That's so Orwellian!

Have you noticed how, like, every single gosh darn politician and activist in the entire known universe has, at one point, tried to compare their opponents to the Big Brother regime in Orwell's 1984? It seems we have found a new "reductio ad Hitlerium" - "reductio ad Orwellium". Reducing something to sound like an Orwellian nightmare because you don't have anything more intelligent to say.

1984 is among the most potent and hugely intelligent commentaries on politics and human nature in the last 100 years. But that doesn't mean by making reference to it, your argument suddenly becomes cleverer. It usually has the opposite effect, because such references are hardly ever used thoughtfully and constructively, even by clever people. People don't follow such arguments through rationally, they just tag THEREFORE IT IS LIKE ORWELL on the end of their as-of-yet vaguely sensible argument against a thing, which is idiotic on, like, every level. One hilarious example surfaced on the BBC News Site Commenting Melarkey after the public-place-smoking-ban in 2007. As I recall, it was pretty much like "restricting when and where people can smoke? What's next, huh? CAMERAS IN OUR BEDROOMS?!"

Basically, reductio ad Orwelliums are one of those ridiculous shortcuts for getting out of making a proper argument (like the word extremism). They should stop being used as of now by everyone. Or there may be dire consequences. I mean, there's only a few short steps between lazy debating and THE THOUGHT POLICE!!!

P.S. I know I didn't coin the term "reductio ad Orwellium". So don't be all like "plagarisererer!!!!" on my ass.

P. P. S. It strikes me at this time that "that's so Orwellian!" is actually quite a sassy-sounding phrase. 

"What a beautiful baby! She'll make a delightful return on the national economy!"

So lately, people have been doing something that annoys me.

Whenever people talk about things like student fees or crime (two completely different things, actually, but never mind), they often refer to their fellow human beings in terms of what kind of economical or social benefit they're going to have for the country. As in, "people are doing degrees which don't get them into useful jobs! how does the economy benefit from such people going to uni?" or "thieves should be death-penalitied! what kind of benefit are people like that going to have for society?".*

*both actual real things I have heard people say, albeit paraphrased. No lie.

When I hear arguments like this, I'm reminded of Immanuel Kant's second categorical imperative. Kant says that it is a universal moral obligation to never view a human being as a means to an end- they are always an end in itself.
There are two broad reasons why I think a more Kantian attitude is desperately needed right now. One is a bleeding-heart-liberal-hippy reason, the other is a logic-based reason.

The bleeding-heart-hippy-liberal reason (because I am a hippy-liberal-bleeding-heart, live with it) is that people are people. They aren't numbers or inputs or outputs or investments. Every one of those people you just dismissed as uneconomical ("you" being the fictional person I am currently arguing with, named Leonard) is real breathing human being with hopes and fears and emotions etc. It's immoral and unhealthy to allow your perception of any person be completely determined by your own want and needs; even when you claim those wants and needs to be those of society. Because really, when people like you, Leonard, say "but how are these people going to benefit society/the economy?" it's generally a euphemism for "how are they going to benefit me?"
I admit that the government has to be rather more cold-hearted than would be ideal when passing economic policies, and, well, laws in general. I know they can't give people everything they want, or even everything they need (to paraphrase John Green). But there is a lot of room for improvement when it's comes to the government's view of the citizens they serve. There is plenty of space within the realms of reason for politicians to have a more people-based than money-based perspective. And what the government has to do is certainly no excuse for non-country-running people to have an attitude like Leonard's.

