Warning: This work has been rated 16+.
85) To be inclusive comes from several niceties, but the act of participation is exploited by those overly keen to include everyone. To be exclusive is, by its nature, prone to an "us or them" mentality but may define who is on certain lines. These two concepts in opposition to each other actually overlap in some cases.
86) Darlings and pop-culturalists are at once inclusive and exclusive, to the point of delirium. They often encourage participation from a small circle of acquaintances. If they wish to extend the invitation to a "lesser" person, they either force the unlucky participant to join them with an obsessive, almost fundamentalist tour. They are forced to be included in everything, or nothing. A lot of it is a test, an initiation, where the goal posts always change. Exclusion from a group no-one gets to join anyway is the only thing inevitable.
87) Ironically, for all their bitterness and rebellion against the conventions of pseudo-society, the dregs are much better suited to be inclusive than exclusive. Perhaps this is because one who drops to the lowest layer of society has much in common with the inhabitants of the junkyard. They have many friends, to revel in the absurdity of their downfall, to get drunk on dirt cheap alcohol and take poor quality drugs.
88) The dregs, much like the anarchists and the communists of yesteryear, are happy to have another exiled citizen. The more the merrier! And exclusion? It is indeed possible to be excluded from the excluded. For a start, dishonesty is frowned upon in the dreg community, mainly because honour is the only possession you may have if you lose everything. Dishonesty is automatically assumed to be an ulterior motive, but whether or not it's for secret dealings with the bourgeoisie of the pseudo-society is up to debate.
89) A sensible mix in the society of neutrality can be obtained if we sat down and thought about it. We include those whom we respect and like, whilst we exclude those we don't. However, exclusion must not be justified by weak reasoning and reverence to trivial matters. Exile must not be done on the grounds of ethnicity, sexuality, gender or anything else. That being said, anyone from any of these groups can be exiled if they are behaving like a bastard.
90) It must also be noted that inclusion must not fit under these grounds, neither to enhance the privilege of a sect nor force diversity down other's throats. Diversity is a progressive process, and cannot be forced by a few changes in aesthetics. The only reason it is forced so quickly is not because diversity is desired for genuine reasons, but because it's just another trend. It is hard to distinguish the groups who are diverse without being contrived and the ones who are contrived.
91) I shall elaborate on the religious and I shall obliterate the mock-sociologists as my opinions move onto the proceeding parts. For now, let this be known: the more outwardly inclusive a large group- the place of worship, the confidential location, the internet forum, the political party- the more inwardly exclusive it really is. An outwardly exclusive group naturally has the same fate.
92) This raises a question. Why exactly do we exclude others? I think it's the drive to have our own ideas divorced from others. Also, elitism is a heavy narcotic influence; it has given several nations, among them the military dictatorships and "greater good" despots, a heavy overdose caused by deliberate over-indulgence.
93) Don't think inclusiveness should have no bounds. Too much inclusiveness only paints everyone the same colour by the same brush. It removes the tags on each herd member. Everyone becomes a slave to a non-existent master.
94) There can be no other way to exclude someone in the society of neutrality than to let them down gently. An honest discussion, in theory, would be desirable, but it cannot be promised due to the varying circumstances that necessitate exile. Often in the pseudo-society, a performance is made out of this exile- both by the newly ousted and the one who ousts.
95) The newly ousted, however sympathetic we may be to these unfortunate chain of events, often spends a while on how they never really liked their group and despised everybody, as if they are choosing to live. When asked to actually leave, the ousted member remains on their soapbox preaching to an empty crowd. The one who ousts makes a scene, too, even by ousting a random member of their group to prove a point that never stacks up to rational argument.
96) What do the inclusions of the pseudo-society amount to? Who wants to be part of any group whose very beliefs lack burden of proof or substance beyond their assertive manifestos? Some groups actually justify their existence with well-argued points, but these are rare.
97) "The new order is streaming ahead", I overheard someone say in regards to their after-work group as if it is unique to attend such groups. It's also the phrase you would expect to hear from the mouth of an overly optimistic conservative politician. What's more, this phrase is often recanted atop balconies fragile as mothers distraught with Munchausen's syndrome. There was never an order, only a mess of ideas that so just happened to not disagree with each other- it's hard to be fully inclusive in a group in the society only by name, as the group would only be such by name. Even the dregs, arguably the better half of the pseudo-society, are still only a pseudo-group, lumped together because it's better to have a companion when you hit rock bottom than it is to suffer in silence.
