Tag / social values

by harrietread

My Take on Alternate Realities

When I say alternate realities, I’m not necessarily talking about Narnia, the Matrix, space-time travel or anything like that. I’m talking more about the realities within our minds that are constructed by our experiences and perspectives.

About a week ago, I made a post about how some of the things that Donald Trump says look good on paper, and that people do have reasons for wanting to support him. I’m going to extend that post a little further, thanks to a recent publication by the Wall Street Journal after they did a study on how social media news feeds can affect who people are more aligned to.

What Wall Street Journal’s Jon Keegan has done is set up two feeds which have real conversations and posts that individuals have posted on Facebook, and aligned them into a red ‘conservative’ feed and a blue ‘liberal’ feed. Users who posted all of these uploads, of which there were up to 10.1 million of them, were anonymised but had their political label analysed.

Based on the study’s findings, and the presentation of conservative vs liberal posts on Facebook, one can logically come to the conclusion that as long as you are receiving media texts from entirely one political standing, you are reinforcing your already existing beliefs. It seems fairly logical and simplistic, but at the same time it’s interesting to consider how different the political situation in the US would be if social media were different to how it currently is. It makes a little more sense in the world in terms of exactly how people align themselves to certain ideas or political figures. The reinforcement theory we learned in high school comes into play, as how we tailor what we prefer to see and choose to omit from our feeds reinforces reality as we perceive it.

by harrietread

Donald Trump Isn’t So Bad

So today, I got into an internet fight on the social media platform Yik Yak.

I love Yik Yak because its like Twitter except way more anonymous, and anonymity allows users to share some of their nuttiest, most controversial or spur-of-the-moment thoughts. I decided to post the other morning about a silly little dream I’d had the night before:

‘i dreamed donald trump coached footy and Richmond beat his team, and then all the other coaches told him to get (*censored*) and everyone laughed at his stupid hair’

I was bored, felt like posting a bit of inane silliness, so I did. The thing about Yik Yak is that it only shows posts within your area, and considering I was in a sheltered, very left-wing part of Hawthorn when I posted it, I figured hey, people might get a laugh out of it.

Then along comes a user that we will call Acorn, in consideration of the icon that they were using at the time.

Acorn criticised my post, saying I was only ‘bagging trump because it’s the “cool thing” to do’ and that I essentially ‘wouldn’t know (*expletive*) about American politics except for that Trump is running.’

I was also encouraged to ‘take a look at his policies, the western world genuinely needs some extreme reforms, whether you are willing to accept it or not.’

So I did.

I went onto donaldjtrump.com and had a look at the things that he is advocating for, and despite what I knew of him previously, I was impressed. The website revealed Trump’s plans for affordable healthcare, tax reform that would help fix the wealth distribution in America and better care for war veterans both physically, socially and economically.

These are just a few things that, frankly, could be good things. If I didn’t know anything about Trump, and I say this lightly, I probably would say that I support him except for that thing about the wall: he wasn’t kidding about that.

So I’d like to thank Acorn personally for encouraging me to go and do my research. I learned a valuable lesson from him: an internet fight that winds up in something that’s akin to two people yelling at eachother with their hands covering their ears is not something productive in this world. I was criticised on social media, and instead of screaming bloody murder at my accuser I decided why not get the front foot on this argument and learned far more than I anticipated.

Tl;Dr

Internet fights are good for you and Donald Trump does say he has some good ideas

by harrietread

My Take on Tina Fey

At the encouragement of my sister and parents, I started the Netflix series Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt the other day, and I adore it. To me, it is first and foremost great comedy and writing. Secondly, I think it has a great standing amidst fears of being politically correct humans.

The premise of the series is that Kimmy was one of four women kept locked in a bunker by a religious fanatic for 15 years; she comes into the present day of 2015-16 with absolutely no knowledge of how to be an adult in contemporary America.

