Television and The Extremes of Entertainment in Our Culture

I hope everyone is having a fantastic holiday season. Things have been going really well for us lately, and I'm looking forward to keeping it that way. This update is in no way based on the status of my Christmas. I've had a really nice couple of days with my family, and during the time spent chilling at my dad's house I got to watch a little T.V. We don't have cable at our house. Instead, we save the money on what we assume is piss-poor programming (and commercials) and pick-and-choose from a small selection of things we can watch on the internet or rent from Amazon. It's been this way for a while, so I'm way out of the loop on regular programming and advertizing. This Christmas, I was reminded of why we made this decision and never looked back. Television is still a terrible pile of shit. For the most part, I see television as both an accurate reflection of society in general boiled down to its extremes, as well as a perpetuating force for our best and worst behaviors (because extremes are so entertaining.)

For the most part we watched four things: lots of commercials, A Christmas Story, an episode of an educational/demonstrative show about weapons, and a holiday episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Everything except A Christmas Story managed to offend me in some way. I worried that I may have simply become overly sensitive; but when I pointed out the offensive material, the family and friends around me generally agreed that the material was over-the-top. For the most part, we laughed about it. Deep down, however, I was concerned by the fact that people willfully--and often gleefully--absorb this stuff. Not enough of us are disgusted. If I took this programming back in time and showed it to families in the 60's, they would be outraged. It's easy to laugh at that statement because "people and entertainment were different back then. That stuff is nothing, now." How does that make it any better? Admitting we're desensitized to it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It actually means it's an even bigger problem. Think about it.

On to the examples.

• A Christmas Story. I love this movie. It's nostalgic, innocent without being unrealistic, and amusing to children and adults alike. It gives us a feeling I think we should feel more often than just for a few days at the end of December, and crams a ton of that feeling into an hour and a half. It's a dense package of positivity and humanizing awkwardness--a slight extreme. I argue, here, that television programming highlights (and encourages) these sorts of extremes. With that light opening, I bring you to the next example,


• Commercials. I still have to deal with ads on the internet, so these generally aren't very shocking anymore. Because there are so many more ads on television, however, I got to experience a larger selection of them in larger doses. I'm sure it's of no surprise to anyone that the level of mindless consumerism demanded of us by a majority of advertizing has reached socially damaging proportions. Luxury items are advertized as not only being absolutely necessary (and therefore simply expected by the general public), but being capable of delivering deeply personal emotional and psychological experiences like love and spirituality. Ads tell viewers that smart people watch such-and-such, and dumb people dislike such-and-such, and women all do this, and men all do that, and caring about things is stupid, and being a pig is totally acceptable, and making your neighbors jealous is an important goal, and the car you drive is more important than nature (and in fact, nature is stupid), and every other terrible falsehood that you've probably already seen. Despite none of this being new, I still wanted to include it since a massive portion of what I watched consisted entirely of just ads. Couldn't be avoided. On to the next example,


• Juvenile excitement over deadly weapons' demonstrations by grown-ass men. I have no idea what show this was and I don't recall what channel it was on (one of the History/Discovery/Nat Geo stations.) The underlying concept was perfectly fine, and actually rather interesting. Whatever the show was, this particular episode focused on comparing the capabilities of straight and curved swords, while (minimally) discussing some of the details of the blacksmithing process.
  
  Most of the content consisted of people attacking stationary foam mannequins and at least one pig carcass. These objects were slashed in half, hacked diagonally, or stabbed. Mannequins were bare, armored, or constructed with the addition of life-like replica skeleton parts beneath a layer of transparent jelly "skin." All three mannequins were filled with tunnels of blood to skirt and/or drain from the body once wounded (fatally, of course.) The increasingly "realistic" additions (blood, bones, clear skin) were unnecessarily gory, and it seemed very obvious that the intent was to make it more exciting by making it more like hacking at a real body--not merely to give the viewer an educated idea of how a body might be damaged.
  
