#People are overly politicized these days | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ivy-miranda-2390 · 4 years ago

Text

Press Gang (1989-1993)

Ok, so after my Press Gang post I decided to see if I could get my hands on the actual show. It wasn’t on Netflix, so my next (and only) chance was YouTube. Thankfully, I came across an account that had started to upload the entire show. Needless to say, I was thrilled! The episode count takes a rapid decline after season 2, which was a little disappointing, but the content in the later seasons was excellent.

Season 1 - 13 episodes

Season 2 - 13 episodes

Season 3 - 6 episodes

Season 4 - 6 Episodes

Season 5 - 6 Episodes

You can find the playlist here

Set in the fictional town of Norbridge, England, The Junior Gazette is a fledgling project at Norbridge High School, with volunteers from the school and neighboring schools. The Gazette is also used as a last chance attempt for school troublemakers who are on the road to becoming future delinquents. Run by Lynda Day, a brash, no nonsense, workaholic whose only goal is the success of the school paper, written by the youth and for the youth.

The Senior Staff of The Junior Gazette

Lynda Day: Viewed by many as a soulless, power hungry, bitch that will sink to any depth to get what she wants. A pretty honest description of Lynda. However, to succeed in the adult world, Lynda can’t be a shrinking violet. She’s at The Junior Gazette to work, not to make friends.

James "Spike" Thomson: A popular American teen who has never seemed to fit in anywhere until he came to The Gazette. Faced with expulsion from school for his reckless behavior, Spike’s last chance is to work at the paper. Although rebellious and arrogant at first, Spike proves to be a good up and coming writer.

Kenny Phillips: Lynda’s closest friend who understands her better than anyone. As assistant editor of The Junior Gazette, Kenny takes on all the grunt work that Lynda won’t deal with. Known as ‘the nice guy,’ Kenny is reliable and always willing to take on any task for his friends.

Sarah Jackson: The Junior Gazette’s talented head writer and sometimes the only voice of reason. Although she loves her place at The Junior Gazette, Sarah dreams of writing professionally, which might cause her to leave the staff, much to Lynda’s dismay.

Colin Matthews: The devious, money grabbing bookkeeper whose sole purpose is to make sure that The Junior Gazette stays on top of finances. Colin will do anything for money, but his side hustles frequently land him in trouble and oftentimes he is seen more as a liability than an asset to The Gazette.

Frazer “Frazz” Davis: Spike’s best friend and partner in crime who is always up for some crazy idea. Essentially the fun older brother to the Junior Gazette Staff, Frazz’s daredevil nature has gotten his friends out of trouble and has even saved their lives.

From the moment Spike and Lynda meet, sparks fly and insults are hurled, so beginning a five year, on again/off again relationship, with a little Pride and Prejudice thrown in from time to time. While Lynda disregards Spike as annoying and irresponsible at first, Spike is immediately smitten with her and starts a never ending crusade to get Lynda to see that they’re meant to be with each other.

However, for Lynda, the paper and her future career as a successful editor take precedence and are forever pushing Spike away from her. Yet, the more time Lynda spends with Spike, the more she sees that his arrogant behavior comes from loneliness and a need for love and affection. Spike wants Lynda to be all she dreams to be, but not at the cost of utilizing people for her needs and then throwing them aside.

As the both of them mature, their love for each other becomes more passionate and consuming. Everything about them and their relationship is unpredictable and neither seems to know how the other really truly feels until it’s too late.

What made Press Gang such a success was that it showed kids actually wanting to succeed and thrive in the adult world. Press Gang dealt with heady issues such as child abuse, drugs, suicide and gun violence. Comedy and drama and written well together. Most of the episodes are humorous and fun, but then you’re immediately hit with an unexpected dramatic storyline that you just weren’t expecting.

All of the characters were great, but I had a hard time with Colin Matthews. They seemed to want a character that was devious, but lovable at the same time. However, they overshot it and most of the time Colin came off as very aggravating and downright annoying.

I totally didn’t mind how dated the show was either. I love any shows that date back to the 80s and the 90s. The newspaper was the only social media platform, pay phones were on every corner, Spike’s Walkman and Lynda’s massive mobile phone and everyone is so excited when they get a real computer! It was relieving to watch a show without someone mentioning Twitter, Instagram or Facebook or #thathappened.

I primarily watched this show for Dexter Fletcher, who was absolutely adorable in his fake New York accent and the only character that actually had any fashion sense as well. His chemistry with Julia Sawalha was perfect and as the actors themselves were dating in real life, the show did a good job at subtly hinting that their lead characters were sleeping together.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how an American was portrayed in a British series. If Spike Thomson is how the British views Americans, well he’s as accurate as a description can get. At first look, arrogant, brash and full of himself, but also tough, resilient, never taking no for an answer and always ready with an idea. Spike is faithful to his friends and has a generous nature that doesn’t go unnoticed either. Steven Moffet completely nailed the all American character type.

Press Gang has been considered one the best shows in television history. It’s not overly done in anyway. You can relate to the characters and the problems addressed are not written to politicize the show in any way. It’s the basic everyday simplicity of Press Gang that has made it so successful and memorable.

#press gang #dexter fletcher #band of brothers

5 notes · View notes

katelynnvrblog · 4 years ago

Text

9/22 Reading Response

I found the NYT article to be a bit overly optimistic about the beauty of the Internet's ability to bring us together in mostly positive and meaningful ways. Maybe in circles where people are a bit older than myself, escapism into the Internet has been an overwhelmingly positive thing, I have witnessed the re-emergence of many horrible communities on TikTok that I thought died on Tumblr many years ago. For example, the pro-ana movement (pro-anorexia/eating disorder) has found a platform again on TikTok, which is allowing yet another generation of young girls to be thrust into deep body insecurities, and praise them for abstaining from eating. It deeply saddens me that when we have made so much progress in the body positivity movement that the pro-ana movement can even exist online. With the upcoming election, social media has become re-politicized. Even on TikTok, which is a platform I use to escape political discussion on Twitter, has become an arena for political debate. Misinformation is also rampant on TikTok. Someone a few days ago began a trend where members of Gen Z would get matching tattoos. The tattoo design included the letter Z with a line through the middle, which is a Nazi symbol. Many impulsive and impressionable members of Gen Z immediately went and got it, and now have to get it covered or removed.

