LIKE ME!

For a long time, I resisted the Facebook LIKE button. To me, it was an avatar of everything I hated about Facebook -  this lazy, de-personalized, systematized social relation. If you REALLY like something, you can afford to write two, three words…maybe even an ENTIRE SENTENCE! Right? Just like txt-speek leaking into the internet, I found the like an abhorrent phenomenon. Is it that hard to express yourself? Is it that difficult to write “to be honest” instead of “tbh” or “talk to ya later” instead of “ttyl”? Let’s be honest – you’re not in a rush there. You’re not texting and trying to save credit, or writing on the fly. You’re seating your fat ass in front of your PC and procrastinating. Is it that tedious to write up a full sentence instead of a slew of acronyms? Can it be that laborious to write “I love the chorus of that song!” instead of clicking LIKE.?

This means: I find it really hard to express my enjoyment textually

 Needless to say, while I held on for long, I now click like just like anyone else. I still feel a pang of guilt when I don’t write something more but most of the time – I simply cannot be bothered. And there is the key.

If observed from a far enough vantage point, the internet is evolving to a position of distancing. I’ve mentioned before how using social networks, and the internet in general, leads to living in a entirely different social stratosphere. The rules are all different, the etiquette askew – Put a smiley, or you will appear angry, don’t use caps or it will seem like you are shouting, don’t like funeral posts (or do?), send birthday wishes to people you barely know….the list goes on. Twitter has the hashtag and the 140 character limit - what better way to funnel communication into a junk food format? Let us not even go into the abbreviation LOL (laugh out loud, for all you cavemen). I've heard people SAYING LOL in REAL LIFE. As in in my face, not ironically. Do you realize how paradoxical that is? You are SAYING a ABBREVIATION of the sentence LAUGH OUT LOUD. If you use LOL in any manner, ask yourself - when is the last time you've used LOL while ACTUALLY LAUGHING OUT LOUD? Yes, I realize I'm not exactly re-inventing the wheel here - the LOL silliness has been documented even in its early days. But it's the bizarre nature of these internet communication rules and regulations that leave an impression.

    You don't see it, but this man is laughing out loud so hard,  that clock might fall off soon.

What’s startling to me about this phenomenon is that if one analyses it further you will notice its rituals and traits are actually tools for social distancing. This is why people rant endlessly about how computers will make you asocial – because they make you a different KIND of social. A lazy, speedy kind of social.

All these traits of the “new internet” social relations are built to take social responsibility from you, to make it as easy as possible NOT to communicate with someone. Like weapons – the evolution of weaponry consisted of moving the killer as far away from the victim as possible: first a stone, then a knife, then a sword, then a bow, then a gun, then a missile. The same goes for social relation in the 21^st century – its about being social but having as little possible contact with another human as possible.

OMG! LIKE!

You don’t NEED to write why you like something, it’s a waste of time and it demands conversation – and we don’t want conversation. We just want the other person to acknowledge that you find whatever they have shared valuable.  This is also key – eliminating the need for reproach.  With Facebook you can now congratulate someone for something WITHOUT EVER NEEDING TO TALK TO THEM. Until this, the only option was to SMS them – but that implied specific contact, almost like sending someone a personal message in their inbox. It calls for an answer, re-approach. If it is, however, on someones public page, this response is not necessary. There is no NEED for additional communication – I understand you don’t want to talk to me any more, and you understand I don’t want to talk to you. It’s like that friend you meet on the street and you agree to have coffee sometimes, knowing full well neither of you will ever heed that call. Except now it’s for everyone.

Very soon there will be an internet “protocol”, if you will, for almost every kind of social exchange. You will write Cto (check this out), followed by a link. People will like it. You’ll receive an invite for an event which you will decline, clicking on a “I’l be busy that day” button that automatically responds to the invite with that sentence. You’ll arrange stuff over Skype, with smileys at the end of every sentence because hell, you don’t wanna offend anybody! The sentences will be short, and anything longer (probably copy-pasted) will be written off with a tl:dr (too long, didn’t read). If you need to work with someone, on something, it’s better done via Skype chat or Google docs – that way you don’t actually have to TALK to the person, you can just hurl ideas at each other and conclude them with acronyms (GJ!). Finally, you’re going to see a video or two that you really enjoy, and like it on Youtube. You wont be bothered to actually write why you like it, the top comment is already a witty, short version of what you want to say – so you like that too. Gj! The less human contact, the better. Because who has time for that shit anyway?

