A to Z: Things I Hate

So over this long weekend, I have been trapped at home (like I literally cannot get out), and what is a better way to spend that time than by reading other people's blogs?! It was very fun (for me, at least) to admire/judge my classmates' blogs, from Julia's "Perfect is never good enough" (really beautiful) to Georgia's "The Kim Kardashian App is Ruining my Life." (I don't even know how to describe it...). Along the way, I gathered inspiration for my blogs (I'm writing about my blogs in my blog...meta af). Today I will be basing it off of Julia's A to Z list of her favorite foods. I, as a very cynical person, decided to put my own twist on this concept and do a list of things I hate to kick off the third quarter! Please enjoy and don't get offended!

AP World History (except DMAC...he's chill)
Bad movies (aka rom coms, About Elly, most historical films, ones with too much talking, About Elly, pretentious movies, overly artsy ones, About Elly, etc)
Conservatives
Dabbing (it is basically sneezing without sneezing honestly people wake up)
English papers
Fetty Wap
Grades
Homework
iPhone reliance
Jar Jar Binks
Kmart
Leonardo DiCaprio (there is a reason he remains Oscar-less)
Marta's stuffed cat
Non-deserving award winners/nominees (see this year's GRAMMY nominations...)
Overly dramatic actors
Pretentious/phony people (the older I get, the more I relate to Holden from Catcher in the Rye)
Quadrilateral proofs (#tb to last year's final exam)
Romeo & Juliet
Salty people
Trump, Donald (and Ted Cruz)
U (as in the abbreviation people use in texting [along with "ur"], like your life is not so busy that you can't type an extra 2 letters)
Viagra commercials
Waiting
Xerox machines
Yams (basically a rip off of sweet potatoes)
Zyzzyva (this word just annoys me when I look at it)

Fate.

Fate: a power that is believed to control what happens in the future. Fate itself is self-explanatory; however, the real mystery lies in its ability to change or ensure fate. If that last sentence doesn't make sense, it's because it really doesn't. It's mind-bending to think that fate can change (or preserve) fate. If you are confused, look at this:

"Oh, and I don't care about the vase."
"What?" I ask.
"Don't worry about it when you knock it over, I never like that vase anyway."
"Where?" I respond, turning around. As I spin, my coat flies out, knocking a vase off the shelf and I look to the floor as it smashes into a million pieces.
"There. But, like I said, it's fine."

So a man enters an oracle's home, and since the oracle can see the future, she knows he will knock over her vase. But how does he knock it over? Think about it: the reason he knocked it over was because she told him that he would. But if she hadn't said anything, the man would've taken off his coat and the vase would've been fine. Right? Or would he have knocked it over in another fashion, making the prophecy come true, whether told or untold? I think that the latter would have to be correct, going back to the definition of fate. According to that definition, fate has to come true whether told or not. Yet there is still a flaw with that: what if fate takes into account the telling of fate? Meaning that fate wasn't that the man would knock over the vase; the fate of that even was that the oracle would tell him that he would knock it over, causing him to knock it over, making the oracle not a person who is able to see fate, but rather just a part of fate. Mind-blowing.

Another prime example of fate being told is in Shakespeare's Macbeth. The witches are able to see the future, allowing them to tell prophecies to Macbeth and his posse. But does this actually make them come true? Let's take a look. In Scene 5.1, they tell him three things, all of which come true. But how?

"Beware Macduff!" - This first one is pretty straightforward: Macbeth is told to beware of Macduff. But his actions that follow are the interesting part. After hearing this, he has Macduff's entire family killed—angering Macduff and prompting him to attack Macbeth. But if Macbeth had not been told this, if he had not killed Macduff's family, might he have lived? After all, Macduff was only pushed over the edge after learning his family was killed, so without that final straw he may not have led an army against Macbeth.

"Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him." - This section leads Macbeth to think he cannot be harmed. After hearing this, he ignores advice to be cautious from his advisors, as he is under the impression that an entire wood cannot come to his castle (which is technically correct). Because of this, he sits in his castle relatively unprepared for the attack to come, eventually leading to his demise.

