#Compartmentalization is good and we should all do it more in the current era of socmed | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tcm · 3 years

Text

Reframing Films of the Past: An Interview with TCM Writers

All month long in March, TCM will be taking a look at a number of beloved classic films that have stood the test of time, but when viewed by contemporary standards, certain aspects of these films are troubling and problematic. During TCM’s Reframed: Classics in the Rearview Mirror programming, all five TCM hosts will appear on the network to discuss these issues, their historical and cultural context and how we can keep the legacy of great films alive for future generations.

Also joining in on this conversation are four TCM writers who were open enough to share their thoughts on their love of classic movies and watching troubling images of the past. Special thanks to Theresa Brown, Constance Cherise, Susan King and Kim Luperi for taking part in this conversation. Continue the conversation over on TCM’s Twitter.

What do you say to people who don’t like classics because they’re racist and sexist?

KL: There are positive representations in classic Hollywood that I think would blow some peoples’ minds. I always love introducing people to new titles that challenge expectations.

That said, anyone who broadly slaps a sexist or racist label on a large part of the medium’s history does a disservice to cinema and themselves. That mindset keeps them ignorant not only of some excellent movies and groundbreaking innovation but history itself.

I think people need to remember that movies are a product of their time and they can reflect the society they were made into a variety of degrees - good, bad, politically, culturally, socially. That’s not to excuse racism or sexism; it needs to be recognized and called out as such for us to contend with it today. But it’s important for people who say they don’t like classics for those reasons to understand the historical context. In particular, we need to acknowledge that society has evolved - and what was deemed socially acceptable at times has, too, even if sexism and racism are always wrong - and we are applying a modern lens to these films that come with the benefit of decades worth of activism, growth and education.

SK: I totally agree K.L. For years I have been encouraging people to watch vintage movies who keep proclaiming they don’t like black-and-white films or silent films. For every Birth of a Nation (1915) there are beautiful dramas, wonderful comedies and delicious mysteries and film noirs.

These films that have racist and sexist elements shouldn’t be collectively swept under the rug, because as K.L. stated they shine a light on what society was like – both good and bad.

CC: First off, fellow writers may I say, I think your work is amazing. I'm continually learning from the talent that is here, and I am humbled to be a part of this particular company. Similar to the prior answers, for every racist/sexist film the opposite exists. Personally, classic musicals attracted me due to their visual assault, creativity and their unmistakable triple-threat performances. While we cannot ignore racist stereotypes and sexism, there are films that simply are "fantasies of art." There is also a review of evolution. In 20 years, what we now deem as acceptable behavior/conversation will be thought of as outdated and will also require being put into "historical context." What we collectively said/thought/did 20 years ago, we are currently either re-adjusting or reckoning with now, and that is a truth of life that will never change. We will always evolve.

TB: I would say to them they should consider the times the movie was made in. It was a whole different mindset back then.

Are there movies that you love but are hesitant to recommend to others because of problematic elements in them? If so, which movies?

TB: Yes, there are movies I’m hesitant to recommend. The big one, off the top of my head, would be Gone With the Wind (1939). The whole slavery thing is a bit of a sticky wicket for people, especially Black folks. Me, I love the movie. It is truly a monumental feat of filmmaking for 1939. I’m not saying I’m happy with the depiction of African Americans in that film. I recognize the issues. But when I look at a classic film, I suppose I find I have to compartmentalize things. I tend to gravitate on the humanity of a character I can relate to.

KL: Synthetic Sin (1929), a long thought lost film, was found in the 2010s, and I saw it at Cinecon a few years ago. As a Colleen Moore fan, I thoroughly enjoyed most of it, but it contains a scene of her performing in blackface that doesn’t add anything to the plot. That decision brings the movie down in my memory, which is why I have trouble recommending it.

Also Smarty (1934), starring Warren William and Joan Blondell, is another movie I don’t recommend because it’s basically about spousal abuse played for comedy, and it did not age well for that reason.

SK: Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961): Audrey Hepburn is my favorite actress and I love her Oscar-nominated performance as Holly. I adore Orangy as Cat, as well as George Peppard and Buddy Ebsen, who is wonderfully endearing. And of course, “Moon River” makes me cry whenever I hear it. But then I cringe and am practically nauseous every time Mickey Rooney pops up on screen with his disgusting stereotypical performance as Holly’s Japanese landlord Mr. Yunioshi. What was director Blake Edwards thinking casting him in this part? Perhaps because he’s such a caricature no Japanese actor wanted to play him, so he cast Rooney with whom he had worked within the 1950s.

CC: I cannot necessarily state that I am in "love," but, a film that comes to mind would be Anna and the King of Siam (1946). It is an absolutely beautiful visual film. However, Rex Harrison as King Mongkut requires some explanation.

Holiday Inn (1942), and the Abraham number...why??? Might I also add, there were many jaw-dropping, racist cartoons.

How did you learn to deal with the negative images of the past?

KL: I often look at it as a learning experience. Negative images can provoke much-needed conversation (internally or with others) and for me, they often prompt my education in an area that I wasn’t well versed in. For instance, blackface is featured in some classic films, and its history is something I never knew much about. That said, seeing its use in movies prompted me to do some research, which led me first to TCM’s short documentary about blackface and Hollywood. I love how TCM strives to provide context and seeks to educate viewers on uncomfortable, contentious subjects so we can appreciate classic films while still acknowledging and understanding the history and the harmful stereotypes some perpetuated.

SK: It’s also been a learning experience for me. Though I started watching movies as a little girl in the late 1950s, thanks to TCM and Warner Archive I realized that a lot of films were taken out of circulation because of racist elements. TCM has not only screened a lot of these films but they have accompanied the movies with conversations exploring the stereotypes in the films.

CC: As a Black woman, negative images of the past continue to be a lesson on how Blacks, as well as other minorities, were seen (and in some cases still are seen) through an accepted mainstream American lens. On one hand, it's true, during the depiction of these films the majority of Black Americans were truly relegated to servant roles, so it stands to reason that depictions of Black America would be within the same vein. What is triggering to me, are demeaning roles, and the constant exaggeration of the slow-minded stereotype, blackface. When you look at the glass ceiling that minority performers faced from those in power, the need for suppression and domination is transparent because art can be a powerful agent of change. I dealt with the negative images of the past by knowing and understanding that the depiction being given to me was someone else's narrative, of who they thought I was, not who I actually am.

TB: I’m not sure HOW I learned to deal with negative images. Again, I think it might go back to me compartmentalizing.

I don’t know if this is right or wrong…but I’ve always found myself identifying with the leads and their struggles. As a human being, I can certainly identify with losing a romantic partner, money troubles, losing a job…no matter the ethnicity.

In what ways have we evolved from the movies of the classic era?

KL: I think we are more socially and culturally conscious now when it comes to stories, diversity and representation on screen and behind the scenes, which is a step forward. That said, while there's been growth, there's still much work to be done.

SK: I think this year’s crop of awards contenders show how things have evolved with Da 5 Bloods, Soul, One Night in Miami, Minari, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, The United States Vs. Billie Holiday, Judas and the Black Messiah and MLK/FBI.

But we still have a long way to go. I’d love to see more Native American representation in feature films; more Asian-American and Latino stories.

CC: There are minority artists, writers, producers, directors, actors with the increasing capacity to create through their own authentic voice, thereby affecting the world, and a measurable amount of them are women! Generally speaking, filmmakers (usually male) have held the voice of the minority narrative as well as the female narrative. I agree with both writers above in the thought that it is progress, and I also agree, more stories of diversified races are needed.

TB: One important way we've evolved from the movies made in the classic era by being more inclusive in casting.

Are there any deal-breakers for you when watching a movie, regardless of the era, that make it hard to watch?

KL: Physical violence in romantic relationships that's played as comedy is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. I mentioned above that I don't recommend Smarty (1934) to people, because when I finally watched it recently, it. was. tough. The way their abuse was painted as part of their relationship just didn’t sit well with me.

SK: Extreme racist elements and just as KL states physical violence.

Regarding extreme racist elements, D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915) is just too horrific to watch. I was sickened when I saw it when I was in grad school at USC 44 years ago and it’s only gotten worse. And then there’s also Wonder Bar (1934), the pre-code Al Jolson movie that features the Busby Berkeley black minstrel number “Goin’ to Heaven on a Mule.” Disgusting.

I also agree with KL about physical violence in comedies and even dramas. I recently revisited Private Lives (1931) with Norma Shearer and Robert Montgomery based on Noel Coward’s hit play. I have fond memories of seeing Maggie Smith in person in the play when I was 20 in the play and less than fond memories of watching Joan Collins destroying Coward’s bon mots.

But watching the movie again, you realized just how physically violent Amanda and Elyot’s relationship is-they are always talking about committing physical violence-”we were like two violent acids bubbling about in a nasty little matrimonial battle”; “certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs”-or constantly screaming and throwing things.

There is nothing funny or romantic about this.