GIRLS AND BOYS

Part 1:  Subtle Sexism

Men and women are undeniably different. The psychological consequences of both our physical differences and our cultural upbringing take a serious toll on the way we communicate , magnifying the gap between us. But, once we get down to it, at the end of the day we are all human. And as humans, we are prone to errors.

One such error is more evident on the men's side - the tendency to attribute some universal issues, such as problems in communication, to women. How many times have you heard those vaguely sexist remarks such as "ah, women!" or "don't even try to understand, its the way girls are".

The issue here is not whether or not there are differences, but separating which of these differences are gender based. Many traditional problems such as one person being stubborn, misunderstandings and the limitations of language are unisex - but are quickly summed up as "thats women for you''.

To clarify - the next time you have fight with a girl about the time she takes to get ready and put makeup or the fact you are a lazy slob, simply ask yourself whether you would be having the same fight with a guy. If the answer is no - then ask yourself why? Is it because the innate diferences between men and women, or simply because the guy you are thinking of does not communicate in the same manner as your girlfriend?

Everyone can get stubborn, aggressive, introverted or even let himself get tangled up in his own lingual inadequacy - avoiding pinning any of these issues as a "girl thing" or a "guy thing" is key to solving them.

Part 2: The Geekette

I promised more on this topic in an earlier text I wrote about geeks and nerds. First things fist, allow me to explain what the Geekette is.

As mentioned before, most real nerds and geeks are social outcasts. As such, they fall victim to some of the pitfalls of social ineptitude. These include a sense of privilege that is completely unfounded - the idea that they deserve a Geekette.

What is a Geekette? It is a fictional being that loves all the things they do. A girl that shares a passion for every single hobby they indulge in. "But Matt!" you say "You silly scoundrel! I've met lots of gamer/nerdy/comic-fan/whatever girls! They exist!". To that I say - off course they do. The problem is the Geekette is not simply that - the Geekette is a a product of a guarded, bitter personality, a recluse. The problem is many-fold:

Firstly this person, this Geekette, must love all that they love, but must also not have her own attitude or opinion - they must agree in all respect with the nerd. This is a consequence of their segregation and isolation - nerds are used to fighting over the internet and constantly being judged. They want a girl who has no spine, who will never fight with them - just endlessly agree and share in enjoying their (his) hobby.

Secondly, the Geekette must be hot. This is a subjective trait, off course, but most geeks have unjustifiably high standards in regards to the beauty of their fictitious partner. This inability to work on their own appearance but to expect perfection ties in with the next point.

Finally, we arrive to the biggest issue - the sense of entitlement. Like a large part socially flawed individuals, the nerd/geek assumes that he is right and the world is wrong. As such, he demands some sort of payback - call it hope, call it pride, but the geek believes he DESERVES a geekette. Other people make the same mistake all the time - they assume THE ONE will one day come to them, with no effort invested. What makes this especially painfull in the case of nerds is the fact they strive for a Geekette while completely ignoring the fact they might need to work on their own appearance and personality. They want it all, with no investment - and ignoring the fact that the Geekette does not exist.

Unfortunately, the situation is by no means alleviated by the fact some girls have picked up on this insurmountable need geeks have for Geekettes. I spoke a little in my other text on how even some celebrities have picked up on the demand for "hot nerdy girls". This widespread cruelty is demonstrated by a large number of girls easily sensing this need for a Geekette, and playing it for some sort of gain. Nerds can be used as resources - and if all you need to do to harness this resource is wear a Battlestar Galactica shirt and know your anime, then it is a pretty cheap resource.

