For several weeks now I have wanted to write about many topics. From football to the non-existent fall harvest to politics and music and porcelain tile. It is one thing to sit around and have many ideas going on in my head it is another thing to type out exactly what I want to express. Rarely, if ever, can that be done to get my view across.
Sometimes I question the overall "Validity" of my site. It could be used in a manner to bring about awareness of issues that affect agriculture. It could be entirely a ridiculous site full of made up news, I did that years ago with a homepage at geocities. I could just blog about overall immature computer gaming that I do in the evenings. I could make it a combination of many things. In the end I wonder if anyone who might be reading this cares. Maybe whether or not "they" or "you" care it should only matter if I care. Ultimately I do. I then run into the same problem that my wife has with her blog. Judgement.
With a basic audience of a few, and I really mean few friends and even fewer family, what can I write about or post that would spark a morsel of interest. I have 2 listed followers. I can post all types of shit that I feel is interesting but do any of the readers here actually care? What if I write all crazy about ethics, religion, politics...would the views I share distance some of the few readers I have? Or perhaps the views I have might be equally shared among some readers.
The bottom line is that the feeling of being "judged" does influence what I post. Some topics I really don't care how people feel about. Like my babe and cougar of the month feature. It is mostly done for entertainment and it also forces me to update my site. The same is true for use-less babble like Fallout 3 character playthroughts. My wife reads them. That's about it. I assume others role their eyes. Some topics I have been reluctant to touch. Those pesky sensitive issues like gay-marriage and health care and foreign wars. I usually figure that people get enough of that from the news, or that my opinion maybe disliked or perhaps just surprising. I also run the risk of self arraignment on a very small degree, but people can change views over time. For example, a decade ago I was full fever in favor of the death penalty, today I feel the system has serious flaws and do no agree to it.
I have found a possible solution to this dilemma. Impartial Mediation. Which is defined as:
Impartiality is a principle that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. While Mediation, in a broad sense, consists of a cognitive process of reconciling mutually interdependent, opposed terms as what one could loosely call "an interpretation" or "an understanding of".
With this, I can post whatever I feel like and not have to worry about being judged. Well of course I will still be judged but that lies more in the individual reader than the audience as a whole. If I present my views and feelings using impartial mediation then a vast number of readers will at least respect my opinions, with this their judgement becomes null.
Basically, if I want to post the Husker offense sucks I can. I just need objective criteria, independent of bias, with controlled understanding and explanation of why they suck. If I want to post why Barack Obama is a communist, I just need objective criteria, independent of bias, with controlled understanding and explanation of why I think he is a communist. If I want to post why George Bush is a complete idiot, I just need objective criteria, independent of bias, with controlled understanding and explanation of why he is a complete idiot.
The only problem is...I have already know how to solve this, I just need to implement it.