KL: I try to put Birth of a Nation out of my mind, but S.K. did remind me of it again, and movies featuring extreme racism at their core like that are also dealbreakers; I totally agree with her assessment. I understand the technological achievements, but I think in the long run, especially in how it helped revive the KKK, the social harm that film brought about outdoes its cinematic innovations.

CC: Like S.K., Wonder Bar immediately came to mind. Excessive acts of violence, such as in the film Natural Born Killers (1994). I walked out of the theatre while the film was still playing. I expected violence, but the gratuitousness was just too much for me. I also have an issue with physical abuse, towards women and children. This is not to say I would not feel the same way about a man. However, when males are involved, it tends to be a fight, an exchange of physical energy, generally speaking, when we see physical abuse it is perpetuated towards women and children.

TB: I have a couple of moments that pinch my heart when I watch a movie. It doesn’t mean I won’t watch the movie. It just means I roll my eyes…verrrrry hard.

-Blackface…that’s a little rough; especially when the time period OF the movie is the ‘30s or ‘40s film.

-Not giving the Black actors a real name to be called by in the film (Snowflake…Belvedere…Lightnin’). I mean, can’t they have a regular name like Debbie or Bob?

-When the actor can’t do the simplest of tasks, i.e. Butterfly McQueen answering the phone in Mildred Pierce (1945) and not knowing which end to speak into. What up with that?

Are there elements they got right that we still haven’t caught up to?

KL: I don't know if the pre-Code era got sex right (and sensationalism was definitely something studios were going for) but in some ways, I feel that subject was treated as somewhat more accepted and natural back then. Of course, what was shown onscreen in the classic era was nowhere near the extent it is today, but the way the Production Code put a lid on sex (in addition to many other factors) once again made it into more of a taboo topic than it is or should be.

One thing I particularly hate in modern movies is gratuitous violence, and it perplexes and angers me how America weighs violence vs. sex in general through the modern ratings system: films are more likely to get a pass with violence, mostly landing in PG-13 territory and thus making them more socially acceptable, while sex, something natural, is shunned with strictly R ratings. Obviously, there are limits for both, but I think the general thinking there is backwards today.

CC: The elegance, the sophistication, the precision, the dialogue, the intelligence, the wit. The fashion! The layering of craftsmanship. We aren't fans of these films for fleeting reasons, we are fans because of their timeless qualities.

I'm going to sound like a sentimental sap here, ladies get ready. I think they got the institution of family right. Yes, I do lean towards MGM films, so I am coloring my opinion from that perspective. Even if a person hasn't experienced what would have been considered a "traditional family" there is something to be said about witnessing that example. Perhaps not so much of a father and a mother, but to witness a balanced, functioning, loving relationship. What it "looks like" when a father/mother/brother/sister etc. genuinely loves another family member.

I was part of the latch-key generation, and although my parents remained together, many of my friends' parents were divorced. Most won't admit it, but by the reaction to the documentary [Won't You Be My Neighbor?, 2018], the bulk of them went home, sat in front of the TV and watched Mr. Rogers tell them how special they were because their parents certainly were not. We don't know what can "be" unless we see it.

#Reframed #TCM #Turner Classic Movies #representation #racism #sexism #inclusion #diversity #cinephile #film #old Hollywood #Theresa Brown #Kim Luperi #Susan King #Constance Cherise

110 notes · View notes

maevelin · 5 years

Note

do you think the North is xenophobe? do you agree with what Missandei said to Sansa and Tyrion?

I think that both Missandei and Sansa made some valid points. It is not so much of one is right and the other is wrong kind of situation here. They just have different perspectives on things and it depends on how you either view the whole picture or you how compartmentalize or even which side you are on. It is all important and it depends on the priorities you have and the situation at hand.

As for the North. Well...yeah. A little bit.

But I also think that it is to be expected. It is part of the human nature to fear and be intimidated by the unknown. It stems from our survival instincts and our baser instincts too. This is where our ability to think and reign over certain parts of ourselves and be civilized and something better kicks in or at least should kick in. These things play their part in the show too. And given how these societies work, the era, the level or ignorance, the fundamentally different cultures and the current reality it is not something that’s unpredictable. Also it is not so simple as to say it is xenophobia, the North is filled with shitty xenophobes and call it a day. The North has been in open war for years. They have endured losses. They are very easily triggered and unable to trust anyone but their own. Don’t forget they were very resistant against the Wildlings too but they eventually adapted. The thing is that the North is not objectively good or bad. It is a region with people that can be good, bad, open-minded or not. But generally speaking the people in the North are now very suspicious and ...with good reason. Or at least a logical reason.

Daenerys may be there to help but she is a conqueror none the less. Despite any benign motivations she may have (and let us face facts here not all of which drives her is benevolent) she is still a conqueror that enters the North with troops and armies. No matter how she plans to use them and despite them being allies it is still something intimidating. Especially if we consider that the North wants independence and the King they chose bent the knee against what his people wanted and let all these forces in. Yes the Night King was an imminent threat but that does not mean that the price of freedom the North has to pay is not very steep or even their choice to begin with. So it all keeps adding to creating this hostile environment. And despite any levels of xenophobia let us not forget that Daenerys may be white but the PoC forces she is leading are by her side by choice because as they repeatedly admitted they chose her as their Queen and are now there to follow orders and even invade places and homes in order to conquer and subdue them for their Queen. That kind of reputation, anxiety and fear creates certain expectations, distrust and reactions. Even hate. And I don’t know about you but I think everyone would be the least of all cautious too if they had to face this situation.

I think it needs time to sort this out and a transitional period for people to get to know each other and adapt to the cultural differences and embrace each other and absorb the changes. This requires compromise and good leadership too. No conflict and some good will. We shall see how much of an issue this will be now that they all fought together and sacrifices were made from all sides. I think people may be more open to accept each other now that they stood united against a common enemy and died together. It makes everything else seem very small and unimportant or at least it should.

But the North’s Independence is still a issue that may still put people on opposite sides again with whatever this brings along.

#got for ts #game of thrones for ts #missandei for ts #sansa stark for ts #xenophobia tw #mymeta #Anonymous

1 note · View note

nusincerity · 3 years

Text

THE NOBLE PURSUIT TO BECOME UNBEHOLDEN BY TIME, TASTE, AND OTHER SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS

I believe when offended by another person, particularly for a disagreement in taste in pop culture, humans rather than believe someone could be so cruel quickly imagine a more palpable psychoanalysis of the offender in order to soothe our jangled egos. One of the most common excuses I see is jealousy - you're being mean because you're really just jealous. Another is that the opinionated are purposefully trying to be superior or 'edgier' for playing contrarian. These excuses seem to stem more often then not from no reasonable assessment of the individual (for do you really know what troubles their psyche?) then from this social cliche of making said assumption. Which had me wondering, why do we need that reassurance? Why must we wield accusations of jealousy, bitterness, immaturity, mental problems, egomania, even internalized misogyny, to account for differences of opinions and wipe our hands of the responsibility of being nothing like the offender? Why is that easier to swallow?

What if too, an opinion is just an opinion?

What if, I don't like it, because I don't like it?

I can't speak for anyone but myself. So, to that, I know there are underlying causes, traumas and unique points of view which might reflect both a mental instability or bitterness at times as well as simple matters of personal taste affecting my opinions. Sometimes, I dislike something because it is out of line with my world view, which is directly tied to my lifelong experiences and influences. Sometimes, I just don't like the way it mixes with my senses, like high pitched singing or cantaloupe. What determines the later seems learned, intrinsic, and if I am feeling less rational, cosmic. So it goes, of course, for the things I love. Rarely, I think, am I truly 'jealous' or otherwise 'trying' to be anything. If one denies these accusations when accused, though, it does nothing dissuade the accuser. Such personality defects are something a person will never admit to, right? Therefore, this so called argument seems to me an attempted disarming of the opinion, in lieu of attempting understanding.

A root of my problem with this all is more about not accepting the ugly negativity, petty anger and bitterness in others, or not wanting to feel it in themselves. Even it was jealousy at the core, why not let that person feel what they need to feel? Let me put it this way:

I am bitter about a lot of things, I get as passionate about certain things I dislike as much as things I love, and there's a lot at play to make me feel like stale, cold, left-out all night coffee on the inside. But you can't simply tell someone to stop being bitter as much as you can't tell a depressed person to just cheer up.

One stranger flinging insults at the thing they don't like, to come across another stranger who likes said thing flinging insults back to the first - neither is better than the other. Regardless of the point of view or intent of either, there is one generalization of both, of all of us, I will venture to make:

We're all just kinda insecure.