This is sad not only because it is ruthless manipulation on the side of those "fake geekettes" - its also grievously insulting to female geeks and nerds. Imagine how a gamer, geeky girl (remember, shes not a Geekette - a geekette is a non existent super hot nerdy girl with no real attitude) must feel when she notices her male contemporaries fawning over some faux-gamer girl with hot-teacher glasses and a tight shirt that emphasizes her boobs and her fake love of Skyrim.

What can be done? Well, not much. I consider myself a nerd/geek and I can identify some of my downsides such as an abysmal stubbornness. This stubbornness will stop most people to reacting to advice or accepting the Geekette does not exist. What you can do is to try and boycott quasi-geekettes and, hopefully, work on bettering yourself and/or your nerd friends by slowly introducing them to the fact the geekette isnt real - but your friend Ana you play Mass Effect with might be just as good.

NOTE: Here is a well written text on a similar topic,written by Forbs' Tara Brown.

WHY NOT ORANGE?

The  Football European Cup is drawing near. While tennis is the only sport I actively follow, the allure of football on such a grand scale is hard to resist even to someone who really dislikes the sport, such as myself. But this text is not about football. The reason I'm writing this is the color orange.

I (partially) live in the Netherlands, and every time there is a football championship on a nationwide scale, such as this one, the whole of Holland becomes orange. Let me clarify - orange is the Dutch national color. As a way or supporting their team, the Dutch proudly "show their colors".

This, in itself, should not be strange - every country supports their team with flags and such, no? What struck me when I first came upon this phenomenon was the enormity of it, as well as its ubiquity and ease of access. Orange shirts, flags, banners, toys, candy, stickers, signs. It's everywhere and with every one, not limited to football fans and avid patriots.

This results in  an entire city (and country) painted in vivid orange, with smiles in abundance, a general cheer of goodwill and both casual and passionate support for the national team. An old lady with a orange umbrella will say "HUP HOLLAND!" to an orange-shirt wearing teenager that's blasting music from a car as he drives by. Your local cashier will give you a little orange doll or some other footbal-fan prop with your purchase. The nearby Turkish deli owners will gleefully adorn the entire locale in orange and possibly give you free baklava's if the team won that day.

As a Serb, I did not get it.

This is the sad part of this otherwise picturesque tale. As a Serb, I did not get it. This sentence is depressing not because of the "I did not get it" part, but because of "as a Serb".

As someone who comes for a politically volatile (I refuse to say war-torn as it reeks of CNN drama) country, I was weaned on conflict. We are talking about a splinter of a once much larger, more prosperous, albeit communist, country. We are talking embargo, hyperinflation, political turmoil, civil war. We are talking about not knowing what Budapest was but being able to name every major political player in Serbia by the age of 10. We are talking indoctrination through conflict.

I loathe this martyred  view of Serbia and the regressive outlook it entails, but that is another topic altogether. The point is that as a Serbian man I was immediately repulsed by patriotism. To me, patriotism is taboo. Patriotism is political zealotry. Patriotism is idiot football hooligans and mindless, bigoted, self-proclaimed Orthodox Christians. Patriotism is tattooing Novak Djokovic on your arm without knowing what a backhand is. Patriotism is.....orange fluffy keyrings?

This is where I was confused, relieved and saddened at the same time - I beheld a nation so blissfully devoid of national guilt, spite or burden, so historically removed from past sins that it could afford to ENJOY its patriotism. Here, being a patriot did not mean being a crazy fanatic - being a patriot also meant casually showing support for your national team and enjoying yourself. Most of these people don't even WATCH football - they do it because it is just...nice. Why not?

The freedom to be patriotic and proclaim love for your county through something as mundane as football was something I so coveted, I found, that even myself - someone who dislikes football and does not really feel like a Dutchman at all - eventually put an orange shirt and had a beer with a German friend, watching Holland play and laughing at a girl with orange pom-poms. I am not a big supporter of opponent of Holland as a country - but I must admit it felt good to be Dutch for a day.