"For none born of a woman shall harm Macbeth." - The final part of Macbeth's downfall is even after the first two parts of the prophecy come true, he is still to arrogant to realize that the third will come true as well and acts invincible. If he had been in a sensible state of mind without being clouded with false arrogance, he likely would have realize that his doom was upon him and fled to save his life. However, he thought that it was impossible to not be born of a woman, so instead he stayed.

These false confidences that the witches ingrain in him cause his downfall, but would he have survived if they hadn't told him? Shakespeare presents this prophecy to be inevitable, the one and only future. But if he hadn't, or if the witches hadn't told Macbeth, would it have still come true? I think not, as Macbeth is a smart man and would have most likely avoided his "fate." However, the whole point of fate is that it has to come true and cannot be changed. Therefore, if it was not told to him, would it still be fate, or simply a mindless trialogue told by some insane women?

In conclusion, my view on fate is that it always comes true. If it remains untold, the audience does not know it, so it is assumed to come true. When a fortune is told, it is guaranteed to come true by the telling of it, as a character's attempt to either alter it or follow it will ultimately end up in its completion. And if the telling of fate changes a character's motives, then that telling was part of fate, but just never told to the audience. Therefore fate can never be wrong.

About Cait.

Caitlyn Jenner. This is a name that you have heard even if you have been living under a rock for the past year. Previously, she was Bruce Jenner, who was launched into the limelight after winning a gold medal in the decathlon at the 1976 Olympics, earning him the unofficial title of "world's greatest athlete." He also became an American hero by reclaiming this title from the Soviet athletes who had won it in 1972, which was an important boost to American morale during the Cold War. Following this victory, he dabbled around in various careers such television, movies, motorsports, and business, Flash forward about 20 years and he is now a star on the thought-provoking reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. This is when his transition starts.

In 2014, rumors began circulating of the possible change. He was moving out of the media's attention and played a far less prominent role in the TV series. He was secluded away from the public eye, and the rumors started. At first they seemed absurd: America's Greatest Athlete, classified as one of the "manliest" people, changing into a woman? But as time progressed, they seemed closer to reality. Perhaps a change really was underway. This was confirmed during his 20/20 interview with Diane Sawyer, airing on April 24, 2015. However, it wasn't until June that it really hit the public that he is now she.

On June 1, 2015, Caitlyn Jenner revealed her cover for Vanity Fair, revealing her name and body for the first time to the scrutiny of the public eye. From that moment, her life began to rush by. She changed from being an elusive figure to  being everywhere you turned, becoming even more famous than Kim Kardashian herself.

But this post isn't supposed to chronicle her life; rather, I am sharing why I personally don't like her. Now, this has nothing to do with her gender change. It is not my position to speak for her or decide what her gender identity is; that's completely up to her. But what she does with it is not laudable.

First of all, there is the constant exploitation of her transition—done solely by her. From constant interviews, magazine covers, books, and even her own reality show, she is raking out as much cash as it will allow. And these are based around one thing: Caitlyn. Her reality show, for example, does not focus on the transgender community, but rather on her. It is about her becoming a woman and how that affects her and her family. All about her. It does not go beyond her world, or talk about real issues; it is simply a way for her to get people to watch her be her, all while getting her more money. Another instance of her exploiting her change is the reveal itself. Instead of simply revealing it through social media, she appears on the cover of Vanity Fair, with an exclusive interview inside. Although the exact amount has not been disclosed, it is only reasonable to think that she was paid a large sum of money for this. I mean, Vanity Fair must have gotten a great deal of ad revenue from both website visits and magazine sales following the reveal. And a portion of that would of course go to Caitlyn Jenner.