  It wasn't just the methods or visuals which made this obvious to myself and my fiance, however. The boisterous exclamations from the host encouraged and highlighted the "Whoa, blood and guts, cool!" aspect of the display. He was overly dramatic and a little breathless with forced (or maybe sincere?) excitement. I was constantly surprised and annoyed to see a 30 year old man behave like a 15 year old goth kid watching a Rob Zombie video for the first time, while speaking about the history of war, war weaponry, and traumatizing (and deadly) war wounds.
  
  Now, I'm not an idiot, and I'm not a pansy with violent entertainment. I play video games, read comic books, listen to Rammstein, and own a collection of fantasy/action/adventure/sci-fi movies. I understand the entertainment value (and, sometimes, even the educational value) of over-the-top violence. I also understand the difference between entertainment, and harmful glorification. Apparently, not everyone does. With that in mind, on to the last example,


• It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I've heard all sorts of people rave on and on about how great this show is--about how original and hilarious and (more or less) "indie" it is. Because of this, I actually hadn't assumed it would be a bad show (though I didn't necessarily expect to enjoy it.) This show made me feel bad inside. I hated every character and just about everything they said. The only watchable portions were those in which the two dumbest characters were alone in a scene, because if anyone else was around them, it was horrendous again. (And those two characters were annoying in their own way, believe me.) Otherwise, everyone was mean, apathetic, and greedy--gleefully so. They were proud of their behavior and judgment, and at no point did they actually "get what was coming to them." (Sorry, having luxuries stolen from you after you behave like a horrible person is no kind of comeuppance.) There was so satisfaction, no sense of completion, and nothing to glean from their experiences. They never learned anything from their self-caused struggles. The audience is supposed to feel positive about the characters' petty judgments, impatience, and callousness. The entire show is all sarcasm, impulsive (unrealistic) exchanges, and extremely abrasive people. Am I supposed to like these characters?
  
  Even the worst of them--the guy who the others hate because he's such a douche (arguably the "main" character, played by DeVito)--isn't intended to be entirely disliked by the audience (not as far as I can tell.) His meanness is shockingly heartless, but "quirky and acceptable in its own way." (I use quotes to emphasize that this appears to be what is intended and therefore what is felt by the approving audience. This viewer does not agree.)
  
  To top it all off, this holiday episode included an animated portion intended to mimic the hold stop-motion Christmas movies from the 1960's. The segment was intended to teach the main character a lesson by comically and ironically encouraging him to be nice to others or else they'll collectively kick his ass. That could have been the punch-line, right there. Instead, the animation went on for minutes, demonstrating in graphic (stop-motion) detail the myriad ways his "friends" would mortally wound him if he didn't become a better person. The list included ripping off his limbs (and licking the blood from the bone), gauging out his eyes, chainsawing his leg, hanging him from the Christmas tree by his spinal cord, pushing what remains of his leg into a meat grinder, tossing him to an alligator, repeatedly stabbing him in the face with a knife, macing his face-wounds, and burning him alive on a Christmas tree. If I have to explain why this is unnecessarily grotesque and not funny--if you find yourself more annoyed or distanced by what you're reading than shaken by it--then I encourage you to either have patience with me and muscle through to the end, or just skip to the red text at the bottom of this post.
  
  The only character in the entire episode who was consistently "good" was mocked incessantly for wanting to preach about peace, forgiveness, and Jesus. The audience was supposed to be amused and relieved whenever the other characters silenced his attempts. Yes, religious preaching is annoying and I myself dislike it, but the show took the only decent thing about the entire episode and made it "dumb and unacceptable," and at the end of the episode, made the man into a lying hypocrite who threatened everyone with a gun and stole all their stuff, anyway. Now I have no one left to like.
  