The second, more logical reason, is that this attitude of basing people's worth on their contributions to everyone else is irrational and ultimately self-destructive.
Society exists to benefit large groups of individuals. It is, in essence, a product of people's recognition that they can achieve more for everyone involved if they work together. Most (non-totalitarian) states today work on the principle that you have the right to take what you need from the collective, and the responsibility to contribute what you can afford to it.
So society and the individual work on this give-and-take basis. This presents a number of problems to Leonard's attitude.
Firstly, if society exists to benefit the individual, but we assess individuals on their contribution to society, than that makes everything a circular process. The individual exists to contribute to the collective, but the collective society has no reason to exists if it doesn't benefit individuals. This makes everything confused, and society becomes an essentially meaningless excersise.
Leonard can of course get round this by saying that demanding society's reaping of a person's fruits, we ensure we benefit a greater number of individuals. But then, what right do we have to demand their contribution? Going with the student fees thing, if we aren't going to accommodate a prospective student's ability to improve their lives, how do we have the right to demand they get a job and help the economy?
Similarly, if a government isn't going to support people in making their lives better, than it simply isn't doing it's job. The government has a responsibility to all of it's citizens, and higher education and reform-based sentencing for prisoners is as much a part of it's job as the National Health Service.
Basically, the government isn't in the business of doing anything for anyone. But if there's something someone can do for themselves, the government should act to support that. Otherwise there is very little point to having a state at all.

That essentially sums up what I'm trying to say. In my mind, Leonard has just agreed with everything I said and joined the Green party. For everyone else, feel free to continue the discussion with me.

VIDEO: Dara O'Briain on Islam (sort of)

Mr. O'Brien (Irish stand-up comedian, for those unaware) makes a really important point on the Western perspective on Islam from 1:44. Though the rest of the video is  thoughtful and funny and worth watching too.

Also, I'll be putting up my first proper blog post in ages later tonight, you will be pleased/horrified/apathetic to know.

VIDEO-LINK: Why have a Royal Family anyway?!

I thought this was quite an interesting answer:

Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed! Hooray!

So I know this is a day out of date, but I thought it was well worth posting a celebratory blog post to mark the ending of the US military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, which forbade gay or bisexual US soldiers from revealing their sexual orientation, on pain of dismissal.

Don't ask don't tell (DADT) was introduced by Bill Clinton as a replacement of the previous policy, where gays were forbidden from serving in the army, and commanders had the power to question soldiers on their sexuality. It was seen as a compromise, as LGBTers could then join the army provided they stayed in the closet. But it was still a discriminatory measure against gay people, and just a downright silly policy to have.

Being sexually attracted to members of your own gender does not have any affect on your ability to handle a gun or drive a tank. It does not make you any less loyal to your country. It does not make you any less of a soldier. Now, finally, the US Government and the Pentagon have recognised that.

What is also perversely encouraging is the desperate lengths antigays are having to go to condemn this measure. Take this guy, for instance. Yeeesh.
I've said it (or something similar) before; the more ridiculous the right-wingers sound when speaking against gay rights, the further we know the gay rights movement has advanced.

Here's to many more progay advances in the future.

Self-Confidence

Ego is a fickle thing. Often, our sense of self-worth is fragile and unstable, and the consequences of having a damaged ego are so painful that we cannot help but be ego-centric, placing the protection of our self-confidence above all else. Or else, we give up entirely on ever having a healthy ego, and the tunnel we are in seems to collapse and becomes a sealed cavern.

Getting the balance right between caring for your emotional health and caring for others', being confident in who you are yet not arrogant and self-centred, is an issue I think we struggle with for the whole of our earthly existence. Chances are it gets easier into adulthood as our lives become more stable, but I wouldn't know.

I'm hardly at the level where I can sufficiently lecture others on "how to like yourself", but there's a few things I've picked up on the matter which may turn out to be worth sharing. So here we go.

It's difficult to get confident until you act confident. To establish a place in the world where you are comfortable requires talking to people. Like, a lot. You need to have enough faith in yourself to share things about you and your life with the wider universe. You need to be able to reach out to people without fear of being stuck down. For me, that's one of the most daunting things, like, ever.
So, as difficult as it is, you need to act like you like yourself at least a little bit during the lengthy process of socialising. You need to block out the voice in your head telling you everyone hates you and act as though you know people are interested in what you have to say.
If it's of any help, I find pretty much anyone can be interesting if they try hard enough. Also, finding the right people who will find you interesting also helps. You're not going to have much success talking about manga and cosplaying to someone who's life revolves around football- at least not until you build up a really good "delivery technique", anyway.