My hope is that it will one day, as history separates us from all past transgressions, again be possible to casually demonstrate your patriotism in Serbia, in whatever way possible.  I hope to one day be able to enjoy the tennis of Novak Djokovic and support him, even be proud that he is Serbian, without it automatically stigmatizing me, marking me as an, unfortunately, very widespread kind of idiot. Love for your country should not always be an extreme, and should NEVER be tied with aggression, stupidity and narrow-mindedness (as is the case now). 

So for now I remain orange, sometimes.. I will put on a shirt of a country that is not mine and watch a sport I don't like, just because it feels nice to be a part of Patriotism Lite - even if it is but the reflection of someone else s hope and aspirations.

HUP HOLLAND! IDEMO NOLE!

DENOUNCING THE GEEK

Part 1: On being a geek

Much has been said before about the term geek and how it infiltrated popular culture. With geeks "ruling the world" now,  has it become redundant to label oneself a "geek"? What is a geek, or a nerd? Does such a niche sub-culture even exist anymore?

A geek used to be someone that enjoys a very specific, niche hobby. Usually socially ostracized, geeks, nerds and the like usually referred to scientists, scholars, hobbyists, role-players, modelers and above all - social outcasts. Fast forward some years and here we are: the geek stereotype is the stuff of popular series like Big Bang Theory, whilst none of those caricature geeks even exist anymore.

When I attempt to define geek I do so through my own experience and perspective. I grew up with the technology that now allows everyone to enjoy everything: computers, the Internet. This allowed the slow introduction of each and every technological advancement to my young, eager mind (a topic to be elaborated in a future post).

The result of this is that I had the opportunity to be a true "geek". I read fantasy and sci-fi before everyones girlfriends got into Game of Thrones the series. I played games on a monochrome PC before your room-mate played angry birds for seven hours on his touch phone, sitting on the toilet. I enjoyed anime before "whats your favorite anime" became the next most popular question after ''what's your age?''. I played tabletop RPG's before the term RPG was introduced to anything from soft-drinks to games.

This is not some hipster "I did this before it was popular" thinking - it is merely a lament that I no longer belong to a select few. Actually, it is more than that -it's the anger at the superficial adoption and bastardization of my hobbies.

Sound extreme? Maybe. But the fact remains that not only is everyone supposedly a "geek" - no one really is. What I mean by this is that while everyone rushes to label themselves a geek, or nerd, the interests that "qualify" them as such border the inconsequential and shallow. You've seen a part of a StarWars film, have a shirt? - geek. Played a extremely popular MMO such as W.O.W - nerd. Geeks have, as mentioned, become such a major part of culture (with gaming becoming a huge industry) that celebrities are now POSING as geeks to attract fans, which is an especially obnoxious phenomenon.

This leaves actual geeks with a very bitter pill to swallow - they will still be judged, segregated and ostracized for their social inadequacy and their actual dedication to their hobbies, while those same hobbies and interests will be paraded around, and claimed by, anyone and everyone with even the most arbitrary touch with them.

Its very similar to having your favorite underground band suddenly become popular. Yes, you are glad for their success, but you suffer seeing people who only heard the single of the new album parade around in your band shirt, or listening to your once favorite song as some idiots ringtone in a bus.

I therefore denounce geekdom, the term geek, and suggest inventing a new one. Suggest away!

Stay tuned for Part 2: The Geekette, where I will discuss a offshoot of this geekification of the world, and the false sense of entitlement the "true geeks" have because of it....

A QUESTION OF CONTENT

In my previous post (here) I've discussed my slow retreat and reproach to the internet. While I've already begun distancing myself from social networks, reducing my output there steadily, new revelations regarding the flow of information have come to mind.

Recently,  a re-curing theme has appeared in my thoughts and surrounding: Empathy. I've been re-reading the magnificent Hyperion books by Dan Simmons, and one of the central themes in them is empathy. My sister Majda is doing some photography art that deals with empathy. And the internet itself, and my retreat from it, has made me think about what role empathy has when applied to internet content.

This has all lead me to conclude that any form of content being spread viraly, be it on the internet or beyond, has some sort of value. The question remains to what extent is this value for the reader.