  Lastly, as an interesting (and probably inaccurate) side-note, this episode's animated segment incorporates a little routine with the California Raisins. Remember those guys? They were an R&B musical group comprised of anthropomorphic raisins used to advertise dehydrated grapes in the 1980's. (I know. Brilliant.) It should be noted that the Raisins are the only "black" characters in the entire episode, save for an extra in an office scene who is disgusted by one of the main characters earlier on. (I put "black" in quotes because I'm well aware that there's no guarantee the California raisins were black. It was merely insinuated at every possible turn.) When the "black" Raisins make their entrance, the singing narrator specifically describes them as being "racist." In keeping with the joke, the Raisins are the ones who burn DeVito alive on the tree (while dressed as Klan members.) Now, I'm pretty confident they simply referred to the Raisins as being racist in order to drive home the image of them in Klan robes, and therefore giving them a reason to suddenly appear and burn someone at the stake. At the same time, I did find it a little odd. For a moment, all I could focus on was the fact that the show introduces some rare minority "cast members," and makes them racist murderers. In all honesty, however, I probably read too far into it. I could really take or leave this portion of the blog entry. I may delete it later.

Skip to this part if you disagree with what you're reading, here.

Remember that the purpose of this post is to share with my readers how I feel about television programming in general: that it depicts extremes of our current culture (while also encouraging it, thereby creating a self-sustaining cycle.) My goal is not to bring you down with examples of awful TV. (I meant what I said when I included the bit about A Christmas Story.) However, I do tend to use this blog to draw attention to things I think people should notice, and at this point in my life, I'm worried about a lot of bad stuff. (Welcome to my blog. Maybe I should focus on more positive things, too...) That having been said, I'm not looking to tell you that I hate something you may like. I'm not here specifically to tell you that the things you like are bad. My goal is to make you think, and to get things off my chest so I don't let them fester internally.

I'm rambling.

Today, in this post, my goal is to give examples of some of the extremes in our televised entertainment (good or bad, though I complain about the bad more often than I praise the good. Hm. I don't think I like that.) I'm concerned that we absorb this stuff without realizing just what it is we're watching, or what it means about (and does to) our culture. I'm concerned that we blindly and eagerly absorb promotions for extreme consumerism, extreme gore, extreme negativity, extreme assholishness, and extreme selfishness, while thoughtlessly believing that it's all okay. I'm not upset with people. I'm shocked and I'm worried.

So I'd like to leave you with this. Before anyone disregards my concerns with a roll of their eyes and defensive scoff--before I'm compared to aging grandparents droning on about how bad movies, music, and young people have become--please stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, old people keep saying this stuff because sometimes it's true. Having experienced generations of people and culture, the elderly have a lot to compare this stuff to. Sure, opinions are biased and lots of older folks are just plain cantankerous. I'm certainly not insinuating that their younger years were spent in a lost Utopia. But let's at least admit that the graphic violence, willful cruelty, and general rudeness in entertainment has increased consistently over the years. Let's just admit that our entertainment often encourages us to cheer for the meanest and/or sassiest of characters. Hell, it's why so many people find old programming to be so damn boring. We need it extreme, and we need that extreme behavior in our faces at all times. And usually, bad extremes are more dramaitic and therefore more entertaining than good extremes. Notice, I only experienced one good thing on TV all day, and I really struggle to even call it an "extreme." (Maybe only in comparison to how negative everything else is.)

Just because we enjoy something else, now--stuff clearly very different from the entertainment people enjoyed 50 years ago--doesn't mean what we enjoy is better. (At least, not in all ways.)

What say you we be a little more discerning with our entertainment?

Woo... done ranting. Merry Christmas everyone. Mine was awesome. It gets better every year, seriously. In 2013, I think I'm going to try to focus more on the positive. It's better for my health, right? Love and peace to ya'll!

Avoiding the Trap of Logical Fallacies While Fighting the Good Fight.