This escape into the Internet makes me feel like a kid again. When I was a young tween/teenager, I escaped into Tumblr sharing fanart of my favorite books/shows, and engaging with people who had similar interests as myself. I was part of a forum for my favorite book series, I wrote fanfiction and drew fanart. I spoke with my friends mostly via text/Skype about these things. Quarantine, in the most positive way has allowed me to revisit these aspects of myself. For a while, I did not have a lot of time to watch TV, or spend time on hobbies. However, now I've become re-engaged. I have watched so much TV, I've started watching anime again and I have picked up a few new hobbies. And, I'm really happy about it. These things really helped me strengthen my sense of identity which I felt I had been lacking for a while. I've also reconnected with a few friends, and stayed in touch with my good friends. In this sense, I do agree with the optimism and positivity of the NYT article. The Internet is a complex place, and I think that it's a little naïve to sing its praises when there are so many communities that simply should not exist.

The other article was also super interesting. The exploration of what is virtual reality vs grounded reality was pretty interesting. It made me think of Descartes' Meditations - how do we know we exist? Famously, his reasoning was "I think therefore I am," which I think make sense in terms of proving that I exist, but does not do much to assert that the reality I experience is true, or if the people or environments around me are real. Maybe in the true grounded reality I live in, I'm doing something like operating a VR headset to experience this existence. I find that a little funny, because experimenting with VR in this reality would be a little Inception-y a VR within VR.

The article later goes on to discuss the possibility of erasing biases through using VR. I was confused by the conclusion of the article - it seemed to be saying that people still can have biases in VR but it also VR holds immense potential for bias training. I feel like any game you play where you have an avatar and you can't hear someone's voice - you can't really have bias. I think the use of voice in gaming is often what leads to bias and harrassment of players in online gaming.

1 note · View note

chiamakapatience-blog · 4 years ago

Text

MANAGING WORKPLACE CONFLICT

Workplace conflict is inevitable when employees of various backgrounds and different work styles are brought together for a shared business purpose. Conflict can—and should—be managed and resolved. This toolkit examines the causes and effects of workplace conflict and the reasons why employers should act to address conflict.

The first steps in handling workplace conflict belong, in most cases, to the employees who are at odds with one another. The employer's role—exercised by managers and HR professionals—is significant, however, and is grounded in the development of a workplace culture designed to prevent conflict among employees to the extent possible. The basis for such a culture is strong employee relations, namely, fairness, trust and mutual respect at all levels. This toolkit offers suggestions to create such an organizational climate and includes methods to deal with employee grievances and conflicts.

This toolkit also explores the various roles HR professionals play in managing workplace conflict, ways to communicate an organization's conflict-resolution procedures and how to measure the effectiveness of those procedures. The toolkit does not examine the details of procedures for settling conflicts.

Background

Conflict can occur in any organization when employees with different backgrounds and priorities work together. Conflict can be expressed in numerous ways such as insults, noncooperation, bullying and anger. Its causes can range from personality clashes and misunderstood communication to organizational mismanagement. The negative effects of workplace conflict can include work disruptions, decreased productivity, project failure, absenteeism, turnover and termination. Emotional stress can be both a cause and an effect of workplace conflict.

While 25 percent of employees surveyed in 1998 reported being treated rudely at work at least once a week, that figure rose to 55 percent in 2011 and 62 percent in 2016, according to Christine Porath, an associate professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. Heightened tension over conflicting political views may be one cause of this increase.

A survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that four in 10 UK employees reported having experienced some form of interpersonal conflict at work in the last year. Most of that conflict is between an employee and his or her line manager. The survey also found that employees are more likely to report that they have experienced conflict with a staff member who is more senior to them.1

Experts offer several causes of workplace conflict, including:

Personality differences.

Workplace behaviors regarded by some co-workers as irritating.

Unmet needs in the workplace.

Perceived inequities of resources.

Unclarified roles in the workplace.

Competing job duties or poor implementation of a job description—for example, placing a nonsupervisory employee in an unofficial position of "supervising" another employee.

A systemic circumstance such as a workforce slowdown, a merger or acquisition, or a reduction in force.

Mismanagement of organizational change and transition.

Poor communication, including misunderstood remarks and comments taken out of context.

Differences over work methods or goals or differences in perspectives attributable to age, sex or upbringing.

Employers can manage workplace conflict by creating an organizational culture designed to preclude conflict as much as possible and by dealing promptly and equitably with conflict that employees cannot resolve among themselves. To manage conflict, employers should consider the following:

Make certain that policies and communication are clear and consistent, and make the rationale for decisions transparent.

Ensure that all employees—not just managers—are accountable for resolving conflict.

Do not ignore conflict, and do not avoid taking steps to prevent it.

Seek to understand the underlying emotions of the employees in conflict.

Keep in mind that approaches to resolving conflict may depend on the circumstances of the conflict.

See How to Resolve Workplace Conflicts.

Many experts maintain that although conflict is generally regarded as having a negative effect in the workplace, a degree of properly managed conflict can be beneficial for an organization. See Why Workplace Conflict Can Be Healthy.

Business Case

A well-functioning work environment is one in which employees communicate with respectful, inoffensive language; show tolerance and acceptance of differences among each other; and demonstrate respect for all individuals in the organization regardless of position, status or tenure.

