Arrogance, narcissism and changing the world

One of the primary goals of this blog, as said in the opening post that no one read, is to dig deep into what I think and genuinely present it to you, so you can all laugh about it. One of those things floating around the empty space between my ears is the urge to leave the world behind me in a better condition with respect to the one where I found it. I choose this as the first introspective topic because not only is the only thing that matter, but also because in one way or another is the driving force of almost everyone in doing everything.

So far the expression leaving a better world is just acknowledging the fact that, with the exception of those that just like to see the world burn, we all have good motivations to do what we do and with this mild definition every little action has some reason we believe appropriate, founded on some moral value or some necessity. Therefore, the topic is so generic that is including insignificant actions or thoughts, even those we don't like (like do some shitty job because in that moment is the only option).

So let me try to be more specific. I want to explore those actions that are targeting the behaviour of someone else too. It can be to educate your kid to behave in the right way, or fight against global warming by not owning a car, or not eat meat because you hate your life, or tell people to vote for one candidate.

Or spending your time to write for strangers so they can feel something while reading.

Then there are the obvious one, like doctors, firefighters etc. They are amazing, so we don't care about them here.

All these actions are founded in a never confessed arrogance that everyone has (and should have). The arrogance of thinking that our way is the right way. There can be several different reasons why we believe that: statistical evidence, experience, scientific studies, religious beliefs, superstition, education received, etc. This is such a good set of reasons that makes very hard to see the arrogance in ourselves since it lives in the obvious conviction that my reasons are better than yours. One may or may not prove that one reason is better than the other, but will inevitably fall in the assumption that the interlocutor is sharing the same scale of values, the same education. By being convinced that we are reasonable people, we often forget how unreasonable we may look from the outside.

So for example, I may have (actually I do) solid arguments in favor of building a society more founded on a scientific approach to common problems, supported by a strong challenging scientific education since the very early stages of our life. Some of you may completely or partially agree with me. However, the question is: how effective can my words be for a religious fanatic? Especially when I identify my interlocutor as a fanatic.

Since nowadays the popular culture is founded on TV shows, for the next step I recall a scene in Aaron Sorkin's (praise the lord) The Newsroom. Sloan Sabbith, the expert economist of the show, wants to quit also because in months of hard good work she didn't change the fact that 42% of American citizens were believing something wrong. I found that little piece of dialogue perfect, the character did her job, gave the example of a correct precise worker and she changed nothing. 

On a more real example, in his famous piece John Oliver, to use a vocabulary that works on the internet, destroyed, eviscerated Donald Trump. His voice sounded loudly from his show (that is similar to what The Newsroom presented, sometimes literally) and his YouTube channel to the collective mind of American voters. However, we all know that eventually Trump won the primary election and still has a fair shot for the American presidency.

Why? Both the fictional and the real characters were just trying to make the world a better place, why didn't they sort any effect?

(Yes, I know, I used two HBO's shows as examples and HBO is not that popular, being quite expensive, I am trying to make a point, shut up)

I think the all point is that you will never give sense to a senseless mind. Sloan can't teach to people that think they can't learn, as well as to people that have no reason to believe they are wrong on a notion. John Oliver can make a piece that is a beautiful example of journalism and comic ability, but will never convince a Trump's supporter that Trump is bad. It is basically trying to communicate in different languages.

Trump's supporters will never see what John Oliver wants to communicate, because it attacks the foundations of their belief with a language that in their mind is saying here comes another TV star that wants to make money by pissing on Trump and on America and who the fuck is John Oliver btw.

Terrorists, in a sense, do the same. They believe in something and believe that some action is the right thing to do to achieve what they want. They even succeed in the action, but they always fail in the goal. They don't understand that the method is not going to change anyone else's mind.

In other words, people generically see what they want and what they expect to see. We expect the opposing team to do something and, as soon as our prediction is even partially fulfilled, we shut down our ability to understand what doesn't belong to us. Surprisingly enough, we don't apply the same method when we want to communicate. We are often so concern to be right that we forget the fact that being right about something is pretty much pointless if we don't change what surrounds us. If those that are trying to make the world a better place (pretty much everyone) do not start to understand who doesn't think like them, every action will always be only a narcissistic exercise of a non-provable superiority.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with it. Narcissism is what is keeping this society, with less and less human interaction, together. It is the reason behind our Facebook statuses, the politicians' words after some tragedy and, of course, these very pages (and this post in particular). Without narcissism (as well as without arrogance) we would lose a big part of our humanity. I'm not sure if it is a bad thing, but I see that as a probable outcome.

The take home message of this arrogant and narcissistic post is that to live in a better world we should try to really understand what doesn't sound good, what is in conflict with our beliefs and what is speaking a language different than ours. Probably, the way to achieve that is to begin with a very skeptical look at ourselves, because accepting and understanding our own human nature is a necessary step to start convincing other people of whatever bullshit is floating in our mind.

Game of Thrones, is it time to give up?