Lately I feel as though a part of my personality of which I have been ashamed in the past has matured and morphed (through no small effort) into something far more useful and worthwhile. Much of my childhood and young adulthood was experienced through very judgmental eyes. It was never enough just to experience the world around me; I had to have an opinion on it! In fact I would argue that constantly thinking and branching into dozens of possible reactions/happenings/sources/explanations has kept me from truly focusing on the matter at hand. I consider myself to have an overly active (and often uselessly analytical) mind, with perhaps a dash of ADD. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why it's so hard for me to remember anything.

I have a reason for sharing this somewhat troublesome self discovery, of course. Coinciding with my “adult” efforts to curtail my judgmental personality—and therefore be a more peaceful and likable person—is a growing desire to see situations from as many perspectives as possible. While this often results in seeking a highly objective perspective (which really sounds too oxymoronic to be used accurately), it also leads to playing the part of the Devil's advocate from time to time. I like to think that what was once a knee-jerk reaction to what I found to be unpleasant behavioral characteristics has become a permanent, empathetic sociological and/or psychological study. (Side note: I find it's harder to hate people when you can see their perspective, no matter how you may disagree with their behavior; that is a very freeing state of mind, I must say.) None of this is to say that I don't fall back into my old judgments, of course. I am a human being with much to learn and experience, after all.

I have, however, noticed a great deal about human behavior.

That having been said, I'd like to talk for a moment about the kind of thinking that I've witnessed in the last year or so of activism and really paying attention to the world around me. This will come in sections as a series of updates to this first post, as it turns out I have a lot more to say than I had originally thought (now that I've started writing and am returning to this paragraph some time later to make this addendum.)

I'd like to preface this post with the following: I make these blog posts to share my thoughts, in the hopes that it will serve others in some way. I know that I “use my words well,” and that my obsessive desire to express myself as clearly as possible may in fact help clarify some things for some people who find themselves perplexed by or perhaps even unaware of some of the behaviors around them. Perhaps readers will learn something about themselves. It's certainly been an enlightening experience for me. Understanding how and why we behave the way we do is often more important than just the behavior itself. I sometimes think about this not because I want to point out people's mistakes, but because I want to be helpful. I understand perfectly well that can be hard to believe, and I also understand just why that is. Knowing that, however, won't stop me from trying.

The subject of this “discussion” is the common use of logical fallacies to form arguments or even whole philosophies. I could spend days dredging up every single flawed argument I've heard in just the last few months, so I'll likely stick with those which have stood at the most and therefore come to mind most readily. I'd also like to add that I don't actually partake in these arguments very often. I really dislike confrontation. That isn't to say I'm particularly afraid of being wrong (though no one likes that feeling.) Rather, the confrontation itself makes me extremely anxious, as though I'm at the risk of being physically attacked at any given moment. I'd need a whole other blog post (or two) to explain from where my general anxiety stems. I'm pretty familiar with it (thanks a lot, Childhood Repercussions.)

• The Slippery Slope Argument, in which one asserts that allowing one thing to happen will inevitably and unavoidably lead to another, previously unforeseen result, and therefore that first thing must not be allowed. This is both fully self explainable and worthy of an entire blog post in and of itself. Simply put, the use of this fallacy requires one to draw a number of assumptions—assumptions which I have found to be based more out of personal fear than any real fact. Now that their fears are apparently right at the back door, that fear rules the rest of the conversation. There can be no focus on how far from reality their argument has been taken. The only focus, now, is the supposedly imminent danger brought about by the idea in the first place. The most obvious example of this fallacy at work is within the gay marriage debate. A broadened definition of the concept of “marriage” clearly leads to bestiality and, eventually, legal marriage between species. This must be true, despite the fact that those two fears have nothing to do with the matter at hand: the fact that two consenting human adult homosexuals want to have the same legal and social rights as consenting human adult heterosexuals. The leap to bestiality has absolutely no basis in the reality of the original argument, but that Slippery Slope argument consistently stops progress on the discussion as though it actually means anything.
  
  Not to mention the fact that this argument assumes that every possible idea/demand that every member of the public could ever possible conjure up must immediately be accepted by the law, and that there's no possible way such a legislative decision might be avoided do to its complete illegitimacy.


