Friday, June 24, 2011

My Social Life, or Lack Thereof

   I was always socially awkward, and many people took advantage of that. I normally try to cover it with sarcasm or jokes that many take offense to. The reason I do this is because I have noticed from observing people, sarcasm is highly prevalent in conversations among average people. Although I have noticed that it is more damaging than helpful.

   One such example was this week, when I bumped into two acquaintances at school. One of them asked which course I was taking. I told her that I was taking core math. She asked if I was late to class, to which I responded that I just got out. I was then informed that she was late to class. Then I said the joke that was the equivalent of strike one at a baseball game, I jokingly said that I thought that she was an "OCD freak", which was my term of endearment to describe someone who was very meticulous. I did explain that it was a joke. I then took notice of the other acquaintance's makeup. I pulled the nerve together to ask why she was wearing so much makeup. Her response was that she was not wearing a lot of makeup, but that she had tanned. With all the health problems that suntanning brings I assume that anyone can figure out what my response was. If you assumed that I jokingly asked if she wanted to age quickly and get skin cancer, then you are absolutely correct. The second acquaintance then told the first acquaintance what I said. I then said that I had to go and the first acquaintance was headed my way. I said that it was nice talking to her (even though that was the furthest from the truth that I could go) and asked her which class she was taking. Her response was that the feeling was mutual. She then gave me social advice as in not to call people OCD freaks and not to make jokes about skin cancer. I then told her that I admired how meticulous she was, which was true. What someone can say about me is that I stumble over every single sentence if I get beyond my comfort zone, which is true.

   Although what one can see from my retelling of the conversation is that I am socially awkward, yet I desire a social life, I do not think that the second part of the statement is true. I have been told by my father, and countless other people that I need to learn how to make friends. When I am told this hackneyed statement, a few responses come to mind. One of them is that my social life is none of their business. Another response is to stop trying to take a cheap shot at my self-esteem, which would be mostly for my father since we have a complicated love/hate relationship (although, I do not really believe in love, I do believe in mutually beneficial relationships). And then, to sum it all up my final argument would be that a social life is overrated,  especially if you are different and have to make new friends and you always have the feeling that you do not fit in and will eventually be used and/or dumped.

    I do not mind reading all day. When I make friends in school I tend to keep them at a distance. I do not spend time with them on weekends and I do not tell them too much about my personal life. My main purpose for these friends is to have people to ask if I ever need any help, or if I have a feeling that I could use some advice when it comes to the class. I started college in Fall of 2010, and I soon came to realize that I was the laughingstock. Most people kept clear of me, although I did find two people with whom I acquainted myself with. I did not really care about a social life then, because I decided to focus on my school work. I did eat lunch with people, but I did not establish an emotional connection with them. I simply sat with them so I could talk about my favorite show, South Park, maybe even study together for the Classical Cultures quiz, since we had the same instructor.

  The reason I find a social life to be overrated is because, unless I find the right people for my personality type it will never happen. I do have acquaintances and one friend who I keep in touch with, but I am not the type of person who likes to go shopping with friends, going to the movies, etc every single weekend with a friends, or friends. I find these things annoying, because if you do them with the wrong person  they can be annoying, especially shopping. When I was younger the only reason that I used to wish that I had an active social life, was because I was taught that it was good to have friends, my sister was also a social butterfly, and I was bored every Friday night and Saturday because I could not watch TV because of the Jewish Sabbath. Every time I thought that I had a group of friends in my neighborhood, they managed to either demean me, or use me in some way. Let's just say that these "friendships" never worked out. I also find small talk to be very boring and tedious.

   On weekdays I do not care that my social life is lacking, as long as I have some way to entertain myself. I tend to hang out in the same places a lot, which does not bother me. However, what does bother me is when I go to a place so often that when I order a drink they remember my usual order, and what name to write on the cup of my drink. I guess that I like to keep myself at a distance. I am naive, and therefore I have to keep my guard up.

  I am not  like that with everybody. I do occasionally become somewhat friendly with a person, just that I do not trust him/her right away. I will not count Facebook as a social life, so therefore I virtually have no social life, and guess what? I am perfectly fine with it.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Applying Philosophical Theory to the New Square Arson Attempt

   John Locke an Enlightenment philosopher whose philosophy influenced the American Declaration of Independence said that a person is entitled to "life liberty and property." However from reading about the New Square arson attempt, John Locke does not apply to them. Aron Rottenberg decided to pray in a synagogue outside the village along with a few friend, the Rebbe, David Twersky, the ultimate religious authority of the town in Rockland County, New York that is predominantly part of the Skver Hasidut, reacted by making a decree that nobody could pray outside his synagogue. Rottenberg was constantly harassed, his children were kicked out of school, his property was damaged, he even received threatening phone calls. Ultimately this ended when, the Rebbe's butler, Shaul Spitzer decided to take a rag doused in gasoline and attempt to burn down Rottenberg's home. Rottenberg confronted Spitzer which led to over 50% of Rottenberg's body being covered in third degree burns and Spitzer with burns on his hands and arms and is out on bail being treated for his burns at Cornell's burn unit.

  Obviously most people would say that New Square sounds like a horrible place to live and that this was a horrible occurrence, and that what Spitzer and the Rebbe did was outrageous. I would probably say that I agree with that, but let's take a more objective view at this. Rottenberg simply chose a synagogue that fit his preference which is part of personal freedom, he decided that the going to pray outside the village was better for him. The Rebbe then decided to use his power and influence as in most religious societies to make a declaration that the residents were forbidden to pray outside his synagogue, I assume to maintain the monopoly that he had over his synagogue. People who view the Rebbe as the supreme authority decided that the Rebbe's word trumped a person's basic freedom. You can see it in the video above when the  asked if he lives in America the follower of the Rebbe, the follower replies the he lives in "Jewland." 

    Rottenberg was denied the right of choosing where to pray, but that was not the only right that was denied. He clearly was denied the right to property seeing how people threw rocks at his widow and smashed the windows of his car, and ultimately the arson attempt. Also another thing that a person should know about New Square is that there is probably one school for boys and girls each and people who do not dress according to the standards of the town are shunned. Also Rottenberg's life was threatened through the phone calls and the attempted arson, thus denying him and his family the right to life.

  Many will ask why Rottenberg did not just leave if he did not like the conditions that he was living under. Well, that question can be answered by this article. This article says that Rottenberg tried to sell his house for what it was worth, $600K, but those who tried to buy it for that price were threatened, thus denying Rottenberg's personal freedom along with the perspective buyers' freedom, I mean if it is true. Those responsible for the threats said that he could sell the house for only $300K, because they did not want him to make a profit off of leaving New Square. He was denied his personal freedom in many respects.

  The burn victim hires Michael Sussman as his lawyer, who calls for federal investigation into the events surrounding Rottenberg's attack, and whether the town violated his civil liberties. This supposedly outrages the residents of the village. Since when was it outrageous to hire a lawyer and ask for a government investigation after something of this magnitude happens? I am not a proponent for big government, but I feel that the government has a right to intervene when a person's rights were violated. Well, one can look past civil rights, but this was not just about civil rights, but also violated all his natural rights. I am sure that John Locke would agree with me in this case.