In my English class, we have to write these essays called Occasional Papers. We are meant to take a simple question or topic and continually ask "So what?" and "What now?" The paper I just wrote concerns how fear is the base human instinct that dictates our entire social structure, and that I'll gladly admit to watching MLP if it means I'm not "afraid" of repercussions. I got that out of "What happens if I decide not to write this paper?" But that's not what this blog is about.

The first OP of the year was by my very good friend Josh. Josh is quirky, intelligent, and oh-so-funny. He's also a ginger, but that is beside the point. And his paper was about me. With his permission, I've reposted it here. After reading this, I was proud to call him my pal.

Paper on the Occasion of a Reproach

Sitting in class one day I happened upon the conversation of two individuals mocking a friend of mine for their choice in entertainment. Now said compatriot was not present at that time, so I decided to argue on his behalf. The core dispute shaped around the fact that the pair did not understand why my friend enjoyed a certain television show; which when the connotations are removed and replaced by neutral speech to avoid pointing fingers, sounds like a purely antagonistic stance. It is quite simple to defend personal interests when confronted, however trying to dispute a criticism of a topic that holds no allure is doubly as challenging. I had no interest in my friend’s choice of show, yet I did not feel I could just stand by and let his passion be reprimanded. This was not a noble stand against bullying; bullying was not even present in the position composed by the two. They simply could not fathom why he liked this particular show as much as he did. And neither could I, but does that even matter?

 

What constitutes a certain hobby being more acceptable than another? Not in a way like, “I recreationally steal from stores when employees are not watching instead of playing checkers,” but in a, “Why would you want to build a birdhouse instead of watching football?” Lording one pastime over another leads to a belief that someone is somehow strange because they do not follow the statistical norms of leisure. Only strange people would dare to hold interests outside of your diversions. This breeds a mentality of hiding what truly brings happiness because one’s peers do not follow the same course of enjoyment. Why put interests out there if hiding behind the anonymity of vagueness prevents ridicule? People will always view others how they wish to perceive them, not how they actually are. Due to the fact that people will still employ a sense of one truth because it is easier to point out the abnormalities that others have. Nothing of value results from mindlessly degrading another’s happiness, no one becomes enlightened, no one’s mind reroutes, no one is happier.

 

The two kids in the story will remain nameless, but everyone can fill in their places in someone’s story. I am no different. Thinking about this story made me realize that I have my own avocations that I elevate above the rest. Personally, I constantly satire the fans of football because in my mind they represent the majority, so they can tolerate the jests directed at them. As much as we would like to believe, our interests do not encompass the globe. Everyone maintains their own right to pursue what makes them happy. Subsequently the goal behind this is not to reinvent a room full of people, or even one, just to engage the perceptions of what constitutes a single hobby above another. Is it a culture, a movement, a community, or a tradition? Or does it only exist within the temperament of a single person?

Point haters in the direction of this paper. Hopefully they'll change their tune. And thanks, Josh. You're the best pal a guy could ask for.

- Kolth