If an employer has mechanisms in place to resolve conflict at its early stages, employees will generally see their employer as fair in their dealings with them and will likely be more satisfied with their jobs. Reductions in employee conflict can lead to increased employee productivity, greater motivation and loyalty, lower medical costs, fewer workers' compensation claims, and reduced litigation costs.

Unresolved issues of interpersonal tension and conflict can create emotional stress for employees, politicize the workplace and divert attention from the organization's mission. If employers do not act, conflicts will escalate into larger problems, discrimination and harassment complaints may increase, and the employer's reputation could be damaged. Other possible consequences of failing to manage workplace conflict include:

Absenteeism. Unscheduled absences drive up employers' costs through benefits outlays, the use of replacement workers, higher stress levels among employees and a decrease in overall employee performance.

Turnover. When employees mistrust management or perceive the organization as acting unfairly, turnover may increase. This can lead to recruiting and training expenses for new hires and the costs attributable to a slippage of performance until new employees become fully proficient in their jobs.

Unionization. When employees perceive their employers as unfair, they are more inclined to seek outside resources such as a union to help protect them and to negotiate on their behalf on matters such as employment, compensation and benefits.

Litigation. An employee who cannot achieve a resolution of a workplace conflict may seek outside legal help, which can cause an organization to mount a costly defense or agree to an expensive settlement. Lawsuits resolved in an employee's favor can result in significant financial penalties for the employer and can even produce criminal or civil sanctions.

Employers should also take steps to manage the growing trends of incivility and bullying in the workplace. Employers are well-advised to treat such types of power conflicts seriously and to seek to address them proactively. See How to Create a Culture of Civility.

The Role of Human Resources

The human resource team has a leadership responsibility to develop and implement workplace conflict policies and procedures and to create and manage conflict-resolution programs. HR also initiates employee communication on conflict and tracks the metrics and costs of conflict-resolution efforts. Many HR professionals receive conflict-resolution training, often as part of their professional development, and many are accustomed to conducting such training or enlisting outside training resources for supervisors and managers.

HR professionals often become involved in settling workplace conflicts, particularly if the employees and their supervisors cannot achieve a resolution. If HR cannot resolve a conflict, an outside specialist may be needed to work out a settlement. See Viewpoint: The Art and Science of Conflict Management.

In many instances, however, HR does not learn of workplace conflict until differences have escalated. HR professionals must be made aware of workplace tensions before they grow into larger problems, and managers should act as HR's "warning system." HR must always be informed about certain types of workplace conflicts, such as those that may involve harassment, discrimination, illegal activities, or other matters that could lead to lawsuits or involvement of law enforcement.

The Role of Employees

Although supervisors and managers have a major responsibility to ensure that workplace conflicts are resolved, several experts say that the first steps to settling differences should be taken by employees themselves.

Employees who have complaints about co-workers should be advised to try to work out their differences directly with those co-workers before asking a supervisor or a manager to step in, says Kelly Mollica, a consultant for the Centre Group, a human asset management firm in Memphis, Tenn. That approach, she says, may not only reduce interruptions for managers but may also help employees develop their own conflict-resolution skills.

Resolving workplace conflicts does not require top-down interventions, Mollica says. A manager who approaches one employee with another's complaints may be seen as taking sides. If that happens often, it can be interpreted as bias in favor of certain employees, thereby undermining the manager's authority. Moreover, employees should not be overly dependent on their managers. Organizations need people who can handle day-to-day issues on their own, think independently, analyze problems, come up with solutions and take steps to implement them. This includes both task-related and people-related problems.

It may be time-consuming for managers to coach employees on how to resolve conflicts, but in the long term it will create a work environment where conflict management is seen as everyone's obligation, not just the managers'. Below are Mollica's suggestions for supervisors and managers:

Set specific guidelines regarding what employees should do if they experience conflict.

Let employees know that they are expected to attempt to resolve conflicts before approaching a manager for help.

Do not put employees' "urgent" issues at the top of your priority list. Listen to and support employees with conflicts, but do not automatically take ownership of those problems.

Provide ongoing employee training in conflict resolution. Such training often starts with self-assessments so employees can understand their own conflict-management styles and the pros and cons of using a particular style. (See the section "Training to Handle Conflict," below.)

Employers should create a workplace culture in which managing conflict is viewed as a core job competency regardless of the employee's role in the organization. HR professionals can ask behavioral questions during job interviews to assess an applicant's previous experience in dealing with conflict. For example, the HR professional can ask a job candidate to describe a time that he or she had a conflict with a co-worker and to discuss what happened to cause the conflict and what the job candidate did to resolve it. Observable and measurable criteria based on guidelines or protocols for resolving conflict can be incorporated into job descriptions and performance reviews. Employees who successfully resolve conflicts on their own should be recognized and praised.

Employees should be continually reminded that when addressing conflicts, they should focus on behaviors and the consequences of the behavior, not on personalities.

Employers should bear in mind that if employees are not using an open-door policy to inform them of conflicts, conflicts may still be present. It may mean that employees think they are no longer supposed to discuss conflicts with their managers or supervisors. HR professionals should make sure employees know HR is available to coach them on how to work through specific situations.

Know where to draw the line. Do not expect employees to handle every problem on their own; it could send a message that management is willing to ignore inappropriate or potentially illegal behavior. Make sure employees know that managers must be notified of and involved in certain types of conflicts, particularly if there are indications of physical violence, harassment, theft, or possession or use of illegal substances. Nonmanagement employees should never be expected to confront violations of the law or to enforce company policy without management's knowledge.

See Viewpoint: Caught in the Middle.

Conflict Management Training

To curb or prevent the effects of conflict, some managers and HR specialists are turning to conflict management training. This kind of training takes many forms and covers many topics. It can be provided through one-day workshops, small-group facilitations and one-on-one sessions. HR professionals should select an approach based on the type of workplace conflict that needs to be addressed.