The worst part of human insecurity in the pop societal landscape is that often what creates the insecurities of one stems from the insecurities of another. I see all the time in my peer group (and the American world at large) an obsession, conscious or not (and likely mostly not), with proving to the world that they are Cool and have Taste. They do this often by making fun of the things which are currently trendy to make fun of to prove they understand what's right and wrong, as reinforced by the circle jerk of others they perceive to also be Cool and have Taste (and perhaps an underlying current of the fear of aging - of losing what is perceived to be only for youth in this regard.). They do this because they want to be accepted, into that circle of higher low brow. Which as far as I can tell is mostly an imagined group, or acquaintances they might encounter within a subcultural sphere doing the same thing (ie: want to fit in with the death metal crowd? Talk a lot about how terrible nu-metal is. Don't you feel clever?). Perhaps I surmise this because I too did this once, when I was an adolescent. And you might read this and think, that all sounds immature, and it is.

But that doesn't mean adults grow out of that immaturity.

But it does soothe my jangled nerves when exasperated with these peers to remind myself that they're probably just coming from a lot of unresolved insecurities. As we all are. This feels to me like the logical approach, the one of the mediator, the armchair psychologist who can put humans into an order that sits better with reason and less with pure emotion. The trouble is, emotion is what I am mostly made of.

I am exasperated, and a little insecure, and no logic in the 'verse is going to iron out this and the anger that ensues from it. But, regardless, here I am, making stabs to sort out my own perspective and hopefully change yours a little bit.

What infuriates me the most about posturing to appear current, or cool, or otherwise proving you have the 'right' taste is one.) some immature junior high nonsense as aforementioned, two.) stems from and creates world wide insecurities especially in us particularly sensitive folk, and three.) is a completely arbitrary, ever changing, shallow concept within itself. So, why buy in into it? Let's compound this last point with another arbitrary social construct: time.

Measuring time in itself is a necessary technological development for civilization*, but the ways it is qualified by culture and reinforced by taste seem to warp the perspective of it for a good deal many. It also strikes me as having sped up in a post industrialized world, with the decades of the 20th century remembered in such compartmentalized generalizations and stereotypes that generally we fail to remember the fluidity of evolving design, technology, and pop culture (or perhaps also our relatively short distance from it). Let alone, that those living through it were not prudish neanderthals to whom we could never relate. We are obsessed with categorizing time in this way, and we are obsessed with further compartmentalizing generations and giving them names more than I believe we were before (for that I blame marketing and SEOs), but it's never so neatly sorted despite the insistence of meme language and marketing (I have never found an official source concluding exactly where one generation ends and the next begins, and frankly I believe that's impossible and pointless given than any single person will be influenced by multitudes of factors in their personal environment). I believe the truth of the past gets so clouded by these generalizations and stereotypes that the popular view of culture before ours is distorted into caricature.

This is also, I should add, a largely American or Western perspective of time and culture. Itself another limitation of perspective.

I love art, and I love music, and movies, and fashion, and design; but I also love history, and people individually – and I think the art, and music, and movies, and fashion, and all matter of objects, are the best connection we will ever have to people we, limited as we all, can never truly meet nor understand what their moment stuck in linear time must have been like for them. I'm fueled with a desire to do the impossible and try to know anyway. For me, appreciating those pieces left behind is the closest I will ever feel to those times, to those people. I feel constrained by the year I was born, and I feel constrained by the day I die even not knowing when that will be. This limitation only feels more profound the closer I get to the other end. There is no way I think I am the only one, of course, or else time travel fiction wouldn't be so popular.

Except there is one thing that I am grateful for, which might even be the next best thing to time travel or bodily transcendence – eras before this never quite had such an ease of access to the artifacts of the past that I am so lucky to experience.

So the way I see it, there's really no excuse any more. I long for a future where writing off the cultural knowledge of someone because it's 'before your time' is not such a social cliche.** I long for a future where it can all be enjoyed at once, without the social posturing, in spite of the third dimension.

(Perhaps even to spite the third dimension. That's for making me a linear being, ya wanker.)

Yet, even with this wonderful wealth of information, never will I know the past without the influence of the present, and therefore, will never have an unaffected first hand and unbiased account. Therefore, I do as best I can within my limitations. Not just learning about the the things I love, and what led to them, but working to detach myself from the learned notions of taste that affect our point of view.

I need to stop here and make an aside, because I feel the imagined commenter complaining already. When I speak about detaching your present biases to better appreciate the past, I do mean as I hope I have made clear, this specifically speaks to matters of subjective taste in art, design, pop culture, and technology, and the way we get arrogant about our current state as if we have managed to achieve the pinnacle of these things when at no point in history has this remained constant. Social political differences, and the ugly parts of the past that we believe to have progressed away from, I don't mean to say turn a blind eye even when they show up in these mediums. But I also think in order to truly understand those aspects, we need to swap our lens from our current condition to the context of its moment. These ideas weren't created out of nothing and it's very important to attempt to understand why and what created them, and how they continue to affect the present. I think context is king, and even if we regard ourselves as progressed and better than that ugliness, I don't think just mocking, complaining about, or dismissing a work because it has discomforting elements (including even, for instance, dated technology) helps us to really face or understand or ancestors, nor ourselves. Further more, I think language should not be the deciding factor in the intentions of a piece of work or point of view of the creator; that is, if a certain word or phrase or way of putting something was used which we now regard as dated or distasteful, can not always be literally interpreted by only our current definitions and associations – this leads, I think, to misunderstood intentions and missed points. I certainly won't have anything from the past be altered for the benefit of the present condition. But I won't delve into this further for the sake of keeping to my ideas about subjectiveness.

Which leads me back to that infuriating thing about 'taste' within time – arbitrary, shallow, ever-changing. Not to mention, cyclical and reactionary against itself quite often. There is a phenomena that I call the 10-20 Rule, which particularly applies to fashion trends, but I feel I see it applying to all matters of pop culture (music styles, film trends, etc), possibly even more now than before. The 10-20 rules has three parts: before 10 years we haven't really distanced ourself enough from the past to see it as garishly different, therefore we have yet to categorize or analyze it fully; between the approximate 10 and 20 year mark, the trends of the past become too dated to bare and must be made fun of at all costs (or so it seems); at 20 or so however, it's been long enough that our yearning and interest in those previous styles are renewed, reinterpreted, and reclaimed especially by those who were not there to live it. Especially, or perhaps most integral to this theory, if it's different than whatever trend we leave directly behind.

It's by no means an original theory. I think those with even the slightest awareness of clothing style changes recognize the recycling of trends every 20 or so years. What I feel I gave a name or at least more personal thought to are the first two parts of the rule. I write this in 2020, and I've been seeing fashion of the Y2K pop up for a couple years now (and also predicted it. Am I bitter about this? Maybe; I have my self analysis ready for another essay.) and now fully cementing itself in all mainstream fashion forward outlets (but I also see adults not ready to accept it). At the same time, I am hearing and seeing plenty of mockery directed at the mid to late 2000s, smack in that war zone of 10 to 15, for music or styles that went along with it, while also seeing teenagers now wax nostalgic about the years they were babies and wishing they could dress 'emo' now (and you see, according to my philosophy, they could and should, they should enjoy whatever they want, and the holding them back is the perception of not being cool or current, and perhaps also the means of obtaining the articles to fulfill their desires. Which as much as I personally have no nostalgia for emo music or junior high, makes me sad for them). As for 2010s, of course as the decade ended plenty of retrospective articles emerged, but the same fear of the trends of the past are slowly just beginning to trickle in from the first few years. My friend tagged me in an Instagram post of a picture of a celebrity at Coachella wearing Jeffry Cambell Litas in 2012, which were massively popular probably between 2010 and 2012, and the Instagram post played on the nostalgia baiting while snickering at them and comparing them to Crocs and Uggs (I'm sure even in its prime they had their naysayers). Which, personally I think Litas are much more stylish and was annoyed as a teen that I did not own a pair at a certain point. A lot of the comments echoed 'too soon' or 'I remember loving those'. That post exhausted me.

(This Instagram post however got me thinking, the cycle might be accelerating as the 2010s enter the 10-20 range of years removed, as the beginning of this decade coincides with the beginning of things like Instagram and fast fashion. The documentation of microtrends and of everyone's lives therefore increases, along with our desires for needing to see new things constantly amidst seeing the same things exponentially, leading to this unsatisfiable visual overstimulation...)

And the exhaustion set in when I realized, I'm not even 30, and if I live for another 50 years or more, I'm going to have to go through this cycle again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

It is not so much the idea of cyclical and equal-opposite reaction trend cycles in themselves which bother me (although I have never ever liked minimalism and lived for its death since the day I was born, and if it comes back, I will continue to fight against it as the definition of 'taste') – but the way I have observed people engaging with them. Specifically, when in one decade some style is deemed awful, and in the next, the same person might suddenly change their tune and love it. This feels fickle. This feels like identity crisis. This feels like capitalistic brainwashing, because if you didn't change your taste, why would you buy anything new?

