With just a mild hangover casting a shadow over an otherwise gloriously unpleasant sunny day I can only assume its Saturday.Having been awoken by the cat at circa 4.48 gnawing on my right footed large toe (there are others - but the size and texture seemed to be the deal clincher here), I feel unable and thus unwilling to put best foot forward and fully embrace the day exploring its truly lacking potential.
Instead, , I decided to continue scouring the un-popular press for some sign of hope. Unfortunately, (although excluding a piece about a cat beating man in 100 yard dash), nothing was forthcoming.
However, what I did note was the number of articles discussing anti-social behaviour. Check any of the major web-sites claiming to contain the news and you'll find a veritable Aladdin's jem filled den relating to this. Indeed, one local news story seeking to illustrate the seriousness of the issue suggested,
"Anti-social behaviour presents one of the greatest risks to public confidence and it is therefore vitally important that we deal with all incidences robustly"
This really is a serious matter highlighted by Inspector Alison Jackson, speaking on behalf of Durham Constabulary. Unable to comment on just what an 'Incidences' is, I feel it a worthy allocation of time to examine the origins of anti-social.
Social - as we know - suggests some form of consensus or agreement. This could relate to behaviour, actions,thoughts, or beliefs. Historically, It can probably be traced back to hunter gatherer types that, when confronted with a woolly mammoth with erectile dysfunction , decreed it prudent not to endeavor to jab a pointy wooden stick into its thick protected hide on their own. Instead, a collective was potentially formed whereby a herd of hunter gatherers with lots of pointy sticks would attempt to impale the 4 legged meat supreme.
Many gnarled hands and all that.
This collective would Id imagine agree that the remaining survivors would divie up the carcass and share the bounty. Or in this case the bloody remains of the once majestic beast.
Conversely, and following the kill, the stronger hunter folk may have thought, 'hang on a sec, I'm taking the best bit for myself you melingering fuckers' - rejecting the temporary consensus and wanting the best cuts for him and his hairy wife.
And thus anti-social tendencies were born. Or shaped. Or determined.
But therein the problem lies.
Although rejecting conformity, did the hardest working hunter gathers not deserve the best uncooked putrid entrails? As Ive said a boat load of times in the past its highly subjective this anti-social/ social thing.
For instance, why are small groups of spotty herberts donning hoodies and drinking low quality lager on street corners deemed as anti social - yet large groups of armed british soldiers high on endorphins allowed to take pot shots at afghan women and children?
Concepts of social differ from nation to nation culture to culture.
Just you ask the afghans.
Its a little fucking presumptuous to define social I reckon.
Which brings us erratically to the Eurovision song contest. Is it really biased and unfair for all the eastern blockers to vote for their own? Or is it social conformity?
Are we therefore being anti-social and rejecting majority consensus?
More importantly, who gives fuck.
No comments:
Post a Comment