• The Strawman Argument, in which someone's argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to attack them. I see this constantly. Common examples include the belief that wanting universal healthcare for all makes you an democracy-hating communist/socialist; the belief that women who speak out against misogyny are men-hating feminists (helping to create the resultant belief that “feminism” has a direct correlation with “hating men,” and thereby producing the “straw-feminist”); and the belief that those who speak out against the present plutocratic state of America (protesting the abuse of resources and privileges made by the wealthy both in terms of economic and government affairs) are either too lazy/unmotivated to work hard enough to earn true (i.e. monetary) success, or hate capitalism and money and therefore probably America (or all of these things, simultaneously.)
  
  At the same time, I also have seen—and have personally participated in—the reverse of that last fallacious argument. It's so easy to assume everyone who speaks out against public spending, true religious freedom, or sacrificing personal luxuries for the sake of making the world a better place (e.g. reducing/eliminating pollution, reducing material waste, preserving our resources, protecting other species, respecting other species, etc) feels that way for purely selfish, possibly even vindictive reasons, and that they are therefore bad, heartless people. It's easy to pigeonhole them into an inaccurate caricature and hate them.
  
  But if we consider the perspective of the person trying to help free the world from powerful corporations, of the person trying to awaken the public to sexism in what is its most popular and institutionalized form at the present, and of the person trying to encourage more effort be exerted by everyone in order to be less of a constant cancer on the Earth (rather than instantly writing them off and assuming they have no idea what they're talking about or specifically want to hurt you), then we may just be able to fix some of our problems. After all, things have only continued to get worse with our current way of doing things. Trying something else, *gasp!* may actually be a pretty good idea.
  
  Meanwhile, activists can't fall back on hating those who don't believe them. I've spoken extensively on the need to forgive and empathize, and to consider the preceding lifetime of every individual presently participating in these global conversations. Everyone feels the way they do for a reason. When we take the time to understand those reasons, we can then avoid boiling a whole person with a whole history which has made him who he is today, down into a simplified and hopeless strawman—and nothing more.


• The Tu Quoque Argument (Latin for "You, also"), in which Person A avoids facing criticism provided by Person B by pointing out how Person B has made the same mistake(s) in the past. An appeal to hypocrisy should not be allowed to derail a conversation. Just because both (or all) parties have fallen into behaviors against which they are presently speaking out, that does not make those behaviors any less acceptable. Equal guilt doesn't negate the act itself. I saw an example of this very early on in the Occupy movement, when onlookers, news anchors, pundits, and internet comments appeared to take great joy in pointing out that so many of the folks protesting corporate greed and blind consumerism were utilizing the tools purchased in that same corporate environment.
  
  Separately, there are actually three things wrong with that, however. The most obvious issue is the Tu Quoque Fallacy at work, which I have already explained. Another issue is the assumption that buying goods is itself a hypocritical act in that particular situation (which in a way is the Strawman Fallacy at work again, simplifying the demands and rallies of the masses to a simple “owning stuff and having money is bad!”) A third issue is the assumption that it is a) viable to avoid all of these products by also assuming there are comparable alternatives, and also b) hypocritical to use the devices of the “machine” in order to “get back at it.” In a world where instantly worldwide digital communication is often a person's only security against irreparable police brutality and “cover-ups,” there are literally no other options but to use these tools.


• The Black-or-White Argument, in which someone creates and/or defends the illusion that there are only two possible solutions (or sides) to a given problem. Sometimes this is used to increase his/her chances of successfully “winning” the debate. It misleads those trying to partake, and suppresses what might otherwise have been a rational appeal to other circumstances, perspectives, variables, etc. Sometimes it's interesting to see how eager people are to limit themselves in this way, particularly when the only two sides/solutions they can see fail to serve them in any way. For many, there are only two options: Materialism of religion (which for some boils down to Science or Not Science); economic success or a failed life; Capitalism or Dictatorship (as communism and socialism are often perceived as forms of absolute control, and therefore little more than a “group dictatorship.”)
  