Don't spend your time panicking about what people are thinking about you. I'm not denying that other people's views on you have a certain significance, but you don't want to fall into the trap of spending your energy on worrying about people's approval and not on making yourself into someone they can approve. Generally, trying to do things purely because you think they'll get people to like you is counter-productive. It comes across as superficial and irritating. You are at your best when doing things you love doing for themselves. So, do them.

Focus on the long term. Ego is like economics, in that you can either establish a model of rapid growth and decline, or one of slower, long-term growth. Try to harness your energies into things you love doing that will stay with you long-term and gradually help build you up, rather than more superficial temporary things like the latest fashion or a boyfriend/girlfriend.

At the end of the day, your view of you is up to you. Pleasing others will only take you so far. You need to find away of being a person you yourself approve of if your ego is going to get anywhere significant. Other peoples views, whilst well worth taking into account, are not everything. At the core of it, you need to like yourself because of who and what you are.

You are a diamond. In, like, the whole of the mass media, and also in the blog post, there's all this stuff about changing yourself and making yourself better. Which probably isn't helping the whole self-worth thing. The way I see it, every person is a rough diamond. Everyone already has the things they need to be good people with healthy egos, but those qualities need honing. So that's what I mean when I talk about changing yourself, and it's probably a good way to interpret all the other stuff too.

That's it. Well, it isn't. But it's all I have right now. Hopefully you've found it some kind of useful.

Until next time, mein freunden...  

Molehills are boring! I WANT HIMALAYAS!

I've been thinking about the human attitude to doing good stuff, and I've had a thought. To (hopefully) explain it, I'm going to thrust a fictional scenario in your direction.

A man has put on an event to help send money out to starving African children. The event is one of those where there isn't a ticket price, but a lovely big donation bucket to add to as you walk in. A woman walks up to the entrance and puts 50p in the bucket. The man, who is standing behind the bucket for some reason, asks her why she put so little in the bucket, and does she really think that's enough. She responds by explaining she is a recently-single mother with three kids to look after struggling to keep her job, and can't afford to donate a great deal more. The man's reply is something along the lines of "the Africans are suffering too! Think about them!"

The thing I want to get across is that the man isn't interested in the woman's problems, even though he has met her and she would be much easier for him to help than the random African kids. He's more concerned about the people he's never met in a land far far away.

As a song from Evita claims, "distance lends enchantment". It's so much more romantic to try and help those far away in situations we can barely even imagine.
There's no logical reason for wanting to help the far-away as opposed to the close. The single unemployed mother down the road is going to make much better use of your ten pounds than Unicef is, since the money is more concentrated. You're not sharing your donation out between hundreds of millions.

But maybe that's just it. Maybe it's the sheer scope of poverty in the third world which makes it such an attractive cause to throw money at. I think it's perhaps down to that fundamental human drive to want to be a part of, and contribute to, something bigger than ourselves. Often, we interpret that as "the bigger the cause, the better!" Forgetting that every big problem is made of lots of small ones. The devil is in the detail. (Or some similar expression.)

Humans are often accused of "making mountains out of molehills". I think a just as common attitude is to overlook the molehills and run straight for the tallest and most exciting mountains, and probably tripping up in the process.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that we are more attracted to what we see as bigger problems. And I obviously I think trying to improve lives in the third world is good. It just interests me.

Gay Marriage in Britain by 2015?!

According to this, Prime Minister David Cameron is "emphatically [whatever that means] in favour" of gay marriage, and confident of making it a thing by 2015.

Ed Milliband, the Labour leader, and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, are also explicitly pro- gay marriage.

The SNP Scottish government have already introduced a consultation paper on SSM, and are certainly close enough to make the Catholic church react with the usual right-wing nonsense. The Greens, obviously, are in favour. UKIP have never made a statement either way, which is probably the best we can hope for.