Allow me to explain. You see a post online about somebodies dog dying. You think, hey, my dog died - I know how that feels. You click like, or share, or whatever. In this case the only reason you spread, or support this information is because of empathy.

This is the same reason why observational comedy works so well in stand up. You like it because you can identify with it. Lets call it the "Hey, I know this!" syndrome.

Lets apply this to social networking. A while back I wrote a tweet that was specifically designed to test out this idea: that content is judged on how well it can relate to you, not on its actual meaning. The tweet was about a very personal event that is individual, and related to a specific person - something that only I and that person would find meaning and value for. However, it was phrased ambiguously - it could be about anyone.

Needless to say, it was re tweeted and commented upon, with people behaving like it was their own experience, and even giving advice on how to cope with the feeling. They were taking a situation that is clearly individual and applying it to their own case. They were giving it meaning where there was none (for them), clearly seeing themselves in the events described.

This phenomenon is far older than the internet - think of the horoscope. The art of reading someones horoscope is consisted of bombarding the person with statements that are general, ambiguous and above all - emphatic. You give someone a very broad koan on love and they will find themselves in it. Any human emotion - we all feel it, and we want to find ourselves in them (A demonstration of this was performed by Derren Brown in this experiment) This is why non-concrete song lyrics work best - its not talking about this guy's break up, its talking about YOU, etc.

So why this long explanation about peoples need to empathize with content? Because it is critical to evaluating the true value of information. Think about it: if the only reason you are spreading information is because you can recognize yourself in it, then maybe that information has no value?

Or maybe it does, but it needs additional features to make it worth spreading. One of the reasons I like internet memes and 9gag so much was because they make me laugh, but also because some of them describe something I can empathize with. A rage-face comic about bashing your little toe to the leg of a chair - thats not so funny, but I can instantly identify with the situation. Its empathic content devoid of any true significance other than "Hey, I know this!". Paradoxically, this is also why I am hesitant to indulge in 9gag and memes - they bring no use, no true content, no significance to my life other than short-term entertainment.



A discussion with a friend led me to thinking about what qualifies as indulgence online and what is actual content, and we decided that articles provide information and value, while memes tend not to. This form of classification should be more concrete. If one had to phrase it:

If the content examined only serves to give you brief entertainment or moments of empathy it has no informational value. Therefore one should refrain from spreading it, or at least spending large quantities of time on it.

This kind of thinking might seem spartan to some, not to mention the fact some might remark I should be the last person to be saying anything about "spamming on the internet". But I think my days of procrastinating and spreading every bit of meaningless info give me qualification to now speak of it, and to stop doing it.

In the end, it is a question of content. What do you gain from the content you consume every day. If it is nothing but a laugh and some empathy, the content is trivial. If it is information, inspiration - if you learn something - then the content is worth spreading.

I implore the 5 people reading this to spread it if they agree with it, and if they believe it informative for others in any way. If upon reading this you thought, "Hey, I know this" -  then maybe better leave it at a casual Facebook like.

HATING THE HOLIDAYS

It's the 8th of March. Women's day. A whole new blog post could be dedicated solely to debating whether, and to what extent, this holiday is 'sexist'.

As I brace myself for the inevitable tide of woman's day posts and counter posts, I am again agitated by the trivial attention people possess, be it hate or admiration, towards holidays and festivities.

New Years celebration haters. Birthday party apologists. Campaigners for Halloween and the Anti-Patron Saint Day League. Is it possible that eating, drinking or shopping for one day can cause such a schism in pop culture?

I've touched upon the sentimental value one can tie to religious or traditional celebration (see here), so allow me to elaborate: If one feels like celebrating, do it, without preaching your reasons to anyone else.

You think Woman's Day is sexist? Don't celebrate it. But know this - no one cares if you find it sexist. No one thinks your lackluster campaign against this insignificant holiday is anything but ranting and possibly an attempt to gain the favor of feminism-inclined women.

This can be applied to any holiday. Do not take away someone's need to give presents and/or eat inordinate amounts of food. You're not religious and are annoyed by Patron Saint days? Keep it to yourself.