Conflict management training can be helpful for employees exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior, experts say, and for intensely angry employees—those continually in conflict, often facing disciplinary action and causing complaints by co-workers. Angry employees may use inappropriate language in meetings and issue scathing remarks in e-mails. If they are managers, their employees may have unusually high rates of absenteeism and turnover.

If employees' behavior involves harm or the threat of harm to anyone, however, they may require more help than training can provide. In cases in which an employee shows signs of passionate anger, such as throwing chairs or banging fists, employers should refer to their workplace violence prevention program for security prevention and intervention strategies. Procedures for detecting, investigating, managing, and addressing threatening behavior or violent episodes that occur in a workplace should be in place.

See Conflict Resolution Training

Developing Strong Employee Relations

When it occurs, conflict must be resolved equitably and quickly. It is also important, though, to try to prevent it—that is, to create an environment in which corrosive conflict is less likely to occur in the first place. The foundation of such a culture is employee relations, the process of building strong relationships between managers and employees based on fairness, trust and mutual respect. It takes time, effort and money to create such a work environment, but a good employee relations climate supports motivation, loyalty and high performance among employees, and it encourages them to try to achieve the best results possible for their organization. See Developing and Sustaining Employee Engagement.

HR and other organizational leaders can use the following ingredients to create a strong employee relations strategy:

Interactive communication. Communication that is clear and two-way can help build trust between employees and their managers.

Trust. The absence of trust among employees and managers can compromise communication in either or both directions.

Ethics. If employees do not perceive their manager as having good business ethics, they will indirectly question the manager's motives, which may cause stress and reduce performance.

Fairness. All employees should be treated in a consistent manner under the same circumstances. Superior performance, however, should still be recognized and rewarded.

Empathy. Managers need to be alert and sensitive to their employees' feelings, and showing empathy and awareness is central to establishing a trusting relationship with employees.

Perceptions and beliefs. Perceptions can be essential in employee relations. Employees respond positively when they believe the organization's policies and practices are fair and its communication is truthful. Frequent, honest communication helps ensure that employees' beliefs and perceptions are consistent with reality in the workplace.

Clear expectations. Employees need to know what to expect from their managers. No one likes to be surprised with new or conflicting requirements, which can cause stress and distract employees from the job at hand.

Conflict resolution. Although conflicts arise in every organization, the methods to handle them vary. Employers must deal with issues head-on and resolve disputes fairly and quickly.

If an organization is large enough to support an employee relations position, this can send a positive message to the workforce about the value the employer places on maintaining positive employee relationships. HR professionals are often trained to handle workplace conflict and to resolve problems among employees; however, a specialist in employee relations or an ombudsman dedicated to working with employees experiencing conflict or other dissatisfaction in the workplace can eliminate many issues before they escalate.

A Framework to Minimize Conflict

There is no single strategy to create a positive workplace climate. A number of tools are used in various combinations to stimulate employee engagement and to minimize conflict. There are, however, several essential tools HR professionals can use to create a positive workplace climate.

Written rules, policies and agreements

Employees should understand how workplace conflicts will be resolved. An organization communicates its expectations typically via an employee handbook, HR policies, and written contracts and agreements with certain high-level individuals.

Written HR policies are essential to provide guidance to managers and employees on how conflicts and other issues should be handled. Such policies include any formal mechanisms in place to help employees resolve differences and provisions to prohibit retaliation against employees who raise concerns.

Agreements and contracts with key executives are designed to ensure a common understanding about the employment relationship. Such contracts may include a requirement that binding arbitration—rather than potentially costlier litigation—be used for resolving employment-related disputes.

Effective management

Conflicts have a better chance of being managed quickly and successfully when an organization has a strong leadership team in place. Leaders that allow poor behavior from employees or ignore workplace bullies will certainly experience damaged employee relations. An effective management team is imperative in preventing slippage in employee morale and increases in turnover.

Careful hiring

A key strategy to avoid employee relations problems is to make sure the organization's hiring process embodies good interviewing skills and selection procedures and pre-employment screening, including a background investigation.

Just as the requisite experience and education are key in hiring, so are demeanor and communication style, which can suggest whether a job candidate would be a "good fit" for the organization. A company's culture can have a significant impact on whether a candidate is likely to succeed within the organization. See Want to Really Get to Know Your Candidates? Interview for Emotional Intelligence.

Fair grievance processes

Organizations should have written policies and definitions pertaining to dispute mechanisms available in the organization that provide clear guidance for the employer and the employees. The policy should state the scope and limitations of each mechanism and spell out each method's terms, such as eligibility, frequency, decision process, and required sign-off and approvals for settling a matter.

Employers that implement a system through which parties can resolve conflict within the company create incentives for employees to avoid engaging in costly and time-consuming external litigation. Organizations typically have multiple ways for employees to work out interpersonal or organizational differences. The existence of a grievance system may also improve employee morale because employees feel they have options for pursuing conflict resolution. See Don't Just Quash Conflict -- Resolve It.

Here are common steps to resolve workplace disputes:

Open-door policy. This is a first step. It encourages employees to meet with their immediate supervisor to discuss and resolve work-related issues. Employees should know that there will be no negative repercussions for voicing a complaint.

Management review. If the open-door approach does not resolve the conflict, the next step is to have the issue reviewed by the next-higher level of management.

Peer review. The aggrieved employee presents his or her side of a dispute to a small panel of employees and supervisors selected from a pool of employees trained in dispute resolution. This method often succeeds because employees participate in decisions that affect them. Depending on the organization, a peer review may be binding on both parties. If it is not binding and the resolution is not satisfactory to the employee, the dispute may be submitted to mediation or arbitration.

The following are types of conflict resolution techniques available to organizations:

Facilitation. A neutral employee in the organization—often an employee relations manager—acts as a facilitator, not to judge the merits of the dispute or to render a final decision, but to help both sides decide the best way to settle the dispute.

