The Blog

 by Jon F. Merz

The Myth of Motivation

One of the things that motivational speakers, self-help gurus, and ordinary well-meaning individuals always seem to espouse is this notion that motivation springs from a place of positivity.

But the simple truth is, motivation can come from anywhere. Good, bad, dark, light, a well-spring of happiness or a font of misery. Motivation can be all unicorns and rainbows or it can be the deepest, darkest part of your soul filled with rage and bitterness.

And problems arise when people hear only about it coming from the positive and thereby think that if they aren’t always happy or upbeat, there must be something wrong with them. That is not necessarily true. Although extended periods of darkness and depression can definitely be a sign that you may want to look into talking to someone, darkness – like light – can also be useful.

Imagine bumping into an old high school friend and they happen to look fit, trim, and happy. Maybe you’ve been slacking on the workout front so seeing them fills you with jealousy or resentment. Instead of tamping that down and chastising yourself for being “bad,” use it to motivate you to get back to your fitness regimen. Take the so-called “bad” and use it to create something “good.”

Frankly, as we’ve discussed before, negative energy is always easier to generate than positive. All biological systems left to their own devices without some form of discipline will naturally devolve into chaos. It’s always easier to go negative than positive, so if generating positive energy is too hard, i.e., “Brenda looks great! Good for her. I want to look like that, too, so I’ll get back to working out.” then simply use negative energy to drive you forward, i.e., “Ugh, That bitch looks good. I hate her for looking so good so I’m gonna show her. I’ll look even better once I start getting back to the gym.”

Using the negative to generate something positive is an intriguing idea that you can use in any area of your life.

The key to motivation is knowing how to handle it and direct it once you have it in-hand. Being truthful about where your motivation is coming from is also key. If you lie to yourself about its source, then that simply sets you up for failure. There will be plenty of times throughout the course of your life when anger motivates you to do something; resentment, jealousy, bitterness – all of these are inherent and natural aspects of our mood and spirit. True power comes from being honest with yourself and recognizing these aspects just as readily as you recognize all the positive: happiness, pride, joy, ecstasy, satisfaction, etc.

Too many self-help gurus like to only focus on the positive and for good reason: a lot of them have never been honest about admitting that humans are made up of every emotion on the entire spectrum, just not the happy go-lucky side. Denying one side in favor of the other is a recipe for disaster, because when those darker emotions hit, the person who has spent too much time denying them will be ill-prepared to deal with their presence and influence. Whereas someone who acknowledges the complexities of their entire psyche in an honest, forthright fashion will always have a better idea of how to deal with any and all aspects of their being.

Even when it seems like there is nothing within you to help motivate, there is always something. The key is simply acknowledging that some of the parts of yourself that society tells you not to employ, are, in fact, things you can use to help.

in common sense / goodlivin' / health / life thoughts / martial arts / self protection / ninjutsu / warriorship / who dares lives 1 comments
 by Jon F. Merz

The Danger of Hyperbole & Trump’s Criminality

So yesterday, Donald Trump used the word “lynching” to describe the completely legal procedure of impeachment that is now taking place in the House of Representatives. As is the norm with Trump, the use of hyperbole has been a constant since he announced his run for the White House. Everything is at the extreme when it comes to his word choices (that is, those words that aren’t some bizarre aberration of English like “hamberder” and “covefe”) Hyperbole, in Trump’s case, has largely been attributed to his personality. As a real estate “developer,” he was known for using extreme verbiage to describe his projects and ventures and ratings and pretty much every aspect of his life, usually without having anything near factual to back it up.

But is the use of hyperbole simply the mechanics of a narcissist? Or is there something more to the habit than is recognizable through a superficial examination only?

Hyperbole as defined is a statement that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis. Claims like “I only hire the best and the brightest,” “I’m a very stable genius,” and negative statements about his foes along the lines of “everything is a disaster,” or “shithole countries,” or “crime-infested cities,” are just a few of the many times that Trump uses this tactic. The frequent use of hyperbole is an interesting way to phrase things because it projects certain assumptions on the part of the target audience. “I’m a very stable genius,” for example, presupposes that anyone else – or in this case a political opponent – is not that smart at all. A “crime-infested city” represented by a Democrat presupposes that a city represented by a Republican is the opposite. In other words, even when the fact do not support the hyperbole, the presupposition of the comment sneaks into the subconscious minds of those who are susceptible to it in the first place, and acts as a reinforcement for exactly what Trump wants to instill there.