Now, I'm all for caution when it comes to getting excited about legislation which might never happen. But when the Tories, of all people, are wanting to bring same sex marriage in, and the only party explicitly against it are the fricking BNP, you've gotta be at least a bit hopeful.

Obviously, there will be a downpour of rhetoric from Britain's religious leaders, Cameron still has to overcome his socially conservative backbenchers, and we have no idea what's going to happen in the Lords.

But still. This is pretty exciting stuff.

I'll be keeping a much closer eye on the issue from now onwards, and will keep you lot posted (not that you need it).

Fingers crossed! 

For The Politically Interested And The Politically Disenchanted:

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party leader, delivered a fantastic speech at their Autumn conference. And, here it is, for your enjoyment: 

Dear Bullied Teenagers,

Hey you guys. (and everyone else reading)

I've wanted to say something to you lot about what you're going though for ages, but I've always held back, because I know nothing I say will ever really be enough. So I apologise in advance for the inadequacy, but, as a "veteran" bully victim and Person of Ever-Constant Insecurity, this is what I have to offer.

So, I know school sucks, because you're being condemned every day for who and what you are. I know you're probably (though not definitely) reacting by hating yourself and lying awake at night wondering what's wrong with you and how to sort yourself.

I don't know what they've decided is wrong with you, whether it's how you dress, or how you speak, or some physical feature of your body. I don't know what you'd change about yourself if you could. I don't know what your insecurity homes in on when you look in the mirror.

Just know that we all go through it. We all know we're not perfect, and most of us react to that by assuming that means we're not good enough. Know that those mocking you, laughing at you, kicking you, degrading you, treating you like shit because of something you are generally aren't thinking your flaws. They're thinking about their own, and have decided to make you the person they take that out on. That's unforgivable of them, but again, we all do it to some extent.

Know that perfect is not the same as good enough. All that your flaws prove is that you aren't perfect, but that's irrelevant. Imperfect people do awesome stuff all the time, everywhere. Everyone you admire is imperfect. Everyone who has ever improved the world or the human experience is imperfect. Your job isn't to be perfect, and never was.
So when that part of you tells you about you flaws over and over again, try to remember that everyone else has roughly the same amount of flaws too. There's no reason not to try and overcome or minimalise the effect of some of those flaws, but they aren't what's most important about you. They aren't what defines you as you.

Also, your job isn't to deal with the bullying. You're going to come up with a lot of advice, either directly or through works of fiction, that says your job is to put the bullies in their place and reform them or outfight them or whatever. But that can't work. There are too many insecure hotheads in a given secondary school to stop bullying from happening, and the causes of bullying are too fundamental for you to overcome them with karate or quick wit.
I know that sounds pessimistic, but it actually isn't. Once we get rid of the unattainable goal of making bullying stop happening, you can focus on what's really important- surviving it. Because that's what humanity needs you to do. We need you to come out of the other side of the sucky period known as secondary/high school alive and well and still "yourself" enough to offer the gifts/benefits you have to give the world.

That's about all I have to say. Just try and wade through the shit, and I'll wait here on the other side with a towel for when you leave school. Deal?

Much Love,
Sam Copson

Peer Pressure

I've been thinking a lot about peer pressure lately. There's a lot to be desired from our attitudes towards it.

Peer pressure is defined as any influence on a person's behaviour by their social group. As such, it is hardly the inherent force of evil most people seem to think it is these days. As always: the hyper-individualist attitude of "don't listen to what anyone thinks ever!" is just as damaging as the conformist attitude of "if you're different in any way you deserved to be mocked about it".

We all know what the problem is with the conformist attitude, so I won't go into it here.