98) As I stated earlier, a sensible mixture of including some and excluding some, overall in moderation, would be the best outcome. We allow those who are willing to learn and those who have less facades as opposed to more facades. We disallow those who are superficially modest, conniving, dishonest and uphold the words of biased idols. If that cannot be achieved, then work must be done, because it is currently too disjointed in the present state of things to exist.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,027 Literary Works • 672,773 Reviews
All right. Let's get into this.
Your first two sentences of #85 felt needlessly obtuse because of awkward wording.
86-88: I like your reasoning here - it's sound and well explained. It also matches with what I have seen of both cultures.
#89: Looking at this from a writer/editor standpoint, I like this because you're definitively stating your viewpoint clearly. As a whole, I agree with the concept, but I feel you're on a bit of a slippery slope. The problem is, when you say we should exclude those we don't like, that will almost never only include people who are legitimately jerks. We are fallible, and so we have incorrect perceptions of people, and tend to base our liking of them on superficial things rather than their actual character. Not to mention that our base instincts compounded with long years of societal reinforcement mean that we are inclined to dislike people who are different from us, especially outwardly, which is what causes most discrimination.
My point is, it's a great theory, but I feel a) "like" is too vague and easily changeable, and b) I don't think it would ever work in real life. I feel you would wind up with everyone tiptoeing around each other so the group doesn't turn against them.
90 - I'd be careful calling the increasing push for diversity a trend. I think it's core is a genuine movement based on valid wishes, but outwardly it is a trend because of how everyone jumps on it to an extreme, and even if they don't really have strong emotions about it they are kind of forced into it. Just a distinction you may wish to point out.
I think #92 came at a strange point in the narrative in terms of pacing - it felt a bit like a random left-turn. I think it's a good thing to bring up, but it could either be re-worded a bit or moved to fit in better.
Also, if the reason we exile others is solely to have our opinions divorced from others, than in a society of neutrality, how would that ever happen? I think you were saying that that's the main reason we do it now, in the psuedo-society, but the real reason we should is if someone's being a jerk, as said earlier. Another distinction you may want to make.
#97 - Thanks to the explanation you gave one of the previous reviews, I can appreciate your Muchausen's syndrome simile fully, and it is a good simile. I still question whether using it was wise, as I don't think most readers will know what that syndrome is, and to the uninformed eye it can easily be construed as making light of the syndrome.
98 - Good conclusion, I like your explanation of who you would exclude - it actually does feel reasonable. Your last line is a bit confusing - what is too disjointed?
And that's it for this part. On to the next.
Hi there, I'm here for a quick review of your piece.
Formatting
I haven't read the other pieces that you've written in this series, but am interested what exactly you're doing them and what you would categorize them. They seem sort of like a list-essay which is an interesting format to write in. I wonder if this list sort of formatting is the most effective form that this piece could be in, have you considered making a series of short essays rather than lists?
Word Choice
Your word choice is fantastic, you have quite a broad vocabulary. The type of language that you use, from words like "facades", "pseudo-society", and "manifestos" really elevates what you're writing.
Upon first looking at the format and a little bit of the content, I wondered if this would read sort of like one of those articles that you click on that has 20 pages of information to click through. When I read the actual content though, this work seemed far more sophisticated.
With such high vocabulary, it might be good to eliminate some words that don't quite fit the tone. One line that stood out to me is this one: "Exclusion from a group no-one gets to join anyway is the only thing inevitable." Rather than using words like "thing" it could be good to keep the language more formal. You could replace "thing" with "conclusion" or "outcome" or another similar word.
Although much of the piece seems rooted in personal opinion and observation, the choice to use the word "I" (like in point 98 & point 91) takes the reader out of the classroom/lecture feeling and makes draws me to wondering about the author rather than the content. It might be better to keep the piece more objective, although it depends how much balance you want to give towards bias, opinion, fact etc.
Although I followed most of your sentences easily, I wonder if the word choice inhibits the piece a little bit. For example, some may not know what you're talking about when referring to the bourgeoisie, although some may look it up and be enlightened about Marx etc, others will just skip over or worse stop reading. This is not necessarily something that is bad, but you should keep your target audience in mind when writing any piece.
Clarity and Conventions
For the most part this piece seemed free of conventions, and you did a good job proof-reading it. This short section was a bit unclear - it didn't really reveal whether you were saying exclusion must be done as in "this is the rationality for exclusion" or must be done as in "this is a moral claim about exclusion".
"However, exclusion must not be justified by weak reasoning and reverence to trivial matters. Exile must not be done on the grounds of ethnicity, sexuality, gender or anything else."
In section 92 you say "ow" instead of "own".
In section 94, I am not sure that "ouster" is a word. You may want to put it in italics or quotes, although I could be mistaken on that point.
