Revelling in the triumphalism of the occasion...

I should probably feel guilty for what I did last Friday morning. I should probably feel guilty for a whole host of things, however, so this isn't causing me to feel particular contrition or remorse. I enjoyed it immensely, and as far as I am concerned that negates the possible impact it may or may not have had on my classmates. In fairness to them, it's not actually completely true - but it does have at least a grain (there it is again) of truth. Soon we are to present our dissertations in front of a select group (our class), and two 'moderators', or markers. I asked the reasonable question "can we make our presentations fun?", to which the reply was "yes, you need to make them appropriate for your audience. How you do that is up to you." My reply? Well:

"Fuck it then: I'll come in a clown costume."

Sigh. Things like this should never be said out loud. No wonder I alienated half of them in the first fucking week. One of my good friends just showed me a verbatim transcript of a conversation we had after a few weeks of knowing each other; to cut a long story short, it ends with me saying "I'm sorry, I hadn't even realised you had gone." What the fuck? No wonder so many bad things keep happening to me. I need to be nicer to people, apparently, and that means I'm going to have to start small - on a local level. I am going to be the conservative friend-maker. I'm all about devolved niceness. Or something. That conceit is never going to work for the rest of this blog, because I can barely keep it going for two sentences. That's rubbish. Almost as rubbish as that modifier I couldn't 'undangle' earlier. That was truly sublime in its rubbishness. I think the first thing I'm going to do is to stop calling all my friends hypocrites. Then again, several of them are hypocrites; so is it not doing them a disservice by being blasé in my lies? I don't know. Do people like being lied to if it makes them feel better? Is it my duty, as friend, to assuage their feelings of low self-worth. Or, conversely, is it my duty, as friend, to show them their failings and to help them work through, and past, them? That is what they do for me. There is brutal honesty permeating every nuance of our conversations. That sounds like a paradox, but trust me it isn't. That's the kind of intellect my friends wield: nuanced brutality. Truly, it is not something everyone can pull off. I suppose that's why I like them: I see that there are ways to be who I want to be, but a nicer version. They are nice versions of me: truthful, helpful, honest, useful. I am several of those things, but they don't imply strength or positivity. I don't want to only hit the odd-numbers. No one likes the odd-numbers. That's why they're 'odd', and people who collect plugs are 'odd'. You see something going fairly, you say 'Oh you've got an even share, there'; and when you see a mental-health failure you say 'Oh, he's a bit odd.' I need to get my flip-reverse on.

Onto triumphalism. Where does it differ from schadenfreude? In several crucial ways, I would argue. Now let me just invent them as I go. If you weren't aware: I've never planned anything I'm going to say, on here. That's why there's too many commas. That's why sometimes my sentences go nowhere. That's why I get distracted. That's why I so often say 'This is what I'm going to talk about', and then go on to talk about nothing even vaguely related. That's why sometimes my sentences include so many adverbs and adjectives that you cannot understand them. I can't understand them. Anyway. Look what happened there! That's irony for you. Also, my friend used to genuinely believe that it was 'iron-knee', but that's a different story. And one which I cannot morally tell you. Yes, so now I need to make up some bullshit about why schadenfreude and triumphalism are different. I suppose you would probably start by arguing that schadenfreude (abbreviated henceforth as Shaude) is revelling in the misfortune of others, whereas triumphalism is taking almost lascivious delight in the glory of your own victories. If that's not a semantic split, I don't know what is. Glorying in the failures of others, or glorying in your victory over others? That's just a whore dressed up as elitism. Whortism. That's a weak argument. If you ever get into a surrealist's conversation with someone, try to avoid towing that debate-line. You'll look like a cunt.

So is there any difference? This isn't moral absolutes here, Jack: think of something a little bit impressive to argue. I suppose it's where you stand on the definition of triumphalism: it's either about superiority, or the weakness of others. That is a semantic difference, but one of actual importance I would argue. In this case, for instance, it would be so bold as to suggest implied superiority is better than the weakness of others: it is I who is strong, and your weakness is extraneous. It kind of takes the individual out of the equation; makes the whole thing a smug unilateral kind of affair. I suppose that probably makes it worse, in hindsight. What's worse, then, you? Is being pseudosuperior worse than laughing at someone's weakness? It's a marginal difference, at best, but one which could be important - I suppose. If you had some really weird friends.

That's a point. What am I talking about? Who cares? How is this even vaguely important to anyone? It's not even important to me, and I'm writing about it. Oh well. I can't fictionalise any more bullshit and pretend it makes a jot of difference to anyone (myself included). As far as practical circumstances go Shaude and triumphalism are much in the same thing, I would suggest. Unless we're talking the ultimate-proper definition of triumphalism (that it is applicable more to dogmas, doctrines, and race, etc.). If we were to make that case then evidently one has more brevity, and gravity, than t'other. Shaude is merely a chuckle, some forms of bigotry, however, could probably be attributable to triumphalism. That's possibly erroneous. Triumphalism would be the last port of call for any sort of persecution; unless you were to suggest that it was an umbrella, catch-all for all sorts of things: xenophobia, homophobia, arachnophobia, etc..

Now I'm just rambling. Go away.