  It doesn't occur to us to consider that maybe something that doesn't presently fit most obviously with our individual view of science can in fact be “scientific.” It doesn't occur to us that there may still be things beyond our current comprehension, or at the very least, outside of our current pool of ideas. It doesn't occur to us that we can be more happy with less, if we value quality over quantity. It doesn't occur to us that money is still just a tool, and therefore we control it, and therefore we can do whatever we want to with it, and so are not limited to just the (failed) attempts at a long term, stable economy thus far attempted by mankind. We limit ourselves, and harm ourselves in so doing.


• The Anecdotal Argument, which I have discussed at length in a previous post, recently reposted here: Personal Anecdotes Often Do Not Negate an Argument.
  
  I'd like to add, here, that I have another example for the Anecdotal Argument that I did not mention in that blog post, and that is the assumption that because someone has not personally experienced something, it is therefore impossible. I was involved with (but mostly witnessed) a discussion within a group regarding bringing barter and trade systems back into local communities, rather than relying entirely on currencies. An individual assumed that because he personally could not recall a time in which people were satisfied with a good deed without monetary repayment (which he later realized was entirely untrue), he assumed therefore that deeds would only be done if money was promised in return, regardless of the necessity of the deed. This ignored the fact that with all of the people, labor, and resources available to a community, and with all needs met, there's little reason that a well structured community of empathetic individuals would be unable to function effectively and assist those in need. People assume that it's money that drives all good deeds, not merely because it's the right thing to do and they are more than capable of doing it.


• The Bandwagon Argument, in which it is assumed that popularity makes something true, as though an idea's popularity automatically makes that argument more valid. (It is at times very similar to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, as we will notice.) I see this most recently in the form of quotes from famous political, social, and religious figures/texts. This is not to say that using a quote or reference from a reputable source is wrong. It also doesn't mean that it's wrong to share ideas or sources of inspiration via quotes. Not at all. When we have looked long and hard at an issue and find that a quote from a related, reputable source happens to speak this idea very well, that quote can be a very useful tool. However, simply relying on these quotes to decide an entire ideology, make whole decisions, or sway masses of people is not at all an intelligent way to solve problems or sculpt ones own philosophies. Just because someone says something well doesn't mean what they said was accurate, and it doesn't even mean that their words apply to the situation at hand. It seems to me that we rely on such quotes too often, rather than having meaningful discussions.
  
  I'd like to stress one last time that there is nothing wrong with using quotes. Sometimes someone else says something we feel/think very poignantly, after all, and sharing a quote from a respectable source can really help make people think twice about the validity of their stance. People must always think for themselves, however. Quotes do not “win” an argument.


• The Special Pleading Argument, in which the rules/guideposts of someone's argument constantly change in order to work around and therefore avoid any proof that is placed in the way of their reasoning. (At times similar to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.) I see this put into play all the time. While everyone uses fallacious thinking at some point in their lives, the Special Pleading fallacy is one which I would assume is particularly common for us. After all, we hate to be wrong.
  
  The most obvious and immediate example I have for this involves arguments in which religion is used as a “reason” for someone's decisions and/or morals. It's actually a comical use of the fallacy, as the bible and other Christian works are so inclusively and exclusively contradictory that someone could go 'round and 'round a subject forever using excerpts to “prove” how something is right or wrong. Jesus said to love thy neighbor, to turn the other cheek, and not to condemn others to hell. That is what is expected of others when dealing with the speaker. But when it's time for the speaker to offer the same thoughtful self control, then it's time for “the bible says homosexuality is a sin,” or “it's my duty as a Christian to try to convert nonbelievers or inform sinners,” or “God says to destroy my non-christian neighbor, take his wife, and murder his children and livestock.” (Actually that last one isn't very popular, and I find that hilarious.)