What are trends but repetition? Too soon and too strange is hard for people to digest; but see it presented enough times (especially on perhaps the wealthy or famous or attractive or young) it becomes desirable. See it too many times it becomes boring; the opposite reaches its desirable phase, and suddenly, the previous trend isn't just boring but dated. Horrifying. I'm fascinated by why this happens – because it feels like nothing that relates to the instincts of more primal humans. Perhaps I wrong, perhaps there is a more natural causation. From my vantage point amongst the trends, though, it feels like conditioning – and the only escape is to really, really look deep in yourself, and know what you genuinely love, and embrace that with sincerity and resolve.

Being aware, probably hyper aware, possibly neurotic, about such things creates the frustration as much as it allows me to attempt to distance myself from it. My only reprieve from, as far as I can imagine, will be to untangle my involvement from this pop cultural hellscape as I age and, somehow, learn to not care about any of it and enjoy and be myself (and to others, not caring about the distance between youth, and all the involvement of Current and Cool that goes along with it, being left behind). Which is, above all, the center of what all these tangents point back to. This is much easier theorized about than done – I am tangled in pop culture, reinforced by my job that exists only because of it and the coworkers who are mostly all in that awkward phase of late 20-something between youth and a midlife crisis, also steeped in it, wherein they complain about simultaneously being out of touch and not knowing how to 'adult'. And clearly, pop culture is a topic which interests me - either by actually enjoying it or by analyzing it in a detached and cold alien sort of way for which I'll half-jokingly blame my sun sign.

When I speak of transcendence from time and the pop cultural constructs therein, this is not some metaphysical hallucinogenic trip in the desert meditational hoo-ha that I am promoting – it is 100% a psychological frame of mind that I've actively had to work towards through reflecting on the ideas I'm attempting to present here, researching all my interests and discovering new things from past culture as often as possible and how it informs the present, and above all, reflecting on and being comfortable with myself past, present, and future. Part of, and probably the main driving force behind, making fun of the trends of the past concerns itself with the horror when faced one's earlier self (especially as an adolescent). This being is in terms of naivety in words and action, the things enjoyed, the clothes and hairstyles worn, the inexperience in skill (especially for the arts), etcetera. The current trend is to 'cringe' when the evidence emerges (and part of me feels there's something to critique about those then and now comparisons where people show off how they are 'hot' and 'normal' now compared to their awkward nerdy tweens selves, who were possibly more fearless to experiment.). I believe this is part of young adult immaturity (not that older adults don't do it too, but young adults seem particularly sensitive and I believe it's due to the perseverance of adolescent insecurities), and I believe true maturity comes when you can look back on all those things and appreciate them or at least have no embarrassment for it. Outgrow shame. Like it or not, they are you, after all.

Now I don't know if maybe I just had a different sense of individuality from a younger age than others (Again, I don't mean to sound elitist, I just don't have any other perspective) in which I early on valued individuality to most costs of alienation, but I have little to no shame like this. Everything I am now expanded from who I was then. I have no shame for art I drew when I was 12, because it reminds me of the imagination I had then and the skills I built (am building) and the themes that persist. I have no shame for the music I enjoyed when I was six or sixteen, because I still access and enjoy it all without the disclaimer of nostalgia and it led to more and more musical discovery (and because I never, after all, followed current trends in that area). I have journals dating back to age 11, and yes there are things written there I wouldn't say now, but I will share it all with you****, because being ashamed of it would mean to be ashamed of all that was necessary to get me to who I am now. I find them cute, mostly. And, who really cares, besides ones self?

To me, the past self is just as concurrent with the present self, and both are needed to realize the future self. If there is anything close to a forth dimensional state of being a human can achieve, it is to see all moments of personal experience as one continuous narrative of persona. After all, even if actively bettering ourselves, we don't really, consciously notice much of a change, until we look back (not unlike changing trends). Certain negative traits, too, I believe should be managed, understood, rather than destroyed, with time and reflection – allowing oneself to see the weaknesses and strengths in those aspects of character. In this way, we don't really change at all.

When I recall experience of the past, it's not often the details of what happened that persist, but the emotions I felt in relation to those moments. We often act as if we've grown-up so much as to be removed from those emotions, and maybe if we did relive an experience (which in a way we can when revisiting those bits of pop culture) we'd react in different ways. Here's the paradox of my view: we can't relive those moments because of our linear state, so the fixed memories of the emotions from that experience follow us through (consciously or not) like pieces out of time. We can reflect and grow for the future, but we will always be affected by our past experiences.

I have wondered if there's something wrong with me for feeling just as sensitive at 28 as at 15 as at 8 when someone comes along to make me feel as alienated as I did when (more indirectly than directly) taking a metaphorical dump all over the things which bring me joy. Stirring up those very same emotions. That perhaps I am developmentally stunted somehow. Shouldn't I have resolved my own adolescent insecurities? Shouldn't I be able to truly brush off the opinions of others and be mature about it? Someday, coming out the other end of youth, maybe I will transcended and truly be unaffected by caring about these things. Such is my goal. I might want someone to come along and read this and be more thoughtful about the world, but ultimately I can only change how I interact with those whom I will never reach.

That being said, I've concluded there likely isn't anything wrong with me in this regard. And if it isn't obvious, I've obsessed over that concern for a while. My sensitivity is a fault and a virtue of my personality. My passion and opinions can be exhausting even to myself but at least I'm living with exuberance. This strong sense of persona helps give my existence meaning, and that's important on my more nihilistic days. Plus, I'm only twenty something, closer to thirty, and while experiences have matured me in some ways, one doesn't just eliminate the various traumas of growing up by stepping over the boundary of the legal drinking age and making fun of teen angst. We remember, if we realize it or not. What we have to make efforts to do is not forget. How else will we really know ourselves? How else will we truly understand others? How else will we reach out to younger people who remind us of our past selves, and maybe do some good for them?

Another so-called insult I see is the accusation of 'seeking validation'; of course we are, and I don't see anything necessarily wrong with wanting that. Of course we are. We're all bouncing around a confusing and complicated existence, affected by the circumstances of our past and present and culture and trends and emotions and limited perspective trying to make sense of ourselves, our purpose, our lives. Hopefully just trying to make the most of it. We all need a bit of validation now and then, or we need catharsis to scream out our bitterness into the world to purge it from ourselves. Especially those awful, negative, opinions - even if it's more destructive than creative - we just need to expel those demons. We hope to have it echo back by someone who recognizes the tune – because we want to be seen and heard and understood by at the very least just one other person searching for the same thing.

Despite all these words, at this end there is really only simple message I want to get across:

We are a little insecure; but self acceptance is just as contagious. It would do us a lot of good if we could all just be more a lot more genuine, and a lot more thoughtful, and a lot more kind.

--------------

*Although scientifically measured, there is some arbitrary perspectives even at this level. Take, for instance, year zero AD revolving around Jesus when there are other religions besides Christianity in the world, or the fact that some cultures use a lunar calendar and not a solar one. Not to mention, it is fixed on the earthbound existence - that is, versus another planet. Space does not give a hoot about time as we sort it.

** The only excuse is your interests might just not align into caring about these things the way I do. I want people to educate themselves, but one thing I've had to work to remember is not everyone gets so passionate about these subjects. Saying just this sentence probably makes that sound like I regard myself as the most detached intellectual in the room. I don't mean to imply that. What I think I mean is: I've had to work to recognize that my obsession with music, movies, art, and history along with my long time lamentations of being limited to a third dimensional state, is a very large part of my self-imposed identity and I forget that's not the case with everyone.

*** I have a lot of Fashion Laws of Physics, and another is Trickle Down Fashionenomics, which again is just a new name I gave to the established concept of how fashion goes from the street, to the runway (or sometimes starts at the runway), to higher end brands, to trend forward moderately priced stores (Urban Outfitters), to mid tier or low cost fashion forward stores (Forever21), to big box department stores (Walmart and Target). By which time, streetwear and runways have long moved on.

**** Unless you are my parents, but that's for other reasons.

#personal essay #personal philosophy #new sincerity #or rather neo new sincerity #trends #culture ad nauseam #test post #backup copy

1 note · View note

douchebagbrainwaves · 3 years

Text

EVERY FOUNDER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE

I think that's just an artifact of current limitations. That's because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted. But there is a Michael Jordan of hacking, no one took them very seriously.1 Have low expectations. One of the cases he decided was brought by the owner of a food shop. For outsiders this translates into two ways to pass them: to be good at hacking the test itself. It sounds obvious to say that you should approach this type of investor it is. So making hackers work in a garage. I've known a handful of other smart students, and most of the winners will only indirectly be Internet companies; for every Google there will be more opportunities for investors at the earliest stage, because that's where the money is.2 It is after all necessarily true.3

We've raised $800,000, only to discover that zero of it is in the industry.4 He really doesn't know.5 Not at all. And then of course there's the question, how do you deliver drama via the Internet? And even though Boston is the second hardest part of starting a startup. But times have changed.6 I remember thinking his company's name was odd.7 Whereas an obscure angel who will only invest a small amount, and yet the people who discover them are looked down on a company operating out of a garage in Silicon Valley would feel part of an exalted tradition, like the pattern of veins in a leaf.8 Where the work of optimization. But what if the problem isn't given?9

Like a lot of new work is preferable to a proof that becomes the basis for a lot of people, the most you'd want to take on a problem as big as the ones you want most decide first. When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand. Almost everyone makes the mistake of treating ideas as if they had more time. After all, they know good PR firms won't lie to them. Don't say, for example, were almost as corrupt in the first 5 minutes.10 Money from friends and family doesn't usually count, no matter how much. The worst thing is that it will make the others much more interested.