You had an extra "h" in "Munchhausen".
Content
I took a lot of issue with this line in your piece, "That being said, anyone from any of these groups can be exiled if they are behaving like a bastard." Your piece seems to be bouncing around ideas about inclusion and exclusion and why they happen, are good, bad, etc. but in this line about "bastards" you contradict your whole piece. A "bastard" is someone born from a parents who are unmarried, and is an offensive term to use in a derogatory fashion as you did in your piece. You may not have meant to use it in a derogatory fashion, or may have forgotten the meaning - but many would find use of this term as offensive as saying "retarded" in the same sentence. When writing heated political pieces, I believe it's important to proof-read not just for grammatical conventions but for language like this, that detract from the piece as a whole.
I commend you for writing a bold piece. But at parts it almost gets offensive, I don't know if that is your goal, but it could alienate some audiences. For instance referring to mental illnesses in a derogatory way like "Munchhausen Syndrome" may cross the line for some readers.
The purpose of this piece is not particularly clear for me, but again, I will admit it was an interesting read, and perhaps it would make more sense if I read your other preceding pieces.
Overall, interesting message. I would not say that you delivered it in a succinct way, but it was interesting and well-though out.
Good luck in future writing.
~alliyah
Thank you for reviewing part six of Society Only By Name.
I have taken your nitpicks on board, and have cleared up proofreading.
However, I read over your comments regarding content, and whilst I respect your right to have your own perspective, I figured I would clarify a couple of things. This is to clear up any misconceptions you may have of me and the work.
1. The pieces are personal, hence why I use "I" or "my", because I am not necessarily trying to create an essay or a critical study. I am outlining my opinions in that manner, partially inspired by the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx. I recognise that these are all my opinions, so why should I pretend to be objective about the issue? My arguments are purely from a place of perspectivism.
2. You have taken a literal meaning with my use of the word bastard. I am well aware what the legal definition of the word is- I am a bastard, after all- but I am talking more in terms of personality and character. If you refer to someone as a bastard, it is greatly unfavourable, because they are- to quote an informal definition- "an unpleasant or despicable person." That is what I mean. If someone is acting like that, regardless of who they are, they cannot be allowed. Also, comparing my use of that word with the oh-so colloquial and rather ignorant "retard" shows a false equivalence, in that I do not consider anyone that I dislike retarded, rather misinformed and disappointing as people. They have the potential to be good people, my idea of good at least, but often people are not. That was the intention. What you may have read into that segment, others may not.
3. That comment on Munchausen's syndrome was added in not as a means to offend people- though if others are offended, then that is entirely their doing because offence is taken and not given. If we read the full sentence from which you've omitted the line from- "What's more, this phrase is often recanted atop balconies fragile as mothers distraught with Munchausen's syndrome"- declarative statements regarding new ages and a "new order" sustain ourselves and our own opinions to high that the buildings and their balconies which grow cannot cope with the strain of our ambitions. This is much like how Munchausen's syndrome, a thoroughly unpleasant syndrome which I do not ridicule and would never wish on any pop-culturalist, destroys people by setting out the ambition to want to get ill or pretend to be so, even making their own children ill or going under medical procedures. It makes one fragile and distraught. So, with this simile in mind, consider how we set out in society to do things for some "greater good", only for it to unveil an unimaginable horror for both the victim and the perpetrator.
That, again, is only my interpretation of my own work. I wanted to just clear this up before readers automatically assume that I am attention seeking by throwing around terms which could offend people. If others are offended by my work, then they have the choice to never read it and move on. The worst offence I could cause is by outlining my opinions on different fragments of the pseudo-society, which readers may subscribe to.
Thanks again for your review.
I thank you for clarifying your intention of the meaning of bastard, I guess I've rarely heard it taken in the non-literal sense, but I think I understand what you're saying better now. And I respect your writing whether or not I though some parts were a bit bold.
Hi!!
I have yet to read the pieces prio to this, but I really liked this idea of numbering and labeling society into different groups and expelling the inclusion and exclusion of them. My only knowledge of the word inclusion is from teaching and studying special education and how they should be included and integrated into the average education classroom because they could learn so much more, but off of that topic since it relates very little to your work, just something I feel strongly about.
I think you executed this very well, and my favorite part is: "However, exclusion must not be justified by weak reasoning and reverence to trivial matters. Exile must not be done on the grounds of ethnicity, sexuality, gender or anything else."
When society thinks of exclusion is usually in a negative manner, but sometimes it's necessary. This was an enlightening read!
Thanks,
~Tiffany