There are so many more fallacies to discuss, but this has taken forever to write already and the ones listed above are the most obvious to me at the moment. I encourage everyone to take a look at this list of logical fallacies and to consider the ways in which you or people around you have relied on them in the past. (For an even longer list, check out this link.)Take care not to assume everything is a fallacy, of course. The goal is to learn, not to flay ourselves or others.

"Honorary mention" goes to the Argumentum ad Logicam, or "The Fallacy" Fallacy, in which one assumes that because a fallacy has been made, the entire argument is incorrect. (This is similar both to the Tu Quoque [above] and False Analogy fallacies [in which someone uses an analogy as proof of something, rather than as an illustration of something.]) I see this utilized most commonly when someone is searching for a reason to no longer have to absorb information which goes against the grain of his/her own beliefs, and so uses a person's bad choice of words or bad argument as a reason to ignore the truth.

I find it to be closely linked to a fallacious appeal to intelligence, in which a speaker might say "obviously this is the case," or "anyone can see that such-and-such is true." In making such a statement, the speaker urges listeners to assume intelligent people would have "gotten it," and because they may have thought otherwise, they must not be intelligent enough to "get it." This one is extremely common.

But please, don't abuse what you think you know about fallacies in order to stop listening to others, and don't judge yourself too harshly. It's all a learning process.

Personal Anecdotes Often Do Not Negate An Argument

Edit: Despite the work I put into wording this just so, it seems I didn't illustrate my purpose well enough, and I managed to offend someone very dear to me. Quite simply, this blog post aims to do the following: 

• Assist fellow activists/conversation starters.
• Assist non-activist individuals trapped in the dramatic whirlwind of these conversations.
• Encourage all parties to recognize that their perspective, while important, may not embody the full "story." It's important to consider the other party's perspective, as well.
• Inform readers that very rarely does a personal anecdote amount to an effective argument. That does not make the anecdote unimportant. Anecdotes are necessary to share a perspective, and we should feel privileged to be given a glimpse into the other party's life. Generally speaking, however, anecdotes do not negate the argument of the other party (there are always exceptions, of course.)

Most importantly, if I know you personally and you're reading this, you are not represented by either of the generalized "people" listed below. (And if you are, I had no idea and didn't intend it.) When I first posted this, I was inspired/reminded to cover the topic (which I have been thinking about on and off since Occupy Wall Street began in 2011) after talking with a friend about the same topic (societal/economic struggles and the fact that many people are trapped.)  Similarly, if someone says "donut," I may be reminded that I haven't eaten all day. That doesn't mean I want to eat a donut, specifically. Does that make sense? Probably not. I tried.

I hope this clears up a few things. On to the post.

When voicing my opinion or sharing information regarding the state of the economy, medicine, industry, education, civil rights, workers' rights, or other present situation worthy of attention, I am met with many different reactions: some are very positive, some are inquisitive, some are disinterested and neutral, and some are flat out spiteful. Throughout this range (and inclusive of other reactions not listed because there are honestly too many to pinpoint each), there are two kinds of arguments I come upon more frequently than others, and they both involve an individual using their own experiences as proof that nothing is actually wrong. It should be said that these are broad generalizations based on my own experience, along with what I have read/heard/witnessed for many others. These two arguments can be very similar, and it may not be obvious why I have separated them in the first place. There tends to be a difference in the two viewpoints, however:

1. The I've spent my entire life struggling and you don't hear me complaining argument, and
2. The I've worked hard and made ends meet, so people need to take responsibility argument.

Person #1 is often quite angry. He/she has indeed worked incredibly hard under inhumane conditions. Perhaps they served in the military and experienced life-altering situations, or worked two or three jobs while fitting as many college classes in as possible. Perhaps they have children, as well. Perhaps their families were a great drain on them emotionally, financially, and opportunistically. Or, perhaps all of these apply to this person. Person #1 is upset that they had to deal with so much in order to maintain some livable situation, and other people aren't as willing to do so.