Mediation. A mediator is a neutral third party who helps the conflicting parties explore innovative solutions to their dispute. Mediators can be internal employees trained in conflict management and mediation, or they can be trained external professionals who have no perceived conflict of interest with the employer. Resolving a dispute through mediation should be voluntary.

Arbitration. This is typically the most formal, costly and time-consuming method of resolving disputes. Witnesses may be presented and cross-examined, and an arbitrator issues a binding decision.

See Q&A with Daniel Shapiro on Negotiating the Nonnegotiable

Training for managers

HR must ensure that effective management training is provided regularly in the organization. Managers should also know how to spot issues and seek counsel from specialists before responding to a problem. This can ensure fair treatment of subordinates and can also protect the employer from being inadvertently exposed to legal issues. See Conflict Resolution Training for Supervisors.

HR must ensure that managers have skills and training in several additional areas, including:

Conflict resolution. Managers should be trained to recognize problems, ask questions and devise solutions before the issues become time-wasters and legal risks.

Organization rules and expectations. Managers should understand what is expected of them, and they should know the organization's rules and policies. If a manager does not know how to enforce the rules, the result can be confusion and conflict.

Laws and regulations. Managers must understand the basic laws and regulations of the employment relationship so they have at least a general knowledge of their employees' rights.

Professionalism. Managers who commit themselves to high standards of professionalism and who follow stringent business ethics gain employees' respect, whereas managers who bend the rules are viewed with skepticism. Employees respect and do their best work for managers who are committed to doing what is right regardless of possible repercussions.

Communication. A manager's ability to communicate effectively with staff is critical for building good relationships. Managers should be trained in how to give complete, specific assignments; listen carefully; provide constructive feedback; respond to employee suggestions; and deal with conflict. They should also know how to share information with employees—and how much to share—based on the organization's philosophy and preferences for sharing.

Work assignments. Managers should be trained in how to assess their employees' abilities and to understand their employees' strengths and weaknesses to determine what assignments are reasonable for each employee. Employees are most productive when they feel that their work is significant and valued by management.

Performance management and feedback

Performance reviews typically occur at least once a year; some are more frequent. During such reviews, goals and objectives are determined and agreed on, and managers can give candid feedback to employees. Managers who constructively and frankly communicate such information to employees tend to establish stronger workgroups and foster better individual performers. Without feedback, employees are left to wonder how they are doing and what their manager really thinks about them, which in turn can lead to dissatisfaction, misunderstandings and conflict. See Managing Employee Performance.

Fair termination processes

Most workplace litigation arises because individuals feel they were not taken seriously or did not receive a fair hearing. HR should review disciplinary policies and procedures to ensure there is a fair process that protects employees from impulsive or ill-considered reactions by management. Employees are more likely to view a dispute-resolution system as fair and equitable if it allows them to correct problematic behavior before termination is considered. This perception of fairness can also help minimize emotions and disruptions by other employees when a co-worker must be terminated.

Communication

Supervisors and managers should be well-informed about all the organization's dispute resolution systems. They should know the rationale for each system and be able to explain how each works in practice. An HR professional's decision about how to communicate a dispute-resolution system's details to employees will depend on the culture of the organization and the various types of media that are available and that are most effective within the workforce. Such media may include training, staff meetings, policy and procedure manuals, organization intranet, e-mail, newsletters, flyers, new-employee orientation training materials, and individual letters to employees. HR should regularly remind managers and supervisors about the importance of dealing with conflict early and about the options available to them to resolve such matters.

#1 Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development. (2015). Getting under the skin of workplace conflict: Tracing the experiences of employ

1 note · View note

grouchomarxiste-blog1 · 5 years ago

Text

Bong Joon-Ho’s Parasite: Marx and Violence

Warning: A majority of this was written pre-pandemic, so please excuse my overly optimistic tone. It was a different time.

Yes, another Bong Joon-Ho film. Can you blame me? The guy’s a genius. Parasite was another one of those great films that will never leave you. You can watch the movie simply without doing a major analysis in your head and you will still agree that it’s a great movie. Which personally, is why I believe it's made its way into the major American awards season. Parasite winning Best Foreign Film at the Golden Globes was one of the few decisions I’ve agreed with. I didn’t see any of the winners in the film categories besides Parasite, and I’m very much ok with that. It’s making its way into Hollywood and the favorite lists of celebrities. Elon Musk said he loved Parasite (he also turned Grimes, the former “anti-imperialist,” to the mother of his future child). Chrissy Teigen loved Parasite (a lot can be said about her, so let’s not). Obama loved Parasite (but I have some serious doubts about the authenticity of his yearly favorites list. Mainly because I can’t imagine him listening to Summer Walker). I was completely boggled at all of those tweets. How? How is one so blind? How did one watch Parasite and not feel a thing? After I watched Parasite, I rushed back to school to attend the discussion section of my Political Theory class so I could read and discuss primitive accumulation through dispossession with revolutionary fervor. I recommended it to everyone near me. I even wrote a note to my professor who tucked it into his book. But is that the problem- that all these beloved figures (not mine) end up loving the sheer adrenaline of the story and tweet to their followers about how great the movie is. Those followers, with their favorite celebrities’ seal of approval, watch the movie, not putting it together either. Bong Joon-Ho is critiquing those very figures! In every post-Parasite interview, Bong Joon-Ho has said that Parasite is about America and capitalism, but we have just reduced those statements to memes on Twitter. As funny as they are, Parasite is rich for its class analysis. The Hollywood reaction is just as important. Marx is all over this movie, there's no question about it. I also want us to understand these controversial moments from a Fanonian perspective, again all with relation to Marx. I hope for us to understand that everything about this movie is intentional and every bit of it is worth pages and pages of discussion. I nearing 11 pages as I write this. I also hope that this film can be a way for us to understand economic exploitation in the 21st century. While many celebrities have misunderstood it, it is important that you, us, the people, the working class, grasp every bit of this radical film.