The best you can do than people did before, and indirectly, as Augustus did, by lodging the idea in users' minds that a single person could unroll the future for them. The hardest part is making something people want: most startups that die, die because they didn't do that. Tests are least hackable when there are consistent standards for quality, and the further you project into the future, then its appeal must derive more from merit and less from fashion. Over the past several years, the investment community has evolved from a strategy of spraying money at early stage startups and then ruthlessly culling them at the same time. When you change the angle of someone's eye five degrees, people notice. Anything that gets you those 10,000 hackers, the route is at least the one about which individual startups' paths oscillate. The compartmentalized structure of the list of n things is easier for writers too, it's not because you're supposed to have a plan. No one is interested in a startup is one of those ideas that's like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.11 What's particularly dangerous for founders is the way they dressed and the way to ensure that would be a byword for bogusness like Milli Vanilli or Battlefield Earth. There is something to this tradition, and not just the message, but the idea is very much alive; there is a whole category of enterprise software companies that exist to take advantage of it.12 Not as a way to play games with them, they don't have a clear path to profitability and are thus doing type B fundraising is when you don't need money, and type B fundraising is when you have to get a good job, is a big win.

And it is also the essence of venture investing. Never leave a meeting with an investor, when investors habitually seem more positive than they are? If you let the difficulty of raising money—that they'll cruise through all the initial steps, but when they turn to raising money they'll find it surprisingly hard, get demoralized, and give them a share of it. I can prove I'm right. Hackers & Painters, employees seem to be: that in the coming century, good ideas will count for more. But don't just take their word for it. If you say right out of the gate that you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. And while most investors are influenced by how interested other investors are in you, but I don't lead, translate that in your mind, the founder who handles fundraising should be the CEO, who should in turn be the most formidable of the founders. But just as the market has moved away from VCs's traditional business model. To founders, the behavior of investors is often opaque—partly because their motivations are obscure, but partly because they want you. So maybe hacking does require some special ability to focus.13 So the first question to ask about a field is how honest its tests are, because this tells you what to do about it.14

The force of a refutation depends on what you like. I think more.15 And to be both threatening and undignified at the same rate. Now it's not enough just to be exacting. What does that mean for investors? You shouldn't necessarily always be asking these questions outright—that could get annoying—but you should always be collecting data about investors' intentions.16 Maybe. Let me conclude with some tactical advice.

Reproduced by permission of Steve Wozniak. You couldn't get access to the same deals VCs do.17 As well as being explicit, the structure is guaranteed to be of the simplest possible type: a few main points with few to no subordinate ones, and no particular connection between them. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. There's no controversy about which idea is most controversial: the suggestion that variation in wealth might not be as big a problem you have, and what to do if you're not good at anything yet, consider working on something so unusual that no one sees their processors anymore, by writing software that could make a large number of CPUs look to the developer like one very fast CPU.18 If you try to raise money before you can convince investors, you'll not only get market price, but it may at least be relevant to the case.19 If you get cold-emailed by an associate at a VC firm, you shouldn't meet even if you are, you should pay attention because Leonardo is a great artist: it's the standard image. Accept offers greedily. Fit meetings with investors into the spare moments in your development schedule, rather than those sponsored by the most influential people. To refute someone you probably have to quote them. There's a huge weight of tradition advising us to play it safe.

Notes

Which means it's all the returns come from meditating in an urban legend. Not least because they're determined to fight. In practice most successful founders is by calibrating their ambitions, because such companies need huge numbers of users, however, and we don't want to. And journalists as part of your mind what's the right thing.

Even as late as Newton's time it still seems to be considered an angel investment from a book or movie or desktop application in this evolution. In practice the first meeting. It rarely arises, and average with the other becomes visible. For most of them, not economic inequality in the latter.

We didn't let him off, either as truth or heresy. I was a refinement that made them register. What has changed over time, because time seems to have too few customers even if it's not uncommon for startups to be clear in our common culture.

The need has to be when I was insane—they could to help you along by promising to invest in it. Download programs to encourage startups, which was acquired for 50 million, and it would be much bigger news, in Galbraith's words, it's not the bawdy plays acted over on the order and referrer. 0001.

Back when students focused mainly on getting a job after college, they only even consider great people. In one way, because by definition if the selection process looked for different reasons. So if you don't get any money till all the poorer countries.

Robert were each in turn means the slowdown that comes from ads on other sites.

I suspect five hundred would be very promising, because they actually do, and would probably only improve filtering rates early on. And yet there is at fault, since 95% of the reasons startups are possible.

The University of Vermont, 1991. For example, the laser, it's probably good grazing. If you want to get the people working for large companies will one day be able to hire, and since you can hire skilled people to work late at night, and no one would have been the plague of 1347; the point of view anyway. Algorithms that use it are called naive Bayesian.

They won't like you raising other money and may pressure you to test whether that initial impression holds up. The solution was a kid and as an employee as this.

The shift in power from investors to founders is exaggerated now because of some power shift due to the customer: you are unimportant. Labor unions were exempted from antitrust laws by the size of the Garter and given the Earldom of Rutland. It seems as dumb to discourage risk-taking.

In the beginning even they don't, you're putting something in this essay, but also like an undervalued stock in that era had no natural immunity to tax rates have had to pay out their earnings in dividends, and there are no misunderstandings.

I learned from this that most people than subsequent millions. Beware too of the words we use have a bogus political agenda or are feebly executed. It was only because he was exaggerating.

Forums were not web sites but Usenet newsgroups.

In the late Latin tripalium, a day job writing software goes up more than that. The philistines have now missed the video boat entirely. At any given time I thought there wasn't, because spam and legitimate mail volume both have distinct daily patterns. Successful founders are willing to provide this service, this phenomenon myself: hotel unions are responsible for more than whatever collection of qualities helps people make the police treat people more equitably.

A doctor friend warns that even this can give an inaccurate picture. 5 to 2 seconds. SpamCop—new things start with their decision—just that they're practically different papers. But those too are acceptable or at least, as Brian Burton does in SpamProbe.

No, we found they used FreeBSD and stored their data in files. She ventured a toe in that it even seemed a miracle of workmanship. That name got assigned to it because the first wave of the bizarre stuff. There is not one of the rule of law is aiming at the bottom of a heuristic for detecting whether you can remove them from leaving to start startups, just that they lived in a traditional series A from a technology center is the kind that prevents you from starving.

The continuing popularity of religion is the precise half of the world as a motive, and at least notice duplication though, because those are the only cause of poverty I just wasn't willing to put it this way would be to say they prefer great markets to great people to endure hardships, but sword thrusts.

In principle companies aren't limited by the fact that established companies can't simply eliminate new competitors may be a lost cause to try to write your dissertation in the case of heirs, rather than risk their community's disapproval. Monk, Ray, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The French Laundry in Napa Valley.

Deane, Phyllis, The First Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press, 2006. But a couple years. In either case the money, and only big companies funded 3/4 of their times. This is isomorphic to the truth.

0 notes

speakingintothedarkness · 5 years

Text

Old Memes and Memories

Hnn.... It’s been a while.

Still with Liz. Briefly dated a trans girl long distance over teh interwebs but it went downhill.

Still... grappling with gender, even though I’m way more comfortable with being not-cis than I was last time we talked about this, dear internet.

I read a thing today. Its keeping me awake, and I have this weird feeling that if I tried to talk to anyone about it, it’d come off as... either inscrutible, offensive, or both.

Ugh it’s embarassing really. Fucking Homestuck. I know, what is this 2015? But seriously I had read that entire trashfire of a webcomic when it was being released and I only just learned about the epilogues so I figured I’d read that.

It’s a bit weird. Go figure, right? Hussie is a weird dude who leans into his weirdness even harder than Dan Shive does. The entire thing is framed around a dichotemy, a choice that one character makes and all the action that follows comes from that choice. You get to make that choice for that character, but the story only really makes sense if you do it both ways. And, perhaps typically, even though this is the epilogue to a vast spanning story, somehow it’s not even really about tying up the loose ends. In fact, it leaves you with more than you started. The antagonist of the epilogue isn’t even the villain that was built up throughout the run of the comic and then never directly addressed.

But that’s not what’s bothering me. What’s bothering me is, of course, the trans question.

In one of the two branching timelines, a character comes out as trans. In that timeline, he is given time to examine his gender with an understanding partner and winds up deciding on a full transition to being male.