Worse, there is yet another aspect to hyperbole that makes it even more nefarious: when everything is hyperbole, nothing is. In other words, when Trump chooses to use the word “lynching” to describe the impeachment process – that is, taking an extremely horrific act and placing it on the same level as a legal proceeding – he is effectively reducing the criminality of his actions in the minds of his supporters. How? By equating impeachment with lynching, Trump pairs an extreme with a non-extreme, to the point that everything becomes an extreme, which then nullifies that extremity itself. When everything is awful or terrible or horrific then everything becomes that. So obstruction of justice becomes collusion become quid-pro-quo becomes witch hunt becomes treason becomes whistle blower becomes porn star payoffs becomes…

When everything is on the same level, there is no longer anything egregious; there is no longer any sort of extreme. In the minds of those this tactic works on, there’s no breaking point, no red line that shouldn’t be crossed. If all of his crimes aren’t even seen as crimes but as simply acts of a president, then where is the criminality? Where is the outrage? There is none because Trump has effectively leveled all of his criminal acts such that no ONE act stands out as particularly awful. No ONE act stands out as the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. He has effectively reduced his crimes to the point that everything looks like “just another part of this witch hunt.” And his supporters will insist he did nothing wrong, that this is all a scheme cooked up by the Deep State or the Democrats or the Clintons.

Trump uses hyperbole often in grandiose terms, but his overall strategy may be far more insidious than simple narcissistic projection. He is effectively reducing the impact of each and every new revelation that comes out about his criminality to the point that, in the minds of his supporters, those acts simply no longer register. And if they do, they aren’t worth prosecuting because no ONE act is worse than the other. The appearance is that they are all the acts of a president engaged in the business of the Oval Office while being pursued by Democrats who haven’t gotten over the fact that Hillary lost in 2016.

So as egregious and nauseating as Trump’s use of “lynching” was yesterday, the act wasn’t merely that of a deranged narcissist playing the victim card; there is more to what he does than meets the eye. Watch when he uses hyperbole in the future as a way of framing things, because there’s usually a point to it. Even if it’s not immediately identifiable.

 

Cartoon by Jerry Holbert all rights reserved

in common sense / general / health / intelligence gathering 101 / life thoughts / martial arts / self protection / ninjutsu / politics / Uncategorized / warriorship / who dares lives 0 comments
 by Jon F. Merz

Pro-2nd Amendment & Pr-Gun Control Are NOT Contradictory

Two mass shootings in less than 24 hours. ..

According to Trump since 2016, the source of danger has been illegal immigrants. According to Trump, this danger necessitates a wall to protect us.

Yet, since 2016 (and before that) the single greatest threat, factually, has come from white men – actual domestic terrorists.

Not illegal immigrants; not Muslim extremists; not radicalized Hare Krishnas, not any minority group at all.

White men are the number one perpetrator of mass shooting terrorist incidents in this nation.

That’s it. That is fact. It’s undeniable and it is irrefutable.

So what needs to happen?

Well, using Trumpian “logic” (Jesus, there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one) we should be building walls around white enclaves to protect ourselves. After all, these white men are coming out with guns and they’re killing our people. So it makes sense, right? We’ve got that stats to back this up.

Except that is utterly stupid.

Which is why the argument for a border wall is bullshit.

“But Jon, that’s not the same thing!”

Really? Because, frankly, at this point, I’d rather have walls around states that have a large percentage of Trump supporters than I would at the border where we’ve been treating asylum seekers like Jews in concentration camps because statistically, those states are more of a threat than a woman and her kids fleeing gang violence in Guatemala.

Don’t like the logic? Tough shit. The facts bear it out. Unlike this bullshit argument about an MS-13 caravan concocted (once again) to scare dumbass white people who can’t be bothered to use their fucking brains to see if they’re being willfully manipulated.

Moving on: the two mass shootings yesterday happened in states where gun ownership is a pretty simple process. The first terrorist opened up at a Wal-Mart in Texas.

AT A FUCKING WAL-MART IN TEXAS.

I’m gonna stereotype the fuck out of this, but are you kidding me? No one had a gun out of that entire store? There wasn’t a single “good guy with a gun” anywhere by a Wal-Mart in Texas?

I highly fucking doubt it. In fact, I’d bet there were a good number of good ol’ boys with American flags festooning their pick-up trucks parked there. And I’ll bet at least one of them had a firearm.