One of the things that I love about the series is the writer: Tina Fey. She is possible one of my favourite public figures, comedians and women in the world, partly because her style of comedy is unadulterated and challenging.

She doesn’t shy away from ideas that are challenging in society, writing freely and provocatively about topics including sex and race in a way that makes me laugh at this inherent paranoia of being politically correct. For instance, in the first episode, Kimmy meets her roommate Titus after the landlady, Lillian’s, nonchalant introduction of him as ‘single, but very gay’ and ‘very black.’ Her matter-of-fact delivery is subtly jarring despite its humour.

I think something that draws me to this type of comedy is that it highlights the fact that in reality, being politically correct is something we overthink. Titus’ introduction is a good example of this, because in a formal essay or article he would be described as a ‘homosexual African-American,’ and while there is nothing wrong with this kind of description, it is overcomplicated and borderline pretentious.

If you were to watch another production by Tina Fey, such as Mean Girls or 30 Rock, you’d probably get what I’m trying to say. In Mean Girls, the first time Cady is introduced to her class as an exchange student from Africa, the teacher (played appropriately by Fey) is quick to assume that a black student ‘from Michigan’ is said exchange student. And in 30 Rock, there is an entire episode in which white businessman Jack Donaghy (played by Alec Baldwin) gets black actor and comedian Tracy Jordan (played by Tracy Morgan) to film a Republican campaign video to encourage black Americans to vote Republican; ultimately, Donaghy simply gets Tracy to say ‘Black people, don’t vote!’

My ultimate thoughts on Tina Fey is that in a time where censorship and political correctness is a hotbed of paranoia and anxiety, her humour is relaxed yet provocative. I am always going to have a biased view of her work since I adore her, but frankly I think that there needs to be more appreciation for this woman and the lens she offers us through which we can simply have a chuckle about how unusual, unfair or uptight the world can be sometimes.

by harrietread

My Take on the Panama Papers, Taxes and the 2016-17 Budget

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) recently leaked 11.5 million files, exposing politicians, public officials and international leaders across the globe as using offshore tax havens, from Mossack Fonseca, one of the globe’s biggest offshore law firms.

This controversy of wealthy tax evaders, and the release of the national 2016-17 budget barely 10 days ago, have been trending topics of discussion across journalism and social media, and I sought to understand what all of it meant.

I did a little research, and learnt that companies and private bodies such as public figures, officials and politicians have been using tax havens for around 40 years in Panama. According to ICIJ (through Mossack Fonseca’s database) up to 210,000 companies have used Panama as a base over the last 40 years, and include politicians, public figures and private owners from all across the globe.

Offshore tax havens are essentially shop fronts, or ‘shell companies’ as described by ICIJ, set up offshore of a company or private owner’s actual home country where taxes are cheaper.

This offshore site is legally set up in writing as their legally official base, and so this base in Panama pays marginally cheaper taxes while their actual set-up back home doesn’t have to pay more expensive taxes intended for healthcare, education, security and protection institutions, etc.

As a result, the economy of these countries have been immensely harmed by losing millions of dollars in taxes that haven’t been paid, as a result of offshore tax havens.

I think that the 2016-17 national Budget’s release is relevant and additionally important to discuss alongside the Panama Papers. To put it into terms that my mind gets, the budget aims to give tax cuts to high income earners; this is going to greatly affect low income earners in Australia over the next 3-4 years. I find it to be a cruel irony and tragedy of human nature to see that not only have wealthy politicians and figures been immorally avoiding taxes and thus gaining wealth while others have been making up for it, but the new budget favours the position of high income earners even further. It is as if human society has not changed in the last few thousand years.

Just think of the French Revolution; the nobility and clergy were grossly exempt from paying taxes and the rest of society bore the brunt of having to make up for them by giving away all that they had. It’s all too similar to the current situation in the US where 0.01% of the population owns as much wealth as 90% of the country. Essentially, what I am noticing in the current state of affairs concerning the Budget and the Panama Papers is that human society, ruled primarily by the rich, has catered for the rich.