The same goes for the flip side of the coin. Defending your right to dress up into a corpse filled fridge for Halloween is possibly one of the dumbest causes you can muster your forces around. If no one is hampering you in celebrating whatever menial little tradition you like to perform, I suggest you stop focusing on the bad rep your holiday of choice is getting and focus on simply celebrating it.

While lamenting the fact certain holidays have lost their original meaning, flare or significance is tempting - please refrain. What it all boils down in the end is your own personal need to do something on a certain day. It is not a big deal or a newsworthy issue, unless we are talking of some sort of serious religious practice. Don't defend it with blood and fire, but don't attack it either.

Happy just-another-day. I mean it, have a nice day.

INTERNET FATIGUE

It might seem contradictory to talk about internet fatigue on an internet blog, but bear with me.

I grew up with the Internet. I was born in 85' and was awarded what I see now as a massive advantage in the form of having computers in 90's Serbia.  Myself and a select group of friends enjoyed all the benefits this entailed. We played games at home when the arcade was the closest thing to a game most kids could have. We listened to music, we watched sad, pixelized gif porn, we wrote in Microsoft Word and even printed out the stuff we wrote.

Then, off course, came the internet. 

I will not bore you with descriptions of my elated exploration of this new world. What I will do is immediately draw a parallel with pagers and cell phones. The staggering ability to communicate with someone almost instantaneously, to carry a phone in your pocket and be able to call from wherever you might be was something similar to what later came with services such as internet chat. I caught myself at the ripe age of 13 talking to a girl from Australia, via internet chat. This blew my mind at the time: there I was, communicating with someone halfway across the world, in real time. Considering I spent a large chunk of my life sending actual mail to my childhood friend in Barcelona, this was revolutionary.

Now fast forward 13 years. Social networks, Skype, blogs. The endless array of possibilities has flourished with breathtaking speed. The discussion here is not about whether or not these services benefit humanity - off course they do. Just like cell phones, television and radio before it, these are advances in technology that bring untold progress to the world. But just like these other forms of media, there are negative side effects to consider.

And this is how we get to the headline: internet fatigue. As someone who was weaned on the internet from a young age, I've found it instinctual to embrace any form of internet entertainment and communication without inhibition. A new social network? Bring it on. Another way to view videos and listen to music? Give it here. I've found apologists of internet abstinence to be narrow minded and infantile - very similar to the hippie ideas of not watching TV or even listening to radio.

What I came to realize in time is that the internet, just like any other kind of media, is similar to food - you need it, but you must be careful of what and how much you eat. While this analogy might seem a bit off - you will not die without the internet, while you most certainly will die without food - it is not fully delusional. Think about it. Man is a social animal, and one must socialize in some way in order to survive. The internet is a relatively new way of communicating, but so was TV or radio. While TV and radio might have been one way, they are still a form of communication. People that don't use the internet but still "survive" by communicating traditionally come across as an old tribe living on healthy meat from hunting and vegetables they harvested. The people that do use modern media such as the internet would be us - living on processed food but having a wide choice of foods around us, enjoying the luxury of not having to hunt. The same rules that apply to a healthy diet can apply to the internet: moderation, some selection in what you consume, restraint and a healthy dose of exercise.

This analogy has gotten old, but it only served to outline my attitude at the moment: I suffer from internet fatigue.

It could be I'm getting older. It could be my current surplus of free time. It could be none of these things. But the fact remains I am beginning to drown  in the flood of information I willingly inject into myself every day. Social networks have become the death of normal inter-human relations and have spawned a new social dynamic that I find loathsome and depressing, even though I understand it and can manage fine within its odd rules. The tide of content that surrounds us, such as pictures and videos, is becoming increasingly trivial and diluted, to the point of using all usefulness.

The mental junk food the internet feeds me has evolved unto me the addict paradox of a fat man: I eat the junk because I need it but I hate myself for doing it. Your day becomes engrossed with endless pictures, videos or even text that have no concrete purpose and productive value. They are funny, for example, but even funny has but small purpose in the whole day. Should spend the whole day getting cheep thrills or can I use it as a temporary uplift before going on with the rest of my day?

