Antisocial on Facebook
It took me a long time to join Facebook, because literally every single aspect of it sounded unappealing.  Connecting with people?  Finding friends from college, or even high school?  Who would want that? 

But I joined, and quickly discovered something that appeals to an antisocial person like myself:  I can be antisocial while pretending to be social.  Facebook connections can act as a sociability stand-in:  I'm keeping up with your life circumstances and the things you care about, but I don't have to actively interact with you to do so.  It's completely passive, unless I want to give a thumbs-up or leave a comment.  It doesn't necessarily need to be a stand-in; I can also have a social relationship with you in real life.  But the passive nature of it and the lack of direct social contact allows a person like myself, who doesn't enjoy a ton of social interaction, to maintain some form of sociability without actually being sociable. #sociology

Acknowledgement
I've been having an issue recently with people not acknowledging what I say before they respond, often with either a solution, a criticism, or a one-up.  I was telling some co-workers about a problem I've been having at work, and their responses were "Ha ha, you'll figure it out" and "That's how those things go."  While these statements may be true and perhaps even the "correct" response, I felt like the one thing that was missing was an acknowledgement that what I've been doing is difficult work and that the lack of success sucks.  I guess what I'm looking for is empathy, not a pep talk. 

A similar thing happened a while ago when I was trying to express my outrage about the government furlough.  I realize complaining isn't the pinnacle of human conversation.  But at the same time, I feel that a well-formed rational argument is at least worth an acknowledgement.  Instead, I got a lot of "It's not as bad as [x]" and "Obama is a cactus." 

The funny thing is, I'm not a "feely" person.  I've been told I don't express my feelings, and I don't express them well, and I don't express them enough.  So here I am, expressing my feelings, and all I get is non-validation.  I was under the impression that a fundamental component of human communication is acknowledging what other people say, as are listening to what other people say and responding appropriately.  Acknowledgement is validation, and without it, conversation is mostly one-sided. #sociology

On gay marriage (1)
I heard a soundbite recently from a John Q. Citizen that went something like, "I don't believe in gay marriage because it goes against my beliefs."  For one thing, the wording was odd.  Whether you believe in it or not, it can exist.  But that's just Christian-inspired semantics.  My main criticism is the idea of judging another person's actions based on your own personal convictions, especially when those actions have no conceivable effect on you whatsoever.  It would be one thing if it was an ethically obvious issue like murder or spousal abuse or racism, where there's a clear victim and a clear victimizer.  But gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, is the product of consenting human beings, with the only victim being the sensibilities of bystanders. 

The most common argument against gay marriage is that the Bible forbids homosexuality.  I'd like to point out a flaw in that logic:  The Bible also forbids, among other things, the worship of any other god besides the god of the Bible, and it does so in the Ten Commandments.  I know plenty of people who, if not outright worshiping other capital-G gods, surely don't worship the god of the Bible.  Opposing gay marriage makes the exact same amount of sense as opposing Hindu marriage, or atheist marriage. 

I'll be honest:  I haven't always felt this way.  There was a time during my fundamentalist phase where I happily opposed gay marriage because it could lead to the further deterioration of the moral fabric of our fine nation, to say nothing of the abhorrent thought of a gay couple raising a child.  But at some point (fairly recently, admittedly), I came to think of sexual orientation in the same vein as gender and race:  Qualities a person has that shouldn't be repressed or made illegal.  And marriage is a right just like liberty and justice.  To restrict it to certain groups of people based on personal qualities is distinctly un-American.  And as for gay people raising kids -- being around gay people doesn't make you gay in the same way being around lawyers doesn't make you a lawyer and being around cats doesn't make you a cat.  Also, it could be argued that Christian parents can be damaging as well.

It's funny because I find myself bringing up the topic of gay marriage quite a bit in conversation, which might suggest something about me.  But the thing is, I'm not gay.  Like at all.  To be completely honest, I think gayness is gross.  I'm repelled by homosexuality.  But as a supporter of individual freedom, I think people should be as disgustingly gay as they want, as long as their actions don't impinge on the freedoms of anyone else. 