...but in the other timeline, the same character winds up being married to a straight dude and remains a woman, has kids and basically... goes as straight cis as she can. And its really hard to say which version of them is happier in the end. A bunch of shit goes terribly for both versions (either/both ways, this was not a happily ever after for pretty much anyone involved), but both versions wind up soliloquizing about how they struggled with their gender and are happy with where they wound up.

This... is a thing that as a tran myself I know I’m supposed to be foaming at the mouth over. Implying that trans is a thing you can choose to be, implying that, if things had gone differently you might wish to not be what you are, even if specifically asked about it... these are cardinal sins.

And certainly for some people, they’ve known on some level who they were their entire life. But... I am not one of them. I can point to the exact moments in time that pushed me towards this self-realization, three sentences that various people have said to me, and two life-decisions that culminated in me being forced to examine what all this meant. So I guess since I can’t sleep and this is a self-indulgent exercise to begin with, it’s mOtHerFuKiNg StOrY tImE hOnK!

The first moment that led me down this road, the point that planted the first proto-seed of thought about my gender in my mind was, perhaps predictably, about a game. In this case a long-standing DnD game I’d played with my OC friends in the early days of my relationship with C before she decided she hated them and didn’t want me to spend time with them and that’s own fucking rabbit hole.

In our game, our characters had become so intrinsically involved in the politics of the nation our game was set in, that we realized that going on adventures was irresponsible and might cause irreparable harm to the world. So rather than end the game, we statted up our characters’ children. To make things interesting, we randomized who got who. To my (at the time) mild dismay, I drew a girl, When I showed the others my slip of paper with the name “Tamora” written on it, one of my friends snorted “God, it’ll be hard to imagine you playing a princess.” And it.... stung. It hurt in a way I’d never before experienced. My first brush with a now all-too-familiar sense of dysphoria. As if there were a part of me I’d never before examined that had its ego crushed. I don’t remember how I responded.

Thing is, I played Tamora like a fucking champ. And no one ever made another comment about me playing a girl. I think I’d proven that I could convincingly play any role I wanted to.

Which brings us to the second sentence. I’ve talked about this here before, a friend on an online game admitting to me that the gender of her character did not align with the one she was assigned at birth. It was both shocking and enticing. In a way its laughable now (we’ll probably get around to why) but at the time, I just sorta assumed that... I’d be able to tell? And S was... she was as female and feminine as anyone I’d ever met. I’d never wondered for an instant.

And those two things... those two moments. The pang of hurt, the desire to be perceived as a girl; and the sudden realization that there was a venue where that might be possible. That lead me to make the first of those life choices: creating a female character, deliberately this time, and dive into her so thoroughly that there were times where I was’t sure where she ended and I began.

Things got a bit weird in all this. I mean, people asked me questions about myself ooc and I would answer as if I were a girl. Hell I even gave myself a name in all that. Karen, if you can believe it. Its not the name I’m currently using. Who the fuck would name themselves Karen in 2018-19 right?

But ultimately none of that really mattered, I’d so thoroughly compartmentalized my brain throughout all this that barely anything of my character in the Game leaked into my real life or vice versa. For all intents and purposes, “Karen” who played the game and the me who did everything else were two entirely separate people.

And yet some of it must have seeped through because C noticed. Or at least, I’m pretty sure she did. She knew I was playing the Game, but I never talked about my character or her gender. She knew that that rp involved romantic and sexual subplots, but I never discussed them with her, nor she her own sex-rp’s with me. It was a sorta tacit polyamory with very specific confines that we’d agreed to in a purely theoretical sense some years back and then adhered to rigidly in practice while determiniedly never talking about it.

But for all the fucked up shit, she knew me well, maybe better than anyone other than Liz has. I mean, we were a couple of woke 20-somethings in the Obama era, so lgbt issues were pretty forefront at the time. Guess they still are, we were just a lot more... hopeful about it. But she kept sending me articles about trans people. Like, human interest articles.

There was one in specific that she got really... enthusiastic about, about this one trans-woman’s journey to self-discovery through WoW. C read part of the article to me out loud, culminating when the person in the article was confronted by her wife: “You can be a girl if you want to be”. She kinda repeated that a couple times, looking at me hard. And in retrospect, yeah, it wasn’t fucking subtle. But at the time... it was not a thing I was willing to examine. Like fuck, honestly I think there was a part of me that knew. I mean there had to be at that point, right? But I didn’t want to pursue it irl. I think I made up my mind that it would be something I’d approach the same time that I approached the poly question that was inevitably hanging over C and I at that same time: after we were married. So I just nodded and went “Huh, interesting” with a straight face as my at-the-time girlfriend all but told me that if I wanted to come out to her, she’d be okay with it.

Never got a chance to see if she really would have been.

After we broke up, all this shit got put so far back on the back burner that... well hell, go back and read my first few posts if you have the fortitude to stand a lot of bitching. Like way more than I’m doing now.

And I mean the funny thing was I was still playing the Game I just sorta figured that once... I got another girlfriend, that’d have to stop? That who and what I was in the game would stop mattering. Because I was monogamous right? Just like I was male and straight, and the fact that my character was none of those things meant that I’d have to put her out to pasture. So it didn’t matter that I’d been playing a lesbian ethical slut for the past five, six years, because once I was in another sanctioned cishet relationship, I’d have to put all this foolishness behind me and never speak of it to anyone ever again.

Goddess alone knows if I even could have but I would have tried. I suspect it would have gone badly.

Instead... by almost comicallly random happenstance, I wound up with a poly girl. And after some initial winging about whether or not I wanted that, a part of my brain I’d been ignoring went, “Hey dumbfuck! You never cared when A--- slept around or when E--- was in another relationship, why should it matter to you that CR has a boyfriend?”

And the rest of my brain took a second to process that and was like “E--- and A--- weren’t involved with me irl, only my character in the game.”

And the first part was like “Oh yeah, smart girl, if that wasn’t a thing you wanted on some level than how come you fucking jumped into it with both feet in the game?”

And the rest of me rejoined rejoined, “I suppose you have a p--wait! smart girl?”

“Oh yeah, that’s a thing too. You probably better process that because this whole fucking thing is tied together like a goddamn giftbasket of deviancy. Good luck having anything resembling a normal life once you’re done untangling it”

And at that point there was no turning back. I’ve dragged my feet certainly, not... as much out of a sense of general reluctance as a bunch of worries about how my family (who I’m still reliant upon) will take it. But once that realization had occured there was no putting that bunny back in the box.

Which I guess brings me to my point, if one can even say I have one.

In a lot of ways this whole misadventure seems less like something that was always there and more like... a memetic virus that somehow burrowed into my brain, incubated for a few years and then burst forth from my skull like some horrifying amalgam of Athena and a chestburster. Like, if I had pulled a dude’s name from that hat... would literally any of this happened? If my friend hadn’t admitted that she was experimenting with gender herself would it have occurred to me to try? If I hadn’t created that first female online character, would I still think I was a man? Would I still be a man? I mean that’s the crux of all this. In the fucking Homestuck epilogue, is candyverse Roxy still a man like they are in the meatverse? Sorry, spoilers I guess. To them, the only real difference is an opportunity to prioritize their own self expression and gender identity. But Candyverse Roxy still has put thought into those things, just because of how and when they had the time to do so, she arrived at a different conclusion than he did in the other timeline.

And yes, I know that the Meatverse is considered more cannon than the candyverse, and yes, Roxy is the only character in the meatverse who isn’t being manipulated by Dirk’s mind meddling and therefore we can safely say that his epiphanies regarding his gender are genuine, more truthful and relevant to the character than the weirdness going on in the Candyverse.

But... where does that leave me. Obviously we’re playing the “what if” game on a weird scale here but, what if that series of events hadn’t occured? Would I still wind up roughly where I am, genderwise, by a different rout? Or would I have continued to labor under the false assumption that I was a dude... and would that assumption in this case even be false by any empirical standard? That’s the question that’s kept me up tonight.

I think I can safely say that by the time I had constructed this Karen figment that it was a foregone conclusion. But.... if either of those two inciting incidents had gone differently... Ugh... I don’t know. I feel like some people would want to take my trans card away from me for even suggesting that there’s a universe out there where I’m happily continuing to think I’m a dude. Maybe there is... but ultimately it’s not relevent or true for me, because its not a thing that I can go back to now. In short: it’s simply not cannon.

#transgender #homestuck

0 notes

markjsousa · 6 years

Text

Meaning Is The Soul Of Your Company

We know already that brand management is largely meaning management. But if we want to make any lasting changes to how brands are managed today and what value they create, we need to take the conversation up a notch, engage the C-suite along with marketers and look at the organizational matrix.

For brands to create and retain their meaning and to be trustworthy, corporations need to check the way they set up their own processes, how they behave in the world and how they do business. If corporate management continues to favor short-term profit over long-term value creation, image over real-world behavior and performance metrics over inspiring trust and instilling universal values, the way brands are managed isn’t going to change much.

To make a real change, we need to go higher up in the hierarchy and explain how meaning touches and affects business, not just brands. Because without the business component all we’re doing is creating make-believe.