I’m not going to bother with another one of my “brief summary” because I’m assuming, we’ve all seen it. It's on Hulu now and I believe Apple TV. If you don’t want to pay for either platforms, watch a pirated version online, I genuinely don’t think Bong will mind.

I want to talk about the home. I know we all had the same reaction to that beautiful home: awe, admiration, and envy. The Park’s home itself is significant, but also in contrast to the Kims’ home. The Kim’s live in a small semi-basement home, where they have to reach up in order to look out their window and see the street level. Their home is dirty, cramped, just not a place where anyone wants to be. But immediately, I thought of Fanon and the native sector. I know that Parasite isn’t about colonialism, but space is important to Marx (I’ll return to Fanon). In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels attribute many things to the process of proletarianization. To name a few: literacy campaigns and public education, the politicization of the proletariat towards the end of feudalism, expansion of media, etc. One that stands out, is the mass migration and urbanization of the proletariat. Through that, the proletariat was concentrated into the poorest parts of the city where they shared their most intimate quarters with workers like themselves (Marx and Engels, 15) One might dismiss this as a historical example specific to Europe, but if we go back to my thoughts on Memories of Murder, we’d note how Korea’s transition to a modern capitalist society, was a fairly recent one (from 1987 onwards). As the agricultural sector suffered, Koreans living in the rural provinces were forced to move into the major cities. Park (Song Kang-Ho’s character in Memories) was lucky enough to become a successful businessman, unlike the Kims who earn their livelihood by holding pizza boxes- the most insignificant work. Along with urbanization, the proletariat also occupied the small space of the factory, where they are reminded of the everyday brutality of their work. The Park’s home is not cramped, but the one scene where everyone is rushing to hide from them, results in Ki-taek, Ki-jeong, and Ki-woo hiding underneath a coffee table overnight. After that lengthy battle with Geun-sae and Moon-gwang, the Kims are exhausted. They do not want to be laying side by side hearing the Parks have sex. My friend Sef also reminded me that the Parks had weird sex as Mr. Park recalled how their old chauffeur possibly had sex with a drugged-up prostitute, a scenario that previously made Mrs. Park scream out of disgust. Revisiting this, I believe this definitely deserves a psychoanalytic analysis.

This isn’t their breaking point, but also hearing Mr. Park say that Ki-taek smells like the subway is a factor. Once making their break they run outside where it's raining heavily. They come to their home which is flooded and destroyed. Here is where I’ll start talking about Fanon. [READ NOTE]. Again, I know the colonial system is not the case in Parasite. Fanon was a Marxist and expanded on Marxist theory in the colonial context. I just want to warn you that I am using Fanon as carefully as possible, not using concepts that are distinctly racial. I know there’s probably also much more relevant work out there on spatiality and violence, but I think Fanon’s prose style in The Wretched of the Earthis quite appropriate for the film. Let’s consider the colonial bourgeoisie as the Parks and the natives as the Kims. Fanon calls the colonial world, a “compartmentalized world.” The colonists’ sector is clean and protected whereas the native sector is overcrowded, envious, and starving. Sounds about right so far.

The colonist’s sector is a sector built to last, all stone and steel. It’s a sector of lights and paved roads, where the trash cans constantly overflow with strange and wonderful garbage, undreamed-of leftovers. The colonizer’s feet can never be glimpsed, except perhaps in the sea, but then again you can never get close enough. They are protected by solid shoes in a sector where the streets are clean and smooth., without a pothole, without a stone… The colonized’s sector or at least the “native” quarters, the shanty town, the Medina, the reservation, is a disreputable place, inhabited by disreputable people. You are born anywhere, anyhow. You die anywhere, from anything. It’s a world with no space, people are piled one on top of each other. (Fanon, 4)

This becomes extremely relevant when the Kims run out of the Parks’ home in the pouring rain. I kept noticing that they were all barefoot, only focused on getting out of there. My toes curled in the movie theater watching that. Running away from that traumatic house to find your own home destroyed, relocating to a displacement camp, THEN going to work the next day for your unaffected employer who has the audacity to audibly take a sniff of you. I don't know about you, but to me, this sounds like the conditions for a proletarian revolution. Besides the literal allegory, the tone sharply shifts. One could argue that it began to change when they found Geun-sae in the bunker or when Moon-gwang hit her head but that was just some good old dark comedy for me. After the flooding, things are different. Ki-taek has this unmoving face. Things turned grim and we knew something climactic was about to happen. Fanon’s most famous chapter, “Concerning Violence,” maintains that decolonization will always be a violent event because colonialism is a violent system itself. Something that I absolutely love about this chapter is that it isn’t some dense, theoretical work. It’s a revolutionary call to arms for all colonized people. It has a strategic pace which parallels Parasite so well. He sets the scene- the compartmentalized, Manichaen world. He slowly intensifies the antagonistic relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, until this culminating point:

The colonized subject thus discovers that his life, his breathing and his heartbeat are the same as the colonist’s. He discovers that the skin of the colonist is not worth more than the “natives.” In other words, his world receives a fundamental jolt. The colonized’s revolutionary new assurance stems from this. If no longer strike fear into me or nail me to the spot and his voice can no longer petrify me. I am no longer uneasy in his presence. In reality, to hell with him. Not only does his presence no longer bother me, but i am already preparing to waylay him in such a way that he will no longer have any solution but to flee (Fanon, 10)