As seen in the Q+A episode the other night, featuring Liberal Party members being faced with Duncan Storrar, those is power until the upcoming election are the Liberals dominated by a privileged, wealthy demographic that has absolutely positively no idea what it is like to live in a below average, let alone a low-income household. They see an opportunity to fill their purses some more, and have never even considered the idea that there are people who struggle just to make ends meet every day. What I see in the Panama Papers, the Budget and the recent Q+A episode are examples and evidences of the unending selfishness that is human nature. In this case, in a capitalist society, in reference to the lectorial on institutions, Power is power. Knowledge has yet to give way to a change in behaviour in society.

SOURCES:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/anu-modelling-shows-how-the-2016-budget-really-affects-your-hip-pocket-20160511-gosewj.html

https://panamapapers.icij.org/

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90

by harrietread

My Take on Timothy Treadwell

In Cinema, we watched Grizzly Man, a documentary about a man named Timothy Treadwell who was obsessed with bears and nature. Watching excerpts from his own videos through the documentary, I (and I believe many other members of the audience) was struck by his peculiar nature and deep obsession with the wilderness, particularly his apparent nonchalance when faced with enormous, unpredictable and powerful adult grizzly bears. For the most part, I think that Treadwell was a nutter, and kept thinking to myself, ‘he’s insane, he’s mad, maybe he is simply not well,’ and my mind was drawn back to yesterday’s lectorial on media institutions and Michel Foucault’s studies of how abnormal behaviour is perceived and treated in society.

Firstly, what made Timothy Treadwell ‘abnormal?’ I would say, from watching Grizzly Man, that it would be his unusual accent and mannerisms. At a first glance, he seemed effeminate which made his character distinctive and out of the ordinary, particularly in the wilds of Alaska.

Secondly, his unusualness came from his deep passionate confessions of love and admiration for bears. In a social context, most people may say they respect bears when brought up in conversation; but he publicly preached about them. Furthermore, his character implied that his love for the beasts made him naïve to their wild, powerful and deadly nature. He said so himself, without much concern, that he was at risk of bodily or fatal harm, and yet he persevered and stayed within the vicinity of bears. Why would a sane person risk their lives and safety for the sake of studying and ‘protecting’ such dangerous creatures? This, I believe, is what would help classify Treadwell in society as a ‘weirdo,’ a ‘nut,’ ‘delusional’ or ‘crazy.’

Treadwell was a fascinating character and is fascinating to observe, because he is a brilliant example of someone in contemporary society who is, in his own way, mentally unwell. He has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and voluntarily stopped taking antidepressants without the clearance of a doctor and I believe these are grounds for someone who is troubled; not necessarily mentally ill, but confused and unwell. If we were to examine him through the lens of Foucault’s Madness and Civilisation, we would engage in a sociological study of the relationship between Treadwell as an individual and society on a larger scale. In the documentary itself, his friends and acquaintances recounted him as unusual, troubled and, to some degree, worrying or even frightening in his obsession. Even Treadwell’s relationship with the audience while watching the documentary would be an interesting one to study. For one thing, how would we, as an audience of this somewhat biased a perception of a documentary, express our opinions of Treadwell in a social situation with friends or in a discussion in Cinema? That’s something that intrigues me, because I definitely have opinions of Treadwell that I want to clarify for myself.

by harrietread

My Take on Michel Foucalt’s Institutions

In today’s lectorial, we had a discussion about institutions and variations on them in society. Essentially, an institution is a man-made construct concerned with structures of society. This can be anything from ‘marriage’ or ‘divorce’ as social institutions, or media institutions such as the ABC News, HBO or community media channels.

What stuck with me most after the lectorial was philosopher, historian, social theorist and literary critic Michel Foulcalt’s ideas of relationships between society and individuals. In his 1961 book Madness and Civilisation, Foucalt explores the institution of mental asylums from the Renaissance (1500s AD) up to the contemporary society of his time in the late 1950s-early 60s.