But the problem with the other response, blocking every kind of peer pressure out and telling yourself that no-one's view of you matters, is highly problematic. As a human being, pretty much everything you do ever is going to affect other people in some way. And when you have power like that, you always have the moral responsibility to use it for the most possible good/least possible bad. You cannot effectively enact that responsibility if you are not in tune with what other people think about the things you do.
To put that in real terms- if you don't listen to other people's views on your relationship, you're more likely to hurt your boyfriend or girlfriend. If you don't listen to other people's views on your attitude, you're more likely to end up inadvertently snubbing people you actually like, causing offence, and ending up with no friends. And so on.
The other benefit of peer pressure is it provides you with greater awareness of other people, and helps you to develop social skills. This really applies to younger children; but those who paid no attention to what other people thought early in life generally have more problems with starting relationships (of all kinds) later in life.

So, with that in mind, the big question is this: where do we draw the line?

While we must allow peer pressure to shape us in some way, it's all too easy to take that too far, too. A lot of the times, people's criticism of you stems only from their own struggling egos, and a desire to crawl up the social ladder. As such, this criticism has precious little to do with you, in any real sense.
So how do we let ourselves be guided by the constructive without taking the inconsequential to heart?

I think the issue lies in how you process the pressure from your peers that you receive. The people who become desperate, insecure approval-slaves are the ones who have a gut reaction to "other people think this = I must do it". This is wrong, simply because people are often wrong. No, the healthy response to peer pressure is to take it in rationally, and make us of it as just another factor in the ongoing process of self-reflection.
In other words, what we should be doing is this:
peer pressure => reflection => = take in other factors => more reflection => conclusion => action
When all too often we simply do:
peer pressure => action

So, that's that.
Don't take everything other people say about you to heart, but do take it into account in a healthy and constructive way.

I think that's the closest I'm going to get to a satisfying summary on the matter.

Sorry for the lack of posts recently (because I'm sure you were all emotional wrecks without your regular Mouth of Copson fix), I plan to blog more in the days to come.

Ciao! 

So, Should We Try To Turn Gays Straight?

So a common issue for discourse between social liberals and social conservatives is whether homosexuality is an inevitable characteristic, or whether it is a dysfunctional phase that one can overcome if one is to take the right steps. In other words, whether gays are gay for life, or whether they can stop being gay with the use of what is known as "ex-gay therapy".

Therapy to help/convince homosexuals become heterosexual is one of the most bitterly controversial points in modern politics, particularly in the US of America. Left-wingers and others who believe homosexuals are naturally so, state that ex-gay therapy is psychologically damaging and leads to a feeling of inadequacy, self-loathing and, all too often, suicide. Those who cling to the belief that homosexuality is an inherently unnatural state for any human to be in assert that trying to turn straight is the only healthy thing for homosexuals to do, and that to advise them otherwise is doing them a disservice.

Allow me to take you through why I think what I think about homosexuality.

There is vast diversity among all human characteristics, physical, mental and behavioural. As such, it is unhelpful to have the knee-jerk reaction of labeling any minority characteristics as "dysfunctions". We have to keep an open mind about all rarities, and assess all types of people fairly without automatically thinking a difference from the norm necessarily constitutes a deficit.
So, with that in mind, lets begin our assessment of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is the desire to form sexual or romantic relationships with members of the same sex as yourself.
This is open to two points of contention which could lead to it being declared a bad thing. Homosexual relations cannot produce children, and are interpreted as being condemned by certain religions.

The first argument states that either because a homosexual relationship cannot produce children, there is no point to it, or because people who engage exclusively in homosexual relationships cannot produce children, there is no point to them.
To say that people waste their lives if they don't produce any children is beyond ridiculous, as I have blogged about before. People can benefit the world and the human experience in many other and sometimes better ways than creating children.
And I don't think saying relationships are pointless if no babies are made makes any sense either. People are designed to bond sexually and romantically for a great many social and physical benefits, which help to advance the species and which have nothing to do with reproduction. And these apply to homosexual relationships as easily as they do to heterosexual ones. I don't think you can look at the natural world and possibly say that God/nature intended every single member of a species to make children; many animal species from insects right up to mammals have social structures where only a few individuals are required to produce offspring. And those who do not produce offspring have other responsibilities, which they are held to by their relationships with the other members of their social groups.