As corny as it sounds, when I first read that, it brought me to tears. I’m not sure if it was just because I was up for three days straight writing my midterm and I was finally breaking, or because it just meant that much to me. But that section in which the colonized discoversthat his life is worth as much as the colonizer is such a crucial moment. This parallels the infamous birthday scene. Geun-sae gets out of the bunker, stabs Ki-jung, the Park’s kid (I’ll look his name up later) has a seizure, and Chong-sook is wrestling with Geun-sae. Shit is going down. If we recall, Mrs. Park mentioned that it takes a few minutes for her son to die after a seizure and needs to go to the hospital immediately. So much is going on and Mr. Park starts screaming at Ki-taek to give him the keys. Ki-taek is immobilized at this point. His daughter has been stabbed, son attacked, wife almost killed, the Parks’ got him dressed up in some cultural appropriation, Hollywood Indian regalia. In fact, I find it very fitting that he’s dressed up as a Native American at this moment. I see this as Bong’s satirical nod to old ultra-capitalist Hollywood. But if enough wasn't going on, Mr. Park sniffed. He got close to Geun-sae, a man who’s been living underground for 3 years and audibly sniffed him in disgust. The same way that he sniffed Ki-taek. Of course, there’s probably a difference between a “subway” smell vs. “I haven't showered in 3 years” smell but at the moment it feels as if it's almost the same thing. In my initial viewing, I thought what happened next was because of that, but no. Ki-taek realized that his life was worth the same as the Parks, and their presence no longer bothers him, but he is now plotting against him, and the time of action is now. Ki-taek stabs Mr. Park and flees. Annoyingly, the YouTube section for this clip is filled with people feeling bad for the Parks and discussing how what Ki-taek did was wrong. Of course, the average viewer will view the Parks as some sympathetic rich suckers who only treated the Kims kindly. The casual reader who picks up Fanon for the first time would also dismiss his theory of violence as immoral in comparison to non-violent methods like Gandhi’s. A lot can be said about Gandhi, but Fanon says that non-violence is a strategy created by the colonizer to deter decolonization and paint the colonizer as a gentle ruler who wants peace. This is not the case. Colonialism is a violent system. Capitalism is a violent system. Colonialism can only be undone violently. Capitalism can only be undone violently. Now I don't mean to make this all about colonialism, as my friends say I often do. But the similarities are clear. The question isn’t whether the murder of Mr. Park was a justified act, but what were the conditions that forced Ki-taek to murder. Geun-sae killed Ki-jung, but no one in the comment section is having a debate on whether his murder was ethical. Because in our heads we feel bad for him, and the life that he’s lived- why don’t we feel the same towards Ki-taek? Geun-sae and Ki-taek are two sides of the same coin. Geun-sae’s exploitation is naked. He’s confined to the basement, controlling the lights of the home. A feature of the house that Mr. Park doesn't even pay attention to, never mind considering that there is someone manually operating it. A clear example of how our labor is alienated. All while blindly worshipping Mr. Park- a man who knows nothing of his existence. Honestly, I hope some of you see yourselves in Geun-sae the next time you defend billionaires online. But Ki-taek is just another exploited worker. I understand this can be hard to understand in our current understanding of the world. How is Ki-taek exploited? Him and his family conned their way into their jobs and leech off of the Parks. Again, we must return to the system as a whole to understand. None of this wouldn’t have happened if the Kims weren’t desperately poor in a capitalist society, which enables families like the Parks, to live a life of excess at the expense of the Kims. Capitalism is a system of exploitation; we cannot forget that. Quite simply, no one is rich without thousands that are poor.

The levels of the home are also this unforgettable feature. I just want to make this quick note about the issue of the ghost. Did you forget about the ghost? Da-Song didn’t (yes, I finally looked his name up!). I find the story of the ghost such an interesting touch. Not just as a way for Bong to warn the audience about Da-Song’s history of seizures. When Mrs. Park tells Chung-sook of the story, she says “they say a ghost in the house brings wealth.” This, of course, is true since the exploitation of those like Geun-sae are responsible for the wealth of the Parks, in the larger picture. I’d like to look further into this. There's a twofold meaning to this. I do believe that this ghost is symbolic to the exploitation of the Kims, and the proletariat in general, but that’s Mrs. Park’s understanding of this ghost. The way she understands this ghost, is as a source of wealth. Maybe Mrs. Park isn’t as ditzy as we imagine- she to some degree, understands her class position. But like most, she doesn’t question the ghost, or her class position. She knows that if she looks into either, it would result in the ugly truth. Da-Song, however, is just a child. He’s too young to really understand the economic and social relations which are responsible for his wealth. He’s also too young to consciously suppress any desire to investigate the matter like his mother. He is a child after all and is naturally curious. But his first encounter with the ghost was the one that resulted in a near fatal seizure. This can be his body’s reaction to the life-threatening figure of a ghost. The ghost isn’t just a threat to his mortal life, but his wealth, some may argue that these are the same. Mrs. Park pays for therapy for his “trauma” so he could forget the event, but he still knows. He saw this ghost and is the only one to seriously consider its threat. Mrs. Park knows it's real but chooses to not think about it. I want to return to the Manifesto. Let's hear these famous words: “A specter is haunting Europe- the specter of communism… Two things result from this fact: Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers itself to be a power...” (Marx and Engels, 8). Don’t think I’m just including this because he’s talking about a specter, in fact, I think this story of the ghost is an intentional allusion to the specter of communism. Da-Song represents this figure of the bourgeoisie who is in constant anxiety over the threat of his wealth. When he reappears at his birthday party, he has another seizure. Also, at this time, the family, and all of their guests are witness to the horrors of their wealth and what it's created. This naked, hideous display, this moment of confrontation is a pivotal point in the dialectic. Of course, this murderous moment is not seen as a success to the viewer with Mr. Park, Ki-jung, and Geun-sae dead, Ki-woo presumed to be dead, and Ki-taek missing. This just shows us that the bourgeoisie are their own gravediggers- to again invoke the Manifesto. On a larger scale, this would be the moment of a revolution- but we don’t. Ki-woo survives with Chung-sook and is put on probation. Ki-taek is missing to the police, but Ki-taek realizes that he’s living in the bunker in hiding. Ki-woo declares that he will make enough money to buy the home and free his father. At first, I wondered “why couldn't he just sneak him out of the house when the new owners were asleep?” “Why did he have to buy the home?” As much as I wanted to portray the Kims to be revolutionary figures, Ki-woo has the common fate of most. Instead of usurping power from the bourgeoisie, he believes he can free his dad from the home, by owning the house. Everyone who lives in the basement is stuck there for a reason, because someone is forcing them to stay there. A perfect allegory for the relations of production as I have repeatedly mentioned throughout this text. Ki-woo desires a bourgeois life (as most working-class folk do!) in order to lift his father out of the despair of poverty. He believes the only way he can save his father is to own the home, which could easily be seen as the means of production. A nice touch which I had to look up, was as Ki-woo tells us of his desire to buy the home, a song plays called “546 years”- the amount of time it will take for him to earn enough money. I wish this song title was more obvious for the American viewer. I am not trying to take away from this film by saying that, but for a viewer who knows Korean or the song title, they’ll understand the tragic nature of his dreams. Whereas the American viewers will sympathize with his dreams- as we’ve done with immigrants and “the American Dream” or the bootstrapping mentality of some people. In some way I do think Bong didn’t want an overtly revolutionary ending. I don’t think the average viewer, especially in this day, could handle an ending like that. Not to say that we don't understand class inequality and such. We are not living in, say the 60s/70s where there were Marxist movements all throughout the world. I don’t think we have the conditions for a revolution at this moment, although I do think the mass unemployment and the other severe economic consequences of this virus will radicalize the working class in large numbers, to a degree that we haven't seen in a long time. But to make my point, I feel that we are living in historic political times and we are coming to understand ourselves in a liberating way. It is my hope that films like Parasite will awaken the revolutionary potential in us all.