In his book, he explored the societal implications of what constituted as ‘mad’ or ‘sane,’ and the way that society dealt with ‘mad’ people. His study became an exploration of what was considered ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ according to social values. In summary, he maintained that unlike inthe Renaissance, when those deemed ‘mad’ were believed to be on a cosmically higher level than others in society, in the Classical Age (17th to 18th/19th century), those considered mad were simply thrown into asylums out of the way with other undesirables for the protection of society.

Moving further on to his contemporary era, the modern era, he asserted in his findings that while there were attempts being made to ‘cure’ these people in institutions under the guidance of medical doctors, there was on one level a great contrast in power between patients and doctors and on another level an inherited social value from the Classical Age that those who were ‘mad’ were undesirables to be hidden away for society’s protection.

Foucalt’s study on mental asylums as institutions through history are important factors of my studies because it highlights the central significance that sociology, society and society’s values have in media and communications. What I got out of this lectorial revolving around institutions, elements of sociology and Michel Foucalt’s case studies was the sense that institutions are an immensely important construct and organisation of structures in society.

by harrietread

The Problem with the Cultural Appropriation Debate

A topic of discussion that I have noticed appearing frequently on social media lately is that of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is concerned with the ethics of appropriating different aspects of different cultures in art, pop culture, and media, particularly in a way that is exploitative.

First, let’s get some clarity, since I didn’t know much about the subject myself and had to do my research; The debate surrounding culture-appropriation typically involves the terms ‘appropriation’ that is, “to take or use (something) especially in a way that is illegal, unfair, etc.” and compares it with ‘appreciation’ (“to understand the worth or importance of (something or someone”).

There are two sides to this debate. One side believes that cultural appropriation can be disrespectful, offensive, and insensitive, while the other believes cultural appropriation is a mythical construct imagined by ‘feminazis’ and PC (politically correct) fanatics wanting something to complain about. There are plenty of shades between these polarised views, but on the internet, the extremes dominate.

On one level, I see the validity of arguments damning cultural appropriation: it’s never ok to make anyone feel bad about themselves, and it’s definitely not okay to exploit the cultures of others in demeaning and disrespectful ways. For example, I understand that an Indian feather head-dress will look rad with your next music fest outfit, but in Native American culture that head-dress was once only allowed to be one by warriors and chiefs who earned each feather by accomplishing one courageous deed at a time. Herein lies the difference between appropriation and appreciation; I cannot speak for all head-dress-wearing music-festival party legends, but I would venture a guess that most would not appreciate this, and therefore i question whether the choice of garment is really respectful.

Being blind to the positions of minorities and less fortunate cultures and religions and furthermore being disrespectful to these cultures, direct or indirect, is also not okay. On another level, I believe that harmonious coexistence between races and cultures will flourish through appreciation and sharing of different cultural ideas, designs, artefacts etc.

Ultimately, however, I struggle to show my support for any of these ideas simply because I do not want to get involved in unnecessarily hyped up, hostile and often greatly misinformed internet fights.

Many people refuse to believe cultural appropriation exists simply because they do not want to be associated with SJWs (social justice warriors) or feminazis. They also discredit and remain indifferent to these ideas because the way that they are presented is often in an hysterical, OTT mindset that is, ironically, socially unnacceptable.

The whole debate, thus, has turned from a well-informed discussion about respecting each other as human beings into a petty argument often confused by individual egos and opinions. The environment that the internet offers for discussing ideas like this can easily become hostile and unpleasant when frustrated people feel they aren’t being heard. It’s like two people covering their ears and screaming across a room at eachother. If we’re to have any chance of taking full advantage of the amazing potential of the internet for communication and connection, we need to find ways to ensure that everyone feels respected, that everyone feels heard, and that the outcome is not to prove a point, but to learn.