Here lies the key: using it for what its supposed to be used for. Use it all, but use it well. Social network are to help you socialize - if you're not, then you're doing something wrong. Funny pictures, videos or text? Great, as long as they serve their purpose as a brief respite and entertainment in your day. This is an iterative process for me. I am still figuring out new ways to deal with the fact I need the internet but I am getting more and more tired of it as it drains me of time and energy.

I despise cliched "change-your-life-in-5-steps" methods of altering your behavioral pattens, but I prefer even those to a lack of action. My steady retreat from the internet will be just that - a step backwards that will allow me to approach it with a more wizened outlook, a chance to re-enter the internet world with a careful eye on what I consume.

This is not farewell to Facebook, 9gag, Youtube or any of those. This is but a small kiss on the mouth and a plea to "take it slow".

MUSINGS ON SECULARISM

I do not appreciate the lack of secularism in my country, Serbia.

Normally I refrain from any kind of political commentary online as it only sparks futile debate, even amongst those I consider my peers.

However, this just might be the issue - this is not supposed to be a political debate.

When I was younger I was proud to consider myself an Orthodox Christian. I've read the Bible, and though I barely understood, let alone remembered, most of it - I liked the rituals, the tradition and beliefs that stemmed from this branch of Christianity. A large part of it was my father- he was raised Orthodox, and no matter how hypocritical the roots of his faith, or lack thereof, the traditions became a nice thing to do in his household.

I no longer consider myself Orthodox Christian. The reasons are manifold, but none stem from hate towards the faith: I simply do not believe, and would deem it insulting if I pretended to be "of the faith" without either sufficient knowledge on it and/or, more importantly, the true faith in the dogma and preachings of the religion.

I still, however, find the tenets of Orthodox Christianity, in their base, to be a nice thing, and respect it at least as a culture more than 2000 years old.

This post was inspired by my viewing a Davis Cup match to see a Orthodox priest in full regalia sitting in the Serbian box.

Normally, I am first to loath the banner-wavers of the so called "I hate organized religion" cult. I've never had any animosity towards the clergy, and tended to defend them whenever debate arose. I would gladly concur that Catholic priests and Catholicism was corrupt, capitalist in ideal and imperialist, hollow of heart and focused on money. But Orthodoxy? Never.

This was, off course, denial of the simple fact that to disrespect the clergy was not to disrespect the faith itself. When I defended the Serbian Orthodox Church in these debates, what I was actually defending was my own feeling of comfort, my fond memories of patron saint days celebrated with my father and the nice feelings I would get in church.

Some things, however, began to be a thorn in my side.

The fact some Orthodox priest behaved like spoiled mobsters, sporting huge, expensive cars with darkened windows. The fact a lot of these priests charged an inordinate amount of money for their "services". The fact a large number of these priests exhibited cases of extreme racism, nationalism, sexism and homophobia.

I am certain that for every one of these there was a normal, down to earth, honest priest that simply served his faith. But a scathing observation remained: some of "our" priest behaved even worse than my previous image of the evil, corrupt, soul-less Catholic priest.

The very temple of Sveti Sava exhibits the kind of pomp and self indulgence that I found the Catholic church architecture to have. Its big, its showy, its kitschy - its nothing a temple of a faith that preaches modesty and restraint should have. All this money poured into it - should it not be used to help people in need? What about our historical monuments in Kosovo? Or the people in need there?

All these things added up to finally turn me - I dislike organized religion, especially in Serbia. Faith is a deeply personal thing, and a preacher should only be there as a friendly advice, a helping hand, a spiritual guide if you ever need one. What it shouldn't be is a political, mafia-like force marked by arrogance and an absolutist desire to control the people it should be helping. This makes me sad for the thousands of preachers and believers of the faith that simply want nothing more than to practice their faith in peace.

The Davis Cup match has ended, but I am thankfully spared of watching the priest stumble awkwardly in his robe back into his Mercedes, massive golden cross tingling. God knows how long this will be the case.