But there’s a big difference between talking high and mighty about the “good guy with a gun” and actually being willing and able to take action when the situation demands it. And the fact is, when most people hear gunfire, they want to curl up into the smallest ball imaginable and hide. That’s not necessarily cowardice; it’s human nature. Still others will only focus on saving themselves and family rather than confront the threat.

Which is why the “good guy with a gun” argument is bullshit, too.

Now, I have plenty of friends – plenty of folks who I know *would* engage a terrorist; and they have both the tools and experience to do so. They also have the willingness. But people like that are few and far between and the simple fact is the chances of someone like that being around at a terrorist incident are slim.

Which is why the “we need more people armed” argument is bullshit.

Moving on…

“But if we enact more gun control, the criminals will still have guns.”

Yup. They will. But you know what? Those criminals aren’t committing terrorist acts. They’re not out shooting up schools, or temples, or churches, or malls, or bars, or health clinics. They’re also, by and large, not committing waves of home invasions, or taking hostages, or committing any of the atrocities that terrorists who “legally” possess a gun commit.

And let’s look at it this way: you might be a gun owner. You might fervently believe (as I do) in the right to own firearms. But take a step back and compare gun ownership to, let’s say…car ownership.

In order to be a licensed driver, you have to go through training. Then you take a test. You need insurance.

And yet, if I asked you to honestly respond, I’d be willing to bet you’d probably agree that most people these days drive like shit. Basic procedures they should have learned in driving school are not followed. They can’t figure out a rotary; they don’t use turn signals; they’re distracted; they can’t even figure out a 4-way stop intersection.

You might be a great driver; you might obey all the rules. But 99% of everyone else on the road doesn’t. And a vast majority of that 99% suck donkey nards at driving.

And let’s be honest: a car is two tons of lethality operating at speed. As I tell my boys: it’s the other people on the road they have to be careful of.

See the parallels here? You might be the most responsible gun owner in the world. But most gun owners aren’t. And most gun owners are like most drivers: they’re lazy and become distracted and forget to lock things up or take steps to ensure the wrong people (like, say, a young mentally challenged kid) don’t get access to their guns.

So if most drivers suck at driving – yet we mandate MORE requirements for owning and operating a car, why don’t we do the same for gun ownership?

I can’t tell you how many times I say, “That person should not be behind the wheel,” on a daily basis. And again, if I asked people to honestly respond, most of the gun owners I know would probably say, “that person should not own a firearm.”

So the argument that more gun control is going to hurt law-abiding gun owners is bullshit.

And frankly, if – after all of the mass shootings – you DON’T think we need changes to gun ownership laws, then bro – you are 100% part of the problem.

Don’t like what I just said? Tough titties. It’s the truth. No SANE, rational, objective person is going to look at the current situation and think that things are fine as they are.

Because they fucking are not.

I don’t want most of the people I see driving to be behind the wheel; I also don’t want most of the people with guns in this country having them.

For the same fucking reasons!

Humans are inherently lazy, undisciplined creatures. So are most living things. We take the paths of least resistance; we aspire to retire and do nothing; we can’t stick to diets; we can’t be bothered to vote; etc. ad infinitum.

NONE OF THAT CHANGES JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN A GUN.

Say that last part again.

If you are not one of the few self-motivated, self-disciplined individuals that allows those traits to carry over to all other areas of your life, me giving you a gun is NOT going to suddenly change that. You will not magically become self-disciplined and self-motivated. You will simply be yet another lazy person who happens to own a gun. And a car.

Neither of which you should have access to.

I’m all for responsible gun ownership; I’m also all for responsible car ownership.

But responsible is a long fucking way away from just being able to own the damned things.

I don’t see gun control as a threat. I’m not some silly insecure freak who thinks the big bad guv’mint is coming for my guns. I appreciate the need – the DESPERATE need – for more controls on who exactly we give permission to own a firearm to.

That’s not me being a libtard or a leftist or whatever dumbass label you apply to anyone pro-gun control.

That’s being rational. And objective. And humane.

Don’t like any of this? That’s cool. But at least have the guts to admit that your dislike of these points does, in fact, make you part of the problems currently affecting and infecting this nation.

I’m a pro-2A, pro-gun control human being. And I don’t see that as contradictory at all.

I see it as intelligent.

We need changes; we need to stop the proliferation of firearms being used by white nationalist terrorists.

Full. Fucking. Stop

in common sense / general / health / life thoughts / martial arts / self protection / ninjutsu / politics / warriorship / who dares lives 0 comments