Copernican Mediocrity

Well what I do is find a small bright light or reflection or something, then with one eye closed I move my eye around until that light vanishes - then I know where the spot is. Once its vanished I can “focus” on it without actually moving my eye from where its fixed at, so I dont lose where the spot is. After maybe 20 seconds or so the spot turns dark, like a small smudge in my vision. Usually if I move my eye then it vanishes, but sometimes I can move my eye just a very small bit and see the smudge move a little before it goes away. I used to do this as a kid, my mom told me about the trick when I was little and it was always intriguing.

Did you expend any energy in grasping the meaning of what I said? Or are you just too lazy to think?

Careful, OR…

I think its fair to say that this post of mine is really only vaguely related to Mediocrity, or at least that its on the other side of the spectrum of the current topic, but I’ve already typed it all out so I might as well post it.

I think society tries too hard to make goals out of non-goals, and mediocrity should ironically be society’s goal.
Perhaps not mediociy, but a sort of laissez faire system of ethics.

When I say “making goals out of non-goals”, think of how western societies have handled the issue of racism.
Instead of simply trying to make racism taboo (and scolding occurrences of it), our society has made its approach more proactive instead of reactive - enforcing diversity as a means of countering racism. They made it so that employers must hire X% of minority workers, despite their possible lack of qualification for the job.

Although the stance could be taken “these minorities never had the opportunity to obtain proper qualifications by means of education, since the conditions of their youth were that of poverty” – this does not justify the enforceability of diversity without first necessitating an improvement in education for all demographics.
I don’t think a minority should be given free admissions to a college/university if the ethnicity in majority is not given the same opportunity due to living in poverty.

If “lack of opportunity” is used as a valid justification, then its remedy (improving education) should be focused on, not its implications (forcing employers to hire unqualified minorities).

The reason I am making note of this is because it is a good example of where society is flawed due to its lack of mediocrity. The proactive abolition against racism results in a “reverse racism”, where society’s efficiency ends up being handicapped due to its acceptance and integration of leftist psychology.
I’m not a racist at all, and with much sincerity, I really do think minorities should be given all the rights and opportunities of the ethnic majority (not necessarily whites, but whatever the majority might be in a particular area of the world).

I think that these proactive anti-racism laws are being put in place by sheltered leftist politicians who think the “primary evil” in this world is racism and prejudice - when the real “primary evil” in this world is thinking that there is a primary evil when there is none, and history gives testimony to this.
Didn’t people like Hitler and Stalin commit such horrific atrocities because of the fact that they mistook something to be a “primary evil”? For Hitler it was the Jews, and for Stalin it was his own people.

What exactly defines a lack of mediocrity in society? When the strive towards a goal exceeds the purpose of that goal.
How many documents must be re-edited, books considered “out-dated”, and scholars considered “incorrect” due to the pursuit of “political correctness”? Think of all the collective effort that must have been spent simply to change the phrases “Before Christ” and "Anno Domini " to “Current Era” and “Before Current Era” - think of all the hours spent by committees simply to debate such a change. The original phrases could have been accepted by both christians and non-christians as a mere aspect of our historical culture. Why did people even have a problem with it?
The word “panic” etymologically originated as a reference to the god Pan in Greek mythology, yet there are no leftist committees wasting time trying to change the word to a more politically correct variant.
English teachers are hesitant to incorporate Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn into their curriculum because they are deemed “politically incorrect” for containing the word “Nigger”, even though they are both masterpieces in literature and actually convey morals against racism. The word ‘nigger’ was originally synonymous with ‘slave’, and it was the leftists themselves who gave it such negative connotations.

All of this is not to say that there shouldn’t be such a thing as a “politically incorrect” phrase, but merely to acknowledge that some of these phrases never had any reason to be considered “politically incorrect” in the first place. There are indeed some phrases that should be considered “politically incorrect”, especially when used derogatorily - such as the phrase “cotton picker”. Users of that term rarely have the intention to refer to actual cotton harvesters, but instead use it in a derogatory way - its use has no practical application, other than pushing the envelope and being scolded accordingly.