Note: I wanted to use Fanon’s theory of violence and diagnosis of colonialism as a violent structure, in relation to capitalist society. I don’t want us to interpret his writings as something that can be isolated from the racial structure of colonialism, but i do think it is a beneficial guide to understanding this film.

Work Cited:

Philcox, Richard, translator. “On Violence.” The Wretched of the Earth, by Frantz Fanon, Grove Press, 2004.

Joon-Ho, Bong, director. Parasite. Barunson E&A, 2019.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. International Publishers, 1948.

3 notes · View notes

asynca · 6 years ago

Note

How do you deal with ratings from readers who were expecting something else, even a different genre? As a writer aspiring to get published one day I'm extremely nervous about writing anything for the queer community because it seems like Amazon and Goodreads don't actually do anything to help promote queer writers. And many of the queer readers seem overly harsh of decent books.

I don’t actually read my reviews usually (although everyone has weak days when they find themselves clicking through to them), and I encourage writers to not read them. Reviews aren’t for us, they’re for other readers.

In general, I don’t leave bad reviews on books - if I didn’t enjoy a book, it’s usually because it’s just not to my taste. I don’t think the rating of the book I didn’t like should be punished just because I personally didn’t like it.

I can imagine a situation in which I would leave a bad review: if the book is harmful in some way, bigoted, or if there was something I really wanted to warn the readers about, I probably would leave a bad review. I haven’t read a book like that in a long time, which is why I don’t leave negative reviews.

If I don’t like a book, I just don’t review it. These days, I only review books I love to recommend them to others!

RE: the queer community - I haven’t found the queer community in general is harsh about queer media. Tumblr and newly politicized kids sub-25 years old can be quite picky and nasty (and also quite personally nasty to authors themselves, if they can get at you), but I think that’s very much to do with kids becoming aware of how much the world sucks and being very fucking angry about it - and instead of turning that anger on the people causing the world to suck, they’ll take any fucking excuse to turn their anger on someone who’s actually within their reach and who they can hurt. They still operate in the high school ‘us and them’ mentality, have very black and white thinking, and if something isn’t perfect it needs to be cancelled forever and the author should just kill themselves. They don’t have the perspective yet to see how harmful and counter-productive that approach is - they actually think they’re enacting social justice by telling queer authors to kill themselves.

However, this particularly community is especially concentrated on Tumblr and you can probably avoid them by just sticking to Twitter or other forms of social media. I have never been targeted by someone who didn’t originate on Tumblr.

I don’t think the wider queer community in general is harsh (although, saying this, I’ve just noticed that Solve for i only has 3.something stars on Goodreads, so maybe I’m being too generous), and I don’t think you should be worried about bad reviews before you write your book. You’ll get bad reviews. Everyone gets bad reviews, even Terry Pratchett got bad reviews. Don’t let them stop you from putting your story out into the world

#Anonymous #trigger #suicide baiting

15 notes · View notes

kayla1993-world · 3 years ago

Text

Biden accused Trump and his supporters of holding a “dagger at the throat of democracy” in a forceful speech Thursday marking the anniversary of the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The criticism was blistering of the defeated president whom he blamed for the assault that has fundamentally changed Congress and the nation and raised global concerns about the future of American democracy.

“For the first time in our history, a president not just lost an election, he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power as a violent mob breached the Capitol,” Biden said. “You can’t love your country only when you win.”

His voice booming at times, filling the ornate hall where rioters had laid siege, the president called on Americans to remember what they saw Jan. 6 with their own eyes: the mob attacking police, breaking windows, a Confederate flag inside the Capitol, gallows erected outside threatening to hang the vice president—all while Trump sat at the White House watching it on TV.

“The supporters are trying to rewrite history. They want you to see Election Day as the day of insurrection and the riot that took place here on January 6 as a true expression of the will of the people.”

The remarks launched the start of daylong remembrance, drawing a contrast between