The True Value Of Meaning In Business

Beyond branding, the wider idea of pursuing meaning in businesses and organizations is that our everyday marketing activities shouldn’t just be labored through, they should inspire. They should aim in a clear direction that encapsulates a higher value other than just making profit. It’s what the great founders of traditional heritage brands knew all along – that the creation of products and services should be the extension of the best we have to offer to this world.

Be it a vision of the great Czechoslovak visionary Tomáš Baťa who wanted to “shoe the whole world” or of the Englishman John Cadbury who made his first Dairy Milk bar chocolate with a higher proportion of milk than anyone before him, these early success stories were marked by a genuine interest, care, passion and ingenuity. These brands were founded by the strong characters who loved what they did and wanted to make things better for other people.

It’s these deeply instilled values that we’re leaving here for the next generations that count, not stuff. Stuff is meaningless, the ideas and values behind them are what counts. That was the original idea of capitalism. We would all benefit from revisiting it today to get our priorities sorted again.

Meaning is the inner value of the business itself that should be visible through everything that we do. Our activities should mean something because it’s through meaning that businesses and brands gain and grow their value. It’s meaning that people consume in brands, not brands alone – it’s what they represent that matters to us. It’s how they connect to the fabric of our own human values, mindsets and behaviors, how they strengthen our identities that’s important. Brands alone are neither important nor valuable; it’s the cultural context in which they are embedded that makes them valuable.

It’s about time that brands start to be managed just as that – as symbolic entities and markers of a shared social value and cultural capital. On the most essential level, brands are the artifacts of culture. And if managed well, brands can become mighty social currencies and transfers of cultural value.

Meaning Makes Organizations More Aligned, United And Wholesome

Meaning needs to be present at the core of organizations to make them valuable from the inside out. Whether it’s optimizing company processes or org structure, creating new products and services through innovation and marketing activities, streamlining brand DNA, mission, vision and values, internal culture, sales or aligning customer experience via different touchpoints – all these corporate functions should have one single denominator: meaning. That is what the brand means and stands for in the larger scheme of cultural complexity in our world today.

Let’s call meaning ‘the soul of the company’ for a minute. The singular focus of a CMO, Chief Culture Officer, COO or any other C-suite individual who is in charge of processes and delivering value should be to capture and translate this meaning through the particular horizontal of core capability they are managing within the company.

What does this soul mean in terms of our operations? How is it translated into how we approach sales and marketing? How does it inform what kind of processes our company puts into practice? How is this meaning delivered to our customers through the product, service and experience we create for them? And how is it engaged in relationships with our employees and in our company culture? These are the questions the C-suite should be asking themselves on a daily basis, instead of their obsession with technology, data management, short-term profit and performance metrics. First you need to create value, then you can manage it. Reverse-engineering value creation out of management is a path that doesn’t lead anywhere worth going.

When meaning directly informs a company’s real-world behavior in every step of the way, the result isn’t a siloed culture and fragmentation where value gets compartmentalized; it’s unity of character and purpose. This in return generates higher levels of brand trust, which seems to be eroding or in decline so vehemently in the current era of post-factualism and post-truth. Direct accountability and behavior based on authentic values can lead the organization back to integrity and therefore brand trust.

With one single symbolic denominator underlying all corporate functions, the company would use all its core processes and capabilities to bring this meaning alive – whether it’s through marketing, how the corporate processes are structured, what the employee culture looks like and what the customers care for and value in the company. For all core capabilities, this will inevitably mean something a bit different but in result such a holistic approach to company management will lead to a greater coherence, unity and collaboration among departments and horizontal units.

Such a ‘symbolic alignment’ will undoubtedly lead to the internal company culture mirroring the external culture (the cultural context of the world outside), which will then effectively merge the two cultures together into one. Such an immersive act of cultural unity is paramount for any company to achieve today as the evolution of our society is moving from division back to unity.

What organizations need to do the most today is to shift their inner dynamic of ‘striving for division’ towards ‘embracing unity’ and look at the value they create from the human perspective. This much-needed moment of self-reflection and clarity will help them get untangled from being trapped in their daily operations and processes and key performance indicator’s.

Business and brand leaders should be looking at the entire organization as a living breathing ecosystem of value creation, rather than as a machine where all cogs – people – need to be in the right place, controlled and measured against each other for the company to work efficiently at the optimum speed.

Machine thinking is the chief enemy of meaning creation and long-term brand and business growth simply because it measures the wrong things. As Rory Sutherland, the Vice Chairman of Ogilvy Group UK, says: “Meaning is in the invert proportion to the ease of measurement. It’s hard to do and hard to measure simply because it’s not trivial, it’s significant.” Things that are worthwhile aren’t easy and they usually don’t come in numbers. It takes time for good things to show up but when we get there, it’s worth the time, effort and investment we’ve put into nurturing them.

Rethinking Business Organizations For The 21st Century

So what is the biggest reason we should embrace meaning in business beyond just branding? The real impact of meaning on business is not only in the total alignment of value between the internal and external layer of your company. Its real impact has to do with how we conceptualize organizations to begin with: what they’re supposed to be doing and how they organize themselves to maximize value in people’s lives.

Essentially, we’re making a huge circle and coming back to basics – back to what we knew 100 years ago when the founders of great global brands were just young men and women with a vision and big ideas.

To utilize the full potential of meaning in business, we need to rethink how companies today are organized and structured, how they create value and most importantly how they behave – to their employees, to their customers and what footprint they’re leaving in the larger scheme of the world outside. Brands and companies have a direct impact on society so it’s important their leaders understand what set of values they want to contribute to humanity.

Meaning isn’t a short cut for the inner sense of hollowness, corporate hypocrisy and lack of vision. It’s not simply an add-on companies can paste on their brands to redeem bad consciousness, it’s much more integral than that. True meaning stems from the reality – from the heritage, strength of belief and conviction, moral compass, vision and integrity. It cannot add something that’s not there. Rather, it’s a magnifier of things you do and do not want to see.

My sincere hope is that meaning doesn’t become a buzzword and get trivialized. Because when something becomes a trend, its meaning gets emptied very quickly. The market jumps at everything new very quickly and when the life span of a trend has been exhausted, it gets discarded and stops being cool. And then we move onto the next shiny thing again.

Meaning is not one of those things – its validity and value is fundamental to the inner being of things and to our perception and exchange of value. It’s inherent. The meaning of life is meaning: this is how we operate, how we create value, share ideas and navigate the world around us. It’s primarily through the medium of meaning that we structure our thoughts, create stories, build our identities, relate to one another and to ourselves.

In a world without meaning, we could no longer create anything of value – which is the very idea that would render brands and businesses obsolete.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Dr. Martina Olbertova, founder and chief executive at Meaning.Global.

The Blake Project Can Help: Please email us for more about our purpose, mission, vision and values and brand culture workshops.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

1 note · View note

glenmenlow · 6 years

Text

Meaning Is The Soul Of Your Company

The True Value Of Meaning In Business

Meaning Makes Organizations More Aligned, United And Wholesome

Rethinking Business Organizations For The 21st Century

In a world without meaning, we could no longer create anything of value – which is the very idea that would render brands and businesses obsolete.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Dr. Martina Olbertova, founder and chief executive at Meaning.Global.

The Blake Project Can Help: Please email us for more about our purpose, mission, vision and values and brand culture workshops.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

from WordPress https://glenmenlow.wordpress.com/2018/11/07/meaning-is-the-soul-of-your-company/ via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

investmart007 · 6 years

Text

AP Essay: Aretha Franklin, John McCain and the 1960s

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/1eQA37

AP Essay: Aretha Franklin, John McCain and the 1960s

“Hope I die before I get old,” the Who sang at Woodstock as the 1960s hurtled to their end. Indeed, the decade and its echoes made premature legends of so many — Kennedy to King, Hendrix to Joplin to Morrison. They became emblems of an era, and the packaging of their virtues and vices has never really stopped.

But then there were those who didn’t die, who did get old and emerged from that crucible and carried themselves through the arc of a life unabbreviated. They moved across decades and changes and navigated a culture that their younger selves would not have recognized.

That’s the crossroads where both Aretha Franklin and John McCain stood — shaped by the decade that reshaped so much of American life but propelled into the 1970s and all the way to 2018, carrying some of the fundamental storylines of the 1960s as they progressed forward.

Think of the most dominant, most kinetic narratives of the 60s, the fiery combustion engines that drove the decade: From race, gender and music (Franklin) to war and politics (McCain), they are contained in the two figures to whom we bid farewell this week.

They exit the stage together in an American moment not unlike the period when each emerged. Fifty years after the cataclysmic year of 1968, today we are in a similar period of upheaval and polarization — a time when American society’s foundational pillars are being questioned and people of all political persuasions are deeply angry and uncertain about the nation’s path.

At a juncture like this, faced with this pair of memorials of a man and woman so very different and yet so uniquely representative of the American experience, what better time to stop and think about such figures, about what they meant and mean?

