I am a bit of a philosopher. Some of my ideas are quite unusual. My editors and teachers might use the word deplorable. Anyway, this is how I tried to introduce my new concept to a friend recently:
"Hi friend! I have this new theory that myself online will always be queer. To talk to my straight self, it has to be done face to face. That theory doesn't apply just to me but to everybody. It is not perfect but it's a very effective and working theory."
She answered me by asking me where I got that from and what was the point of it all.
Here is how I answered:
"The point is to be more truthful, more cognizant. I arrived at that by trying to figure how best to call and view recorded evidence. Elvis Presley isn't here but we can still hear him sing? Well, anything is possible to your queer self (it doesn't exist and the imaginary does not die) so when we hear Elvis online, it is best to think we hear his queer self. We know Elvis never was queer so when we hear his queer self, we know we aren't hearing him but a recording of him. I think it is cooler to say this then to say something like, "We are hearing his non-existent self," as this brings confusion since we hear a voice and surely it must come from some self that exists. For gay people, we would say that we are hearing their straight self when we hear them online. By identifying ourself to an opposite sexuality, we can still look the same while not being ourselves at all. So I am figuring it is the right way to describe our online presence. I hope this answers your question."
I hope this entertained you a bit. Feel free to ask questions about my views in the comments, thank you for reading. After reading this again, I am starting to wonder if I still have my friend.
Ok, we are now the next day, and I still have my friend. She replied by giving me her interpretation of what my idea was about. I have decided to reply this to her with this new comments:
Things aren't what they seem? That is my concern? Yes and no. I think my concern is that we miss a way to express something that would be better expressed if we developed an effective way to express it. It's a bit like if you were an ancient mathematician but no written number has yet been invented to represent nothing (the 0. ) I think this is the situation and that this is my concern. I am not 100% sure I meant sexuality when I called "queer" above. For instance, if I see you in a video recording, I could talk about carnivorous Anne [my friend Anne is vegan], and to me that would be your queer presence (via technology), and not your self. You can't be straight via technology. To prove to be straight, you sort of need to appear face to face and that sort of is the point. Queer, well, who knows? Maybe a relation with someone appearing on tv can prove that? Vegan Trump could, for instance, refer to Trump appearing to you via TV, because Trump being vegan is clearly the opposite of all he stands for. So, you may need to know the person to know how the added adjective modify the noun. The immediate concern with using this way of expressing yourself is that it would be interpreted as an insult, mockery or as a means to deride the self of a person when it, in fact, it would be meant to recognize something entirely different. Thanks for replying and commenting. It's always great to get feedback on one's ideas.