So the second point of contention was the religion thing.
Here's the deal. Whether you follow a certain religion is up to you. It's your choice. I don't think anyone can say that to follow all the rules in the Bible or Qua'ran is inherent in human nature. We don't have the innate instincts to stone prostitutes, marry the first person we sleep with or devote the final seventh of our week to prayer. And if following these rules was inherent, there would have been no reason to write them down and have religious leaders teach them to people. So where on earth do religious right-wingers get the idea that the Bible is a guide to innate human nature?
And remembering what this post is supposed to be about, ex-gay therapy, it is not up to anyone to use therapy to try and Christianise, Muslimify, or Hindufy you. Muslims don't counsel people to help them overcome their pork-eating tendencies. Christians don't provide therapy for anyone with the overwhelming desire to work on Sundays. Jews don't counsel people to eat kosher. Etc, etc, etc.

As such, I don't think there is anything about homosexuality which allows it to be considered a dysfunction or mental illness.

But proponents of ex-gay therapy will say, what's the harm? Why not try to help people turn straight if that's what they want?
Well, there's actually quite a lot of harm.
Ex-gay ministries tell gay people that homosexuality, which is part of them, is evil. They teach them that as homosexuals, they have fallen short of the standard required by human beings. Well firstly, this is a lie, as if we follow the logic above, we agree there is no harm in being homosexual. Secondly, it's an extremely harmful lie. The psychological damage caused by being told you are evil, inadequate, inherently harmful to the world, is immeasurable.
It might be some kind of okay if the therapy then proceeded to turn its patients completely straight, thus removing the burden it placed upon them. But, it doesn't do that. Because ex-gay therapy almost never, ever, actually works. Yes, there have been cases where someone has gone into a re-orientation therapy clinic and come out able to have successful relationships with women, but it is such a vast minority. Success rates are rarely cited as above 20%, and when they are, they nearly always collapse in the face of further research. And you have to consider how many patients were actually bisexual, how many are simply repressing their homosexuality, how many were never gay in the first place but went because their parents were concerned with "effeminate" behaviour, etc, etc.

So, what we have in the vast majority of cases with patients of reorientation therapy is this.
1. They are consistently told that homosexuality is evil and wrong.
2. They are consistently told that this therapy will work, that sexuality can be changed, that God's love will save them from their gayness, etc.
3. After weeks, months or years of therapy, they are still gay.
Can you imagine what a toll that would take on the ever-fragile (usually young) human ego? The failed therapy will open the floodgates to a thousand feelings of failure, self-loathing, even feeling rejected by God himself, perhaps. They will feel they are a mistake, that they are fatally flawed and evil. And that is entirely the fault of practitioners of re-orientation therapy.
Ex-gay therapy is damaging thousands of young people every year. It's practitioners impose psychological scars on people which often last for life. To be frank, it is wrong on every possible level.

Please, reader, protect the young people of the western world from being bullied and scarred by self-proclaimed "psychologists" trying to further a political agenda, and speak out against ex-gay therapy at every opportunity you get.

It's Okay To Fail Sometimes

So a few hours ago, I posted a big brash blog thing about the potential of humans and how we can all be awesome if only we are to try. But I forgot to address something important, i.e, what inhibits people from trying so often. And that, I think, is fear of failure.

In this world, it's easy to think of life as though we are being scored on how many times we succeed and how many times we fail. Like there's some cosmic tally controlled by Mr. Society, who gives you a big black mark every time you do try and do something, and subsequently fail.

At primary school, we are often told that "winning's not important" and "at least you tried, that's what's matters". But it's difficult for these ideas to stick, primarily because those same adults telling us those things usually don't appear to be putting that idea into practice. And also because not long after we are exposed to the intensely competitive, ego-driven world of secondary school, which causes a lot of our primary school values to be swept away for good.

