There are two clashing worldviews. There is my...

“

There are two clashing worldviews. There is my view, that a human being is in charge of his or her own life and, with sustained focus, can reach higher and higher achievement every week, gradually approaching (and maybe one day reaching!) a virtuous, peaceful, and happy life.

The other view is more of a victim mentality: that life happens to you, that infinite frustration and suffering are unavoidable, that the only reasonable way of coping with such an awful world is to attack whoever seems to actually enjoy life — because surely they are dishonest or crazy and must be brought back down to Earth.

”

Jake Lodwick (via marco) (via john)

Right, and?

(via fek)

I find it ironic that Lodwick seems to think Gawker’s critique of him contradicts his first thesis. They write about him precisely because they believe he’s in charge of his own life, and when he acts like a jackass in public, it’s because he made a conscious decision to do so. And part of being in charge of your own life is accepting responsibility for the consequences of said jackassery and bad decision making, which he isn’t doing here. Instead he’s suggesting—contrary to his personal belief that one is in charge of one’s life— that he’s been victimized by Gawker (because Gawker hates happy people and needs to take them down). Gawker is the problem and not his behavior—even though it’s easy enough for anyone to stay off of Gawker’s radar. (His College Humor co-founders have somehow managed it. Why can’t he?)

So make up your mind, Jakob. Either your decision making led to you being mocked on Gawker or it didn’t and you’re just a victim. You can’t profess to believe philosophically in the former and simultaneously suggest your specific situation is indicative of the latter.

Source jakelodwick