In addition to her making profit on her change, she has also bestowed herself with the title of being an activist for the transgender community. At multiple events, she speaks on behalf of the transgender community as a whole. As with all events for oppressed people, a major point is the struggles that they face, and how to improve them. At these events, Caitlyn speaks about her struggles. But what struggles? Receiving mean 140 character Tweets? Not having full public acceptance? The truth is, she hasn't faced a quarter of what the rest of transgendered people face daily. She has assumed the face of the "leader" of the community, but speaks about non-important issues. Yes, bullying is a big problem and it should be spoken about, but compared to the other issues that they face, it is miniscule. There are so many bigger issues, such as legal job & healthcare discrimination, disownment, and hate crimes including homocide against the transgender community, but she does not focus on those. Someone who has actually faced those should be speaking, not a multimillionaire who lives above the general public in the safety of fame and fortune.

Yet another issue with her is her views of women's struggles. In an interview, she said the biggest issue of being a woman is looking pretty and deciding what to wear. Yes, that's right. Not wage inequality, institutionalized misogyny, or public insensitivity to rape, but rather "How do I look today?" This blindness and ignorance to women's issues is disturbing and even dangerous. It is despicable that she chose to become a woman for the body alone, paying no mind to the responsibilities that come with it.

The final major problem with Caitlyn Jenner is her views on the LGBT community. She claims to be a supporter and advocate of the community, which is a good thing, right? Wrong. Because she's not. She has explicitly said that she does not support marriage equality in an interview with Ellen. What?! How do you claim to fight for public acceptance if you don't even support the people in your own community? How do you claim to be and LGBT activist if you don't support the L, the G, or the B?

This is why Caitlyn Jenner is using her gender transition in the wrong way, as it is merely a gimmick for her to gain more money and fame. She has become a disgrace to the LGBT community by not supporting the LGB, and failing to recognize the constant struggles of the T. In becoming a woman, she has not even taken up the role of being a feminist and fighting for equality, but instead sits back pondering on what to wear. Her problem isn't becoming a woman; it's everything else.

The Fine Art of Procrastination

If you know anything about me, you know my favorite activity (or rather lack thereof): procrastination. If there is a paper assigned, there is a 99% chance that I will write it the night before it's due; the other 1% is that I will write it the day I need to turn it in. After all, it's called the due date for a reason: the date on which you do an assignment. I often receive flack for it from my teachers, parents, and even friends. But why? Yes, I get that you supposedly do better if you don't save it to the last minute, but is that even true? I mean I will put the same amount of effort into something if I do it a week before as I would the day before, but merely at an increased speed. In addition, saving something for the last minute gives me a lot of motivation. If I sit at my computer and say, "Ok, I'm going to write this paper that's due next week now," chances are I will open a document, think, then close it, only to wait a week before opening it again and writing the entire thing. That's because I have 0 motivation to do it. In that very moment, I could be doing something way more fun that I enjoy, rather than write a paper. "But you can have fun later if you do it now!" Yes, but why? I will ultimately have the same amount of time to play and work, no matter which order I do it in. Except if I do work second, I will actually have more time for fun. Think about it.

By saving something for the last moment, I increase my efficiency at that task through increased motivation. Let's say, for example, I have 6 hours and a 3 page paper to write. If I start that paper at the beginning and work constantly with no distractions, I'll probably finish in 2 hours, leaving 4 hours of extra time. This is because in my head, I know that I have plenty of time, so I will naturally overthink everything. I might spend 5 whole minutes trying to rephrase an awkward sentence because I can. I won't be very focused because I know I don't have to be: I have 6 whole hours!

So now let's switch sides and say I spent 5 hours not working, leaving only an hour to write it. In my brain, I would divide it up: 5 paragraphs, with 3 body paragraphs, an introduction, and a conclusion, meaning I can spend 10 minutes on the introduction, 15 on each body, and 5 minutes on my conclusion. This will be running through my brain as I type up the paper, so I will pace myself accordingly. My motivation will be to get it in on time and to get a good grade. Instead of typing the aforementioned awkward sentence, I will type it correctly the first time because my whole thought process will be going towards typing the paper well the first and only time, instead of thinking that I can always go over it later so it doesn't have to be perfect. Through this process, I will type nearly the exact same paper, but in only half the time, so in the long run I had a better overall experience in those 6 hours.