Person #1 fails to realize that people fighting for fair wages, fair hours, fair and cheaper school opportunities, and all the rest, do not think for a moment that Person #1 does not deserve everything they have. Quite the opposite, in fact. Person #1 deserves a great deal more. In our modern society, with money and food and resources aplenty, no one should have to deal with all of those things just to survive. If you have, I have a great respect for you and am so sorry that life has been so difficult. Your government should provide far more opportunities for you. I fight the idea that I should have to juggle a debt-bloated college education, varying part time jobs with no benefits and minimum wage income, and a system consistently standing up for the demands of Big Business while stepping all over the workers who allow business to function at all. Yes, people do it. That doesn't make it okay. That's the whole point, really. Do we really want our children and grandchildren to have to use these personal anecdotes as the measurement of their worth and success? Aren't we supposed to want better for future generations? Isn't that the point--to be constantly bettering ourselves and our society?

Person #2 is more apt to assume that the people who can't "make it work" simply aren't doing it right, and/or they're trying to milk the system while avoiding responsibility/hard work. (Person 1 and 2 may overlap on this subject, but I have separated them for this writing.) These individuals also use their personal anecdotes to show how success (however you define it) is possible.

Person #2 also deserves everything he/she has drawn together for him/herself. This is where the anecdotes serve another purpose, however: just because you did it, doesn't mean everyone else can, too. My fiance recently worded it pretty nicely when she said, "For every one person who makes the system work for themselves, there's a dozen people who abuse rather than trying, and hundreds more who simply cannot, for one reason or another." This isn't about the people who did it vs. the people who can't. It's about the system which makes it so difficult for so many who simply are in wholly different situations and therefore do not have the same opportunities.

Many of these individuals want nothing more than to grab that full time job and start putting away to Social Security. They want to take out a loan for a new car and build credit. They want to go to school and better themselves and their employability. But for whatever reason, they are unable to get that full time job, or they can't afford payments on a new car, or their credit won't allow for the purchase to be realistic for them in the first place, or their schedule and dismal future don't place a college education within their reach. Maybe they made a few mistakes. Still, they deserve the chance to make a decent living and get a decent education. After all, a mistake from which we've learned shouldn't wreck the rest of our lives; and the more educated we all are, the better society would be. Or maybe they've spent their entire lives in a poor situation with very poor opportunities. It's easy to forget that every little detail about our childhood leads up to the place we are in today, and not only do many people grow up in low-wage households, but many children grow up in abusive, oppressive households. These individuals are not doomed to fail, but are far more likely to.

If you find yourself in an argument regarding these issues, regardless of the side you're on, please stop and consider these things. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and it is very easy to condemn a person while knowing nothing about them or what brought them to the current stage of their life. Just because Person #1 has had to fight so hard, doesn't mean he/she should have been forced to. Just because Person #2 was able to make it work, doesn't mean it's a possibility for everyone else. Just because Person #1 or #2 is arguing that you're not working hard enough, that doesn't mean he/she deserves to be disrespected. Just because you can't make it work, doesn't mean it's unworkable. We live our lives and so are limited to our immediate perspectives, but there's always more.

Personally, I have to make sure I choose my wording a little more carefully to avoid excluding or stepping on some folks/groups. For example, I should point out that anecdotes are not useless. However, an individual's personal anecdote often does not form a complete argument. It may have a good point, but that doesn't make it a complete argument. A single anecdote is only useful to that single set of circumstances--its logic often cannot be applied to other situations. (This is not all-inclusive, of course. There are always exceptions to everything.) Huge groups of anecdotes start to form a visible trend, and statistics can be very useful.

What I encourage people to avoid is, "Here is the problem, and here is what I did for that problem. Therefore my solution also works for you, and if it doesn't work, you're doing it wrong/you don't want it enough/you don't deserve it."

Edit: Which also means to avoid, "It's impossible to make anything work, why even try?"

Both of those are incorrect assumptions. They exclude both people and opportunities, and they limit the individual.