I'm not sure how to begin a post like that, so I start with a little story. (Useful to make everyone leave before encountering any spoiler because there will be many).

When I started watching The Walking Dead, I was very happy. It was perfect: mystery, tension, fear, uncertain fate for the main characters, violence and zombies, tons of zombies. The first two seasons were everything a TV show should be, a plot that was pure entertainment. Then, slowly but inexorably, events stopped happening, the tension was confined in the last few minutes of every episode just to make us junkie come back the next week, the plot was less and less important and even the zombies were not around anymore. The drop in quality was very subtle, nobody really noticed it, but eventually more and more viewers were just falling asleep at every given episode. I always wondered if it was me or the show that changed, TWD is the first TV series that I have abandoned and proved me that there is nothing bad with that.

All of that to say that if GoT season 5 was disappointing for me under many aspects, the just-finished season 6 not only confirmed the trend, but also added several annoying new features. Like in the other review, a disclaimer before continue: I know, the books are different, I know, the books are better, I don't care, books are always better because they obey to different rules.

This season managed to pass from episodes where nothing was happening, literally wasting screen time with irrelevant facts and shorter episodes, to compressed, unnatural, developments. The plot was always without any tension, the viewer knew at any given moment what was going to happen next.

I have to give credit for a few great scenes, but I feel something is lost, the situations are not built as in the past. The show rushed from one side of Westeros to the other, trying to show us what was happening to everyone. The only problem is that, most of the times, nothing was happening. What is the purpose of showing us Dorne if none of them will ever play a role again? Why do we have to hear 5 identical speeches from Danaerys? Why showing us Margaery plotting something if after all she just drew a rose on a piece of paper? And most of all, do we really need to see the damn High Sparrow in every episode? He doesn't say anything interesting and, for those that think that his dialogues are cool, remember Littlefinger and Varys, there is where I set the bar.

Even when they do things well, everything looks sloppier. The death of Hodor was an emotionally devastating moment, perfectly presented, like the good old days of the Red Wedding. D&D just decided to completely leave that story line for 5 episodes (half of the season), until in like 3 minutes they foreshadowed the destruction of the Wall (no deaths until the Wall stands) and revealed the most anticipated revelation ever. Come on, I live under a rock and I knew the origin of Jon Snow.

The battle of the bastards is a masterpiece, probably the best shot battle of the series, miles and miles ahead of anything else seen in this genre. However, besides the technical perfection, it starts with Rickon's death (and nobody gives two shits about him, we barely seen him, he did nothing, he tried to do nothing, he is even more irrelevant than Tommen), it continues with an emphatic charge of Jon (and we all know that nothing bad is going to happen him) and when everything is going bad again Littlefinger saves the day (as we all knew). 

Everything Arya does is super cool, but they show her only a few minutes every now and then. Eventually they tried to build up a tension on her fate, with a cliffhanger of her wounded at the end of one episode. The result was bad, because when you waste time in stupid cock jokes, then you have to rush the events. So not only everyone knew that Arya was going to survive (because otherwise what's the point of living in the first place) but also seeing her succeed was unrealistic and, generically, flat. Like a low-quality blockbuster movie.  

It is sad that many good characters were simply left behind. Littlefinger was one of the most promising one, his schemes, his political skill and his ambition were presented dialogue after dialogue, one fake smile after the other. His dark deepness was a driving force of the show (literally, since almost everything is happening because of him), so having him on screen for few minutes only when the plot demands it and with no explanation is a pity. If you then consider that his screen time is stolen by the most boring king in history of kings, manipulated by his wife (and we were left hanging for 4 episodes in that case too, I have almost forgot her existence, and guess what? nothing happened, she had no plan) and by the pointless religious fanatic, you start realizing that this show went down the hill too much.

Every evidence is showing that, although still enjoyable from time to time, the show is getting worse and worse at every new season. I can understand that for budget reasons you can be cheaper in some scene, but the poor writing and the bad choices are inexcusable. The more I think about it, the more I'm afraid to admit that even the good episodes (like episode 9 and 10) are looking that way only because they let us starve, gasping for a good quality show, in the previous 3/4 weeks. Because let's face it, this season wasted almost 4 episodes in silly stuff and religious bullshit. And this, my friend, is The Walking Dead effect, lower the general quality in order to make the ordinary sublime.

Therefore I was wondering: is it the case to let the show go? With every evidence pointing in the direction of a firm yes, it is also true that in the last good episode they got rid of the most annoying characters (basically everyone in King's Landing, the damn High Sparrow above all), that there is only one season left (but I fear the fact they will split it into two smaller seasons), and that I really want to see this winter everyone is talking about. 

Before writing this post, I watched again the first seasons of The Walking Dead, to find out who changed, me or the show.

The show. Hands down. 

TV writers are secretly organized to make us become addicted to their shows and then kill us with the filthy swipes of boredom.

When they will start to take over the world, remember: you read it here first. The future resistance, lead by Aaron Sorkin, has to know that they have to send a terminator back in time to save me, just in case.