Someday I hope we'll look back on this period of human history in the same way we look back at slavery.  How could we have been so stupid, so naive, so insensitive to think the opinions of the majority reflect the interests of the minority?  Nowadays it's almost preposterous to think that there was a time when women weren't allowed to vote because of their gender, and black people weren't allowed to attend the same schools as white people because of their race.  Hopefully we'll add to that list:  Gay people weren't allowed to marry because of their sexual orientation. #sociology

Calendar date formats
There's a bit of international discrepancy regarding calendar date format, i.e. whether you write and say the date as "Month Day, Year" or "Day Month Year" or something different.  As with many things, America is nearly alone in referring to dates as "Month Day, Year", which is not only confusing for people who don't use the format, but also presumably illogical if you're not accustomed to it.  I think it's more of a case of familiarity than logic, but I have a hard time arguing for the other side for the following simple reason:  When naming computer files or folders, if I use the calendar date and I want to find something I worked on in June, it's difficult if I use the day first, as in: 
file-01-01 (Jan 1)
file-01-06 (Jun 1)
file-01-12 (Dec 1)
file-02-01 (Jan 2)
file-02-12 (Dec 2)
But with the month first, it becomes easy: 
file-01-01 (Jan 1)
file-01-02 (Jan 2)
file-06-01 (Jun 1)
file-12-01 (Dec 1)
file-12-02 (Dec 2)
This could all be a matter of perspective though, and the above example proves dumbfounding to a non-American. #sociology

Conversation of complaints
I heard a guy say the other day that complaining is the simplest form of conversation.  I thought that was pretty interesting, except that he said it in reference to his girlfriend who was complaining about the traffic on the way to the BBQ we were all at, so it was a little awkward.  He hasn't yet learned the art of "not saying dumb things to your girlfriend." #sociology

Future leader
I just saw a guy: 
  1. talking on a cell phone wedged between his shoulder and his ear
  2. while smoking a cigarette
  3. while riding a bike
  4. against traffic.
Let's all welcome our newest presidential candidate.

Related:  Bad combinations #sociology

Nominative determinism
Nominative determinism is the idea that a person's name plays a role in determining their future profession or other attributes.  Mental Floss has a bunch of examples.  I like golfer Tiger Woods and sprinter Usain Bolt. 

News of the Weird routinely does a segment called "Names in the News" that includes many similar examples, like Kevin Lee Cokayne who was arrested for dealing marijuana. #sociology

True soldier
Writer and philosopher GK Chesterton:
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
#sociology

Part representing the whole
I don't like how certain groups of people are represented by a single person.  Like the president.  Many people are opposed to some of his political policies and whatnot, and especially in the case of non-Americans, they assume the president's beliefs and actions are representative of each of his constituents.  That's simply not the case.  And even if you voted for the guy, chances are you still disagree with some of what he does.  I just want to say to people who don't live in countries with a representative democracy:  The part doesn't fully represent the whole. 

The same is true with religion.  I don't like being grouped in the same category as people who burn Korans or people who protest funeralsTechnically, I subscribe to the same religious beliefs as these people.  But in reality, my religious practices are quite different and typically don't include negative or hateful actions.  I wish I could announce to the world that whatever religion these people are practicing, though it may sound similar to my own, is not. #sociology

Military pride
I think one of the most favorable advancements in the history of America is the idea of military pride, i.e. respecting people who serve in the military and paying them a decent salary.  From a logical viewpoint, fighting in wars for often questionable causes shouldn't elicit a favorable response.  Most people aren't willing to die for something they don't at least believe in, if not wholeheartedly support.  But because our nation has a rich history of military success and valor, serving in the military is seen as honorable, even wise.  I'm not smart enough to know of specific examples, but I'm under the impression that certain countries at certain periods throughout history have treated their soldiers poorly and viewed them as expendable cogs in the kingdom-building machine.  This is a good way to decrease the size of one's military.  A good way to increase the size of one's military is to value them, respect them, and glorify them. #sociology