York Times video about LGBT characters in comics that J shared with me this . Pretty cool, don't you think?

Oct 11, 2015

My life, in a nutshell

So my friend Ray asked me a seemingly innocuous question on Whatsapp.

Ray: "Hey buddy, what's happening?"

This is my rant as a reply:

"I'm busy with a bunch of things. Work, music, boyfriend, socializing, reading, learning, etc.

I have recently started following politics because of the increasingly worrying situation in India for minorities--sexual or otherwise. So I've subscribed to Indian Express, Mint, and India Today on my Kindle. That's about an hour of reading and comprehending/framing opinions.

Plus, I'm part of a book club. We just read Still Alice by Lisa Genova (about a middle-aged researcher diagnosed run early-onset Alzheimer's). The other members and the discussions are very intellectually stimulating.

On the side, I'm reading Harry Potter series, Dune (Frank Herbert), India: A History (John Keaye), etc.

Music scene has been busy with two bands being really active. One of them (SpaceHuggers), in which I'm the primary songwriter, is planning to record an album. So that's a lot of preparation and working on songs.

Work goes on as usual.

Plus, when you are seeing someone for a bunch of years, socializing with the respective friend circles also becomes a lot of "work." That takes up a whole bunch of evenings.

In the middle of all of this, I'm trying to find some time for myself. For example, I watched today's match. :)

Sorry for the rant but I had fun summarizing my life to you.

Oct 1, 2015

My thoughts on the concept of nationalism

This is primarily inspired by the concepts of the historian Yuval Harari, the author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind + skim readings on the internet.

George Carlin said this: "I could never understand ethnic or national pride. Because to me, pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth. Being Irish isn't a skill, it's a f*cking genetic accident. You wouldn’t say "I’m proud to be 5"11". I’m proud to have a predisposition for colon cancer." So why would you be proud to be Irish, or proud to be Italian, or American or anything?"

Yes, nationalism is loyalty to something that we did not have any choice in attaining. I think it is inherently dangerous.

The Free Dictionary defines it as follows:

Nationalism (n.)

1. Devotion, especially excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. The belief that a particular cultural or ethnic group constitutes a distinct people deserving of political self-determination.

In history, nationalism worked as a concept when humans had align together to stay safe, and loyalty to one’s own society made sense. This is not the true anymore, is it?

Problems with it:

- It allows the authority/government to control the country on the premise of national pride.
- It has been, and is still, used as a propaganda tool to manipulate people into buying into the authority/government agenda (e.g., Nazi campaign in WWII. The Iraq/Iran wars, and Russia). So it is primarily used as a tool for controlling entire nations of people.
- It impedes relationship at levels above (international) and critical thinking toward one’s authority/government.
- It encourages xenophobia and racism.

I think loyalty to one’s nation does not have a social meaning. Until we find other planet with intelligent life worms, we should consider life as belonging to Earth. Instead of focusing on how to improve one’s own country, we should be focused on how to improve humanity—and on a wider scale, Earth—as a whole

- http://www.debate.org/debates/Nationalism-good-or-bad/1/
- https://www.quora.com/Is-nationalism-good-or-bad

(PS: If you want to read arguments against it, my literate/educated friends on FaceBook are presenting a whole bunch of counterpoints to this on this thread.)

Jul 7, 2015

Performing in front of an unreceptive audience

Musicians are often requested to play/perform songs in a private party environment where they are basically a part of the party party and are not performing as such for the party. If you are lucky, people can be genuinely interested in your music. Most times, however, they just want a change in the flow of the party up until then. They also want to do something cool – like singing along while someone plays a guitar.

In either situation, you can get interrupted distracted by people being disinterested in the performance or, even worse, loud conversations. As a performing musician, I’m used to such experiences and I modify my performance accordingly. However, if someone else is singing when I’m playing the guitar, they often feel so dejected that they ask me to stop the performance.

There are two things wrong here. People talking when people are playing/performing itself indicates selfishness and lack of respect toward the performers. However, if performers reciprocate by stopping abruptly, they are just being selfish and being unprofessional.

So here’s my suggestion – do not stop in the middle of a song!

So what to do? As a preventive strategy, I wait until it’s the right time (or as late as I possibly can) to bring out the guitar. Once the initial fervor has settled down, I am quick to take the guitar back out of the party floor to avoid such experiences. When these interruptions become annoying, finish the song and slyly get to your drink and get involved in a conversation. If you can guage the audience before starting the song, don’t start it at all.

Once again, I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t react to the audience. But please don’t stop midway through a song just because someone is talking loud.

Jul 2, 2015

Welcome to my strange mind

Parties are something that most people with at least a shred of extroversion look forward to. Even I, with my combination of introversion and social reclusiveness lurking in the background, look forward to parties as special gatherings where you find may find avenues for conversation that won't be available in a much more intimate setting.