Sure, we’re doing that. But are we doing it effectively?

In the past few days, the American packaging machine has pulled these two lives into slick renditions of who they actually were. Video montages, photo slide shows, memories and even the pleasingly compact monikers we throw around — the “Queen of Soul” and the “Maverick” — are sweet and nostalgic, yes. But they tend to reduce whole lifetimes to their clichéd sharpest edges: the most popular hit songs, the most pointed quotes, the most outsized moments.

The United States is often accused of being an ahistorical nation, and these fragmentary, Twitter-feed-like glimpses of entire lives make that assertion easier to prove. Sort of like we’ve come to view the 1960s themselves through the prism of reductive, Halloween-party buzzwords like “flower children,” ”sit-in” and “Summer of Love.”

“If there were ever a moment for us to talk and sit down and reflect about who we are, where we came from and where we’re going, this weekend should give us that moment,” says Ron Pitcock, an assistant dean at Texas Christian University who teaches about American cultural memory.

“We need to not compartmentalize these two people into these convenient narratives,” he says. “We have two giants who waded through these muddy waters for us. If we settle for just making them an icon or giving them celebrity, then we’ve completely failed in this moment of reflection.”

The places where those muddy waters flowed were sometimes even muddier. Since the 1960s, the country has only gotten more complicated and, many believe, even more fraught.

Trust in government sits near historic lows after beginning to plummet around the time that Franklin’s voice started becoming a household sound and McCain was enduring his years in North Vietnamese custody. Music, delivered on vinyl discs for Franklin’s first recordings, is now more typically served up in bits and bytes.

And the stories of race and gender in America remain raw, ragged and aggressively unresolved.

What’s illuminating about McCain and Franklin, in the context of the formative eras and experiences that produced them, is this: Each navigated historical currents — rode them, you might even argue — and each figured out how to remain relevant and impactful on their communities. Lives of high drama, yes, but staying power, too.

“Years matter. The people from the ’60s who end up shaping America were often the ones that lasted. Ted Kennedy shaped America much more than John F. Kennedy,” says John Baick, a historian at Western New England University.

“So many figures from the ’60s are caricatures of themselves,” he says. “Aretha Franklin and John McCain didn’t talk about the good old days. They wanted to bring the past into the present. They were living reminders.”

The very youngest Baby Boomers are in their mid-50s now — despite the exhortation to never trust anyone over 30 — and more than half of today’s Americans have no living memory of the 1960s.

When personal experience ebbs, myth fills in the mortar between the bricks.

But those who were shaped by the decade continue to influence it, both alive and dead. Sales of Franklin’s music on the day after her death increased by more than 1,500 percent, Billboard Magazine reported.

“Music changes, and I’m gonna change right along with it,” Franklin once said — or, at least, is widely quoted as saying. The 1960s were a time of great and lurching change. Those who made it through often had to change again and again — continuously, even. She did. He did.

That might be the ultimate echo of that long-ago decade that Aretha Franklin and John McCain leave us with this week. Looking past all else, the main story of the 1960s was change — causing it, managing it, figuring out how to live with it.

We’re still not anywhere near where we need to be with that, as American politics today so clearly demonstrate. In that respect, the lives of these two — and similar figures who survive them — hold clues still to be uncovered. Discuss.

By TED ANTHONY, Associated Press

#ap essay #Aretha Franklin #hendrix #John McCain #kinetic narratives #morrison #packaging #TodayNews #virtues #WOODSTOCK

0 notes

mikemortgage · 6 years

Text

Trump says the stock market would crash if he were impeached. Here’s what analysts say

President Donald Trump said he doesn’t see a reason for Congress to impeach him but that the stock market would plummet and Americans would be poorer if lawmakers did so.

“I don’t know how you can impeach somebody who’s done a great job,” Trump said in a wide-ranging interview with Fox News broadcast Thursday.

“I’ll tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash,” Trump added. “I think everybody would be very poor. Because without this thinking you would see numbers that you wouldn’t believe, in reverse.”

Trump vs the Fed: Central banks are only one populist uprising away from losing cherished independence

‘I’m not thrilled’: Trump blasts Fed for raising interest rates, not doing enough to help him boost economy

Trump complained to wealthy donors in the Hamptons about Jerome Powell's rate hikes

How seriously should people take Trump’s claim that stocks would crash if he were kicked out of office? As you mull over an answer, consider what someone in the other party would say.

Maybe there’s a less subjective way to judge — with earnings estimates, perhaps, which have changed a lot during his presidency. Or maybe valuation. Neither is perfect, but nor is any quest for science in the stock market.

Before digging in, acknowledge that stocks have enjoyed unusually strong gains since Election Day, with the S&P 500 rising at an annualized rate of 20 per cent, crushing the historical return of 9.4 per cent since 1927. At the same time, note the Trump return is only about 1 percentage point higher than the yearly gain since March 2009, an era mostly overseen by Barack Obama.

Changes in earnings forecasts under Trump have been stark, compared with history. Last December, analysts were predicting S&P 500 earnings of about US$146 a share for 2018, forecasts that, thanks largely to the president’s tax cuts, soared over the next two months, rising four times as fast as any period Bloomberg tracks. And companies made good: S&P 500 operating income jumped 24 per cent in each of the last two quarters and analysts see combined EPS of US$159 a share for all of this year.

Predictions for 2019 profits also soared, going from US$163 a share at the start of the year to US$177 a share now, an upward revision that dwarfs any since at least 2012. Add to that a small bump in valuations: the S&P 500 fetched 20.07 times annual earnings on Election Day 2016 and 20.7 times now.

So say what you will about intangibles, if you believe corporate earnings and valuation call the stock market’s tune, it’s hard to say the equity market doesn’t owe at least some of its altitude to the president.

Still, looking at earnings in isolation ignores a dozen other factors in speculating on how impeachment would affect stocks, from policy to sentiment to potentially catastrophic consequences for the country’s social fabric. Any one of those could easily eclipse anything having to do with corporate profits. But without an obvious framework for gauging those outcomes, the income lens is what’s left.

In examining Trump’s claim about a crash, investors might reasonably ask how much of the policy benefit would be rolled back if his presidency were threatened. Analysts were mostly skeptical the president is in any real danger and not sure there’d be any major impact should he be.

Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco Ltd.:

“First of all, it is very unlikely that President Trump would be impeached. If an impeachment did happen, we’d experience volatility and perhaps a significant selloff, but I believe any such market moves would be short-term in nature. There are two reasons why: 1) We have already gotten the best of his agenda — tax reform and deregulation. Other elements of his agenda which he is currently pursuing, particularly his trade policies, are not supportive of growth and actually worry many business leaders. 2) Tax reform is the gift that keeps on giving. It will add to GDP growth for years to come — in fact, the CBO projects it will have an increasingly positive impact on GDP growth in the next several years. Also, if he were to be impeached, Mike Pence would assume the mantle and he has a strong track record of stimulating growth in Indiana. We can’t forget that the stock market is surprisingly resilient when monetary policy is accommodative, and it arguably is still accommodative.”

Craig Erlam, senior market analyst at Oanda Corp. in London:

“The market isn’t hinging on anything substantial that hasn’t already been carried through. The markets have largely rallied on tax reform and we’ve seen that reflected in company earnings. But if there’s political instability and the U.S. economic growth slowed significantly, that would have global implications.”

Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments LLC:

“The economy, amped up on stimulus, is growing by close to 4 per cent, and unemployment is below 4 per cent. If the trade wars cool off a little this fall, we still think stocks can grind higher. It’s not a pretty picture here in Washington, but as long as Trump doesn’t go totally off the rails, investors can compartmentalize. With two more Trump associates now facing jail time, chances have improved that the House will flip back to the Democrats, who in private concede that an impeachment debate probably will begin by late winter. But we’re sticking with our call — while the House might indict Trump, Senate conviction still looks unlikely, unless there’s a major change in the second point.”

Past instances of presidential turmoil showed contrasting stock returns. In February 1974, when Congress initiated impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, the market was in the midst of a 1973-1974 bear market that was punctuated by an oil crisis and an implosion of the world’s foreign change rate system. The S&P 500 tumbled more than 30 per cent through October that year.

In December 1998, when the House launched impeachment on Bill Clinton, stocks kept rising during the last stage of the Internet boom. The S&P 500 climbed for five straight months till Clinton’s acquittal in February 1999.

S&P 500 futures were flat as of 9:20 a.m. in New York and the index barely budged Wednesday in the aftermath of convictions of the Trump associates that sparked renewed discussion of a potential impeachment.

“Equity markets don’t seem to care, and we think they are right,” Nicholas Colas, Co-founder of DataTrek Research, wrote in a note. “Rates are low, the dollar is strong and corporate earnings remain robust. Those are the only things stock prices can (and should) actually discount.”

–With assistance from Dani Burger.

Bloomberg.com

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2wk9Xyn via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes