Friday, February 13, 2015

Roger Ebert


  •  A lot of Ebert's beliefs sound beautiful and his opinion on the meaning of life sounds lovely, but I don't think any of these were his true beliefs. With the struggles he has been through, the way he writes makes him seem like an amazing person that doesn't get sad, and that doesn't pity himself. I think a lot of the things he said had to do with his image, and that even if he was dying inside, he wasn't going to let anybody know that. I think he just wanted to "say the right things". Sure, he may have actually had these outlooks on life, but the odds are pretty low. It doesn't make sense that a famous movie critic loses his voice, abilities to eat, abilities to drink, and many other things and still is extremely content with life. When he went to that party with his wife and the friend that sat with him and the friend apologized for eating, Ebert said they were eating for him. I think he said that only to make the person feel better, because certainly there had to be the underlying desire to be able to eat again and taste all those lovely things.
  • I'm also kind of upset about this whole thing, how he got even more famous after losing a huge part of his life. I feel like if he hadn't been famous beforehand, nobody would pay attention to him besides the immediate people in his life. I think his extreme fame for losing his voice was only due to his prior fame as a movie critic. If this happened to an average person, they would not become a worldwide figure, getting interviewed on numerous talk shows. I really think it's unfair, because Ebert probably was not the first to lose his voice to cancer.
Overall, as inspiring as his story is, I don't truly buy into it and his overwhelming fame after his surgeries irritates me.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Racism in America Debrief

Obviously I care a lot about the criminal justice system, so I'm going to talk about two other subjects.

  • I think cultural appropriation is honestly a stupid topic. Of course I hate those people that get all these Indian tapestries just because they're cool, but at the same time, how is that offensive? The Indians should be proud that other people think it's cool, not offended by somebody's ignorance. That doesn't mean they should take these things off the market, because then other people who maybe know about the meaning can't buy it. None of it makes much sense.
  • Why should one person have the right to put a Buddha statue on their dresser, and when the other person does it, it's "offensive"? I think the whole issue is entirely pointless, and as much as some people might feel for it, it's irrelevant. Should I be offended if somebody living in China has an American flag shirt? It's the same concept in my mind.
  • My opinions on white privilege are odd. As much as I think that none of the white population pays any attention to it or questions it, there's probably people out there that take advantage of it. None of us asked for this. I absolutely loathe when I get into an argument with a coloured person, and they bring up white privilege, as if I am a huge part of it.
  • I didn't ask for any of these "advantages", and I didn't ask to be white. I don't think I take advantage of white privilege, and I can't stand when people say things like that. There's nothing I can do about it, so I accept it. White privilege honestly shouldn't exist anymore, and it's literally just the racism of other people.

Obviously I don't like both of these topics, not that they aren't controversial or important. I just think both are rather pointless. Then again, I find most things pointless, so it's not the first time. That's basically where I stand on these topics.