Three weeks back, J had his birthday party at his apartment. There were about 15 people invited to make merry on the occasion. I was, as is usual in such situations, caught in a dilemma as to how long I should spend time with an individual or a group of individuals in conversations. I guess I want to be always on the move, thanks to a a mixture of my overenthusiastic host-itude, interest to explore options, and my hesitation to expose myself in in-depth conversations.

So I took the opportunity to carry around trays of the famous J cheese/onion dip and the assorted chips that go with it. This gave me options to introduce myself to strangers with warm introductions "Hey, would you like to try some of this? This is the dip that you keep hearing about." This would followed by the obligatory "Oh, you are so kind to bring it to us" and "Oh, wow. This is a very nice dip indeed" comments. Perfect social lubrication, if you ask me.

After hanging out with any particular group for a couple of minutes, I found that it's easy to slither out and seek another group and repeat the social rewards and positive reinforcement. Of course, I also used lines like "Can I pour you another drink?" to repeat the exercise of pleasantly detaching myself from conversations and getting these social rewards in return.

At the end of the night, during a conversation with J, I realized that I had hardly spent any time with people who might have wanted to spend more time with me. People from my workplace were all together in a group, which I paid as little/much attention to that I did to other groups.

I don't often feel like I need to meet people (even my friends) and have conversations with them. In fact, many people, including my dearest friends, have expressed their disappointment at how I don't make time for them. However, on occasions such as this, I often am able to assign myself a purpose/role (as a host and a nice guy), and thus am able to lubricate/sugarcoat these otherwise-daunting interactions.

During and after such parties, I am able to convince myself that spending time with these people is fun. This makes me ephemerally wish that I would have a more prolonged interactions with them at the party on other social occasions. But when it comes to executing this, I make myself so busy with other things that I hardly ever get myself involved in such situations.

Welcome to my mind. It's confusing, I agree. But that's how it works.

Jun 29, 2015

Less clichés, please!

Many of you must have read the news story about the mother of an openly gay man in Mumbai placing a matrimonial add for a suitable groom for her son.

I happen to personally know the son, Harish Iyer, who also happens to be a fellow blogger at The Pregnant Thought. He is very well known as a gay rights advocate. But he is probably even better known as a victim of childhood sexual abuse by his uncle. Although he sometimes comes across as an outspoken individual with a borderline narcissistic personality, his work in the LGBT rights scene is admirable.

Although I haven’t interacted in person with the mother Mrs. Padma Iyer, I have seen on several occasions such as Gay Bombay Parent’s Meets, Pride marches, and of course on television. Again, she deserves to be applauded for her undevoted support to her son’s activism.

So when I heard about the story first, I honestly thought it was a publicity stunt. Why? Because I had just learned that a Brahmin woman put a newspaper advertisement to find a Brahmin groom for her son.

To put things in perspective, gay marriage is not legal in India. In fact, being gay and having a same-sex physical relationship is considered illegal alongside other forms of non-vaginal intercourse. So, honestly, it sounded like a thunderous slap on the faces of the Hindutva brigade.

So I was happy. Why not, I thought? After all, such a story will push LGBT rights issue further into the mainstream and enable dinner conversations about sexual orientation in conservative families.

Of course, I had to grapple with the dichotomy because of the forced conformism aspect—this was an ad for forging a modern/liberal relationship but playing by the rules of the traditional/conservative arranged marriage. Is this not conceding to the perceived fallacies of modern liberated relationships and accepting to the so-called advantages of arranged marriages, which seems to only survive because of the societal/peer pressure?

But then again, this was a joke, wasn’t it? So everything is cool.

Apparently not, thanks to this article.

I did not react well to this.

I did cringe at all the Tam-Bram stereotype references. Harish Iyer finds a suitable boy, and it all just ads up http://t.co/NlNtZihLiF

Let me make my stance clear. I am okay with marriage/civil parternships between any two adult individuals as long as the ceremony consolidates an already established friendship/relationship. I have recently come across a research paper stating that marriages are successful after two to four years of friendship. That seems just about right.

I also think that screening of potential partners by the mutual knowledge likes/dislikes, shared interests/hobbies, and pure physical attributes as inclusion criteria is also fine. But when you add religion/race/caste as exclusion criteria because your family is not okay, it is retrogressive.

This article, however, gives us the impression that not only were Harish and his mom serious about the ad, the entire affair is going to be a copy-paste of the straight Tam-Bram arranged marriage situation. I sincerely hope that this is just the journalist’s hyperbole of the associated clichés.

In the background, however, I hope that this works out of Harish and his groom/partner.

(Photo: from The Hindu)