On The Pointlessness Of Forced Categorization

Time in and time out, I see people trying to fit everything into an existing box or category rather than creating a new one. I know people don't like change, but some categories are entirely arbitrary, and most are ever changing. People love to pretend categories are important, and to some extent, I can see, why, it helps to make life a simpler experience, but most categories are entirely useless outside of abstract concepts. Unless we're discussing objective, provable facts, categories are functionally worthless. It's like people arguing about whether a hot-dog is a sandwich or not. Who the hell cares? Why should we care? Not everything has to have an arbitrary psychological distinction applied. Even Freud knew that. By extension, not everything has to have an arbitrary political, societal or other distinction applied. Certain things can exist on their own. Not everything has to be some kind of statement. The fact that I use an Xbox One controller on my PC isn't a political statement, I do it because my DualShock 3 stopped working on my PC, and the DualShock 4 lacked some rather important compatibilities with some of the games I needed to play for my other blog. Also, the fact that the controller was cheap helped. Likewise, eating macaroni and cheese with a spoon, rather than a fork isn't a political statement, but this is the level of absurdity we're operating on when people try to apply cultural, psychological or gender-based categories to arbitrary aspects of life. It's not useful, it's more effort than it could possibly be worth, and attempting to strictly categorize everything is folly, since ideas and attitudes change as quickly and frequently as the colors in the sky.

Minimums and Maximums

    For some reason, whenever I write a piece for an assignment with a minimum wordcount, my point is always conveyed in less words or paragraphs or pages, etc than was required, and I have to find some way to fluff the piece up to fit the count, and then it always comes across as underdeveloped, with loose threads of ideas. Yeah, because I was asked to stretch a topic out beyond its length. I like to punch the point hard, and convey as much meaning as possible in as little space as I can. I don't like being long-winded, but by that same token, whenever I have a maximum word-count, paragraph count, page-count, etc, I always wind up overrunning it by at least two pages. I don't know if that has to do with my writing, or if I somehow always wind up writing about things I don't care about in a place with a minimum, and wind up writing about things I can talk at length about and not exhaust my knowledge of the topic until I've well-exceeded upper limit, and ultimately have to cut things down. It doesn't help that my writing-style lends itself to brevity coupled with a bizarre level of detail. Plus, when I'm bored with something I feel less inclined to write at-length about a subject.