Then there's always the "But you'll do better if you leave yourself time!" But how much better? If I save myself time, I'm just writing pretty much the same thing at a slower pace. Of course there will be minuscule differences, but how much are they actually worth? Is it worth putting in an extra hour to raise a 94% to a 95%? For me, the answer is no. I would much rather have an extra hour and get a very slight grade drop than use that hour to get a 95. And then there's, of course, dealing with that one friend who's salty that he spent more time on something but didn't get a higher grade and that it's not fair, but what can I say? This is just the way that I work, and it is a system that works for me, so others should not mind how I do my work, as long as I eventually get it done and do well.

So anyway, that's my view on procrastination. Hope you learned a lil bit.

LIFE CHANGING VIDEO!

We've all been doing it wrong! Here is a video of Kourtney Kardashian showing us all the correct way to eat a Kit Kat bar! Who knew?! I personally found this video truly educational and life-changing. 10/10 would recommend watching.

Kylo Ren: A Gif Story

This is a little collection of Kylo Ren's most iconic moments from Star Wars: The Force Awakens as told by gifs that I have found all across the Internet. Enjoy.

Kylo: I will teach you the power of the dark side

Rey:

Kylo: Nothing will stand in our way, I will finish what you started

Anakin:

Rey: you're afraid that you'll never be as strong as Darth Vader
Kylo:


Kylo: [getting thrashed by Rey] Wait! I can show you the power of the Dark Side!
Rey:


Kylo: Will you help me?
Han Solo: Yes. Anything.

Kylo:

MACBETH

Before even starting Macbeth, the class got into a heated discussion about whether or not to use the name of the play outside of reading directly from the script. We were split on whether to say it when even discussing or not, as some felt that it would be “disrespectful” to those who believed in it to even utter the two-syllable word. I feel that it is ridiculous to not say it because at the beginning of the year, we agreed that it would be acceptable to use whatever language was necessary in the context of the reading. Therefore, I should be able to say “Macbeth” if I want to talk about, oh, I don't know, MACBETH.

Although I do not believe in the curse, some people are superstitious about it and do not want to say it, which is completely fine with me. But it is not their place to tell me if I can say it or not; that’s up to me. As cliché as it may sound, I have the Freedom of Speech and should be able to exercise my right in a classroom of all places, where teachers tell us to express our opinions and share our views without having to censor them, but then I am told not to say the name of a play we are studying?

Here, we see Mr. Yee spinning

after saying the cursèd word.

In addition, the stories that Mr. Yee told us do not contradict this point but further strengthen it. Both of his friends repeatedly said “Macbeth” for the pure sake of annoying their classmates (from what I gathered), which is not at all what I am saying. For those who feel comfortable saying it, they should only say it when necessary (when referencing the play or character), and not just randomly. Furthermore, the two tragedies happened in their own lives, not in those of any of their classmates. So if I were to say “Macbeth,” I am not putting anyone else at risk (...of having a random incident happen purely out of coincidence...) but myself. By voting to ban that word, the class is restricting people from saying a word that could theoretically affect no one but themselves, instead of letting those who feel comfortable to say “Macbeth” say it, so everyone can be happy.

In the following weeks studying Macbeth, the name has been said many times, with many of those times being the same people who claimed it was disrespectful to say it...hypocritical much? As a "punishment" for speaking his name, one has to spin around three times (you can now watch Mr. Yee spin around for eternity following the countless times he has said Macbeth!!!), which makes even less sense than the curse itself. Even if there really was some mysterious curse, standing up to spin around would do nothing to prevent it. Like Macbeth wouldn't say, "You just said my name, so now I will do something bad to you! Oh wait you spun around, nvm." So basically my point is that this whole thing makes no sense. Bye.