But I would propose that fear of failure is perhaps the single most unhelpful emotion humans have. To explain, I'm going to try and imagerise how I think trying, success and failure work:

Before you try, you are at ground level. In neutralville. Then, when you try, you are attempting to build blocks to somewhere better. If you succeed, you get to the better place. If you fail, you simply end up where you were before. So failing isn't actually negative in the traditional sense- trying and failing doesn't make anything worse than it was before.

Which is why fear of failure is totally unhelpful. The purpose of fear is to protect you from harm, like, "run away from that ferocious bear!" "don't touch that red-hot garden hoe!" "don't climb into the back of that man's van!" But fear of failure doesn't do that, because failing doesn't hurt you. It's doesn't make anything worse, it just stops things from being better, temporarily.

So if you don't try, you will remain where you are. If you try, then yes, there's a chance you'll fail, but the consequences of failing are the same consequences of not trying in the first place; and, crucially, there is a chance you will succeed, and things will be better.

I know of course, that none of this has much bearing on why people are actually afraid of failure. That is (as far as I can tell) because we are exposed to endless scrutiny as human beings from our equally insecure peers, and what we are really afraid of is the inevitable mockery and belittlement that will come from failing.

This is a difficult fear to transverse. But it's important to remember that people don't generally care about your flaws whilst mocking them. It just makes them feel good for a while. In a week, a day, perhaps an hour- most of those who mocked you will have completely forgotten what it was about. What they are saying (in this context) has no bearing whatsoever on who or what you actually are, or what they actually think about you. Being mocked for failing says absolutely nothing about you, and absolutely everything about the one or several mocking you.

Failing is fine; as is imperfection. Something doesn't have to be perfect in order to be beautiful- which is just as well, because perfection is pretty much imaginary.
For example- I know that this blog post has flaws. It's bizarrely ambiguous, and uses the word "mocking" and it's derivatives far too much. But that's not going to stop me posting it on the internet for potentially (except not actually) all of humanity to see. Because I quite like the point I'm making, and have hope that this post will vaguely help at least someone as they traipse through life.

Just to clarify, this is not a raving of "I am good at this, you should be as good as me". I am crippled by fear of failure far too often. Actually, it's worth noting in general that whenever I do everyday-life-made-better type posts I'm always at least one-third talking to myself. So, yeah.

Point being, do not let fear of failure stop you from doing absolutely anything. Because failure, in the vast majority of cases, has no consequences worth losing sleep over.

Don't Forget To Be Awesome

So, here's the deal.

The human brain is pretty much the most complicated, advanced and fantastic single object in the universe.

The human body has evolved to a level where it can manipulate the environment around it like no species before it.

In short, humans are powerful.

And we not so much as can, but will use that power to either make the world better or worse.

I know it's easy to get intimidated by the humongous vastness, perplexing complexity, terrifying fragility and downright strangeness of the world.

But, remember: you are at the same evolutionary level at the people who founded philosophy, the men who first harnessed electricity, all the people who came up with the various ideas in politics, those who built Rome, those who built the aeroplane, those who sanitised water the first time, etc, etc.

In order to excersise your potential, you need to be aware of the awesome around you and the awesome within you.
The awesomeness in the world shows that the world is something worth improving, worth defending, worth contributing to. Because it's amazing and beautiful.
The awesomeness within you, your power as a human being and your unique abilities and virtues as an individual, reminds you that it is well within your ability to make good things happen.

In short, there is no excuse for apathy.

Many things are good, and you can make them better.

The slogan of the Nerdfighter community (the best online community in the world ever) is DFTBA- Don't Forget To Be Awesome. The reason this is such a fantastic slogan, is that whether you are awesome or not is down to whether or not you choose to be.
No-one is intrinsically un-awesome. You have fifty trillion cells and billions of neural relays to make use of, as well as a well of intelligence and thought processing. All you need is the will to kick your latent awesome into gear, and make the world better by creating, defending, changing.

So, go for stuff. Don't let your perceived flaws cripple you. You are well equipped to deal with life.

You, my friend, are a bucket of awesome waiting to be thrown onto the world.

Now, GO!