Why the Hell

Okay so I let this sit for a while and reading it again its kinda self-aggrandizing crap...that said I haven't posted crap in a while so yeah take that internet

I don't get it at all. Why does human nature dictate that within twenty seconds of walking I can hear four different conversations of people just ripping on a non-present party? I'm all for the friendly interchange of insults...I find it humorous and anyone who has had above a twenty minute conversation with me knows its one of my favorite ways of deflecting my own social awkwardness (a now overused term but I'll get to that later). It sucks that I attend what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning, a place where people are supposed to give a shit about the topics they choose, yet all I hear is the same thing day in and day out. How can people fall asleep in history classes that actually have reasonable meaning yet be so avid about the social habits of the people around them?

It dawned on me today and I had a twenty minute internal rant about the benefits of discussing important topics. This ran into a dead end of if people don't actually like their chosen college course (doing it for the money) then they won't really be enthusiastic. But my internal discourse eventually settled to why people rely on talking about one another is it to fill space or out of paranoia for their own social alliances. Here is where the awkwardness sets in...people have become too concerned with the uncomfortable nature of a great deal of human interaction. Although some people are more or less affected by this...it seems to be a constant theme; talking to others can and will be awkward on occasion and this does not provide an excuse to turn discourse to beating on other people's flaws. The other reasoning I can figure out is that people want friends and in order to secure and protect these friendships they feel the need to run down "competitors" to maintain their position atop the flagpole. I like the first explanation better because it seems more positive a reflection of people as a whole which I prefer.

On this note I make the random jump to the self reflective period of this long rant....be warned. My nature is to accept and take people at the versions of themselves they portray to the world, I buy into most people being at heart moral and honest actors. This makes critical analysis of their behavior difficult. Essentially, I make the mistake of traditional economics in assuming that people act rationally and to a degree of morality and that they have little motivation for showing a personality they do not have. Because of this I am surprised on the rare occasion that I receive a trail of gossip and find that people are in fact not all sunshine and roses. This all probably stems from the fact that I have an incredibly minuscule level of confidence in my own social competency and "goodness" so I must over admire the more substantial abilities of others and apply this to a limited world view. But why can't people let me be happy in ignorance...why must we all know that someone made a mistake with a past or present relationship (romantic... personal whatever) which has nothing to do with our own interactions with that person? Wouldn't we all like each other better and be more able to interact if we only knew someone based on our set of interactions with them, instead of the aggregate of many, many people's relationships which tend to accumulate mistakes and flaws that once pointed out are hundreds in number and unavoidably annoying.

It may seem irrelevant but I'm tired of knowing that no matter what happens more people will care about Steve's latest drunken escapade than about a state budget or biology. Damnit STEVE.
Don't actually watch that by the way...

*Note: Dude I totally sound like this comic...awesome I am a non-original sheeple...I also added all those hyperlinks to make this seem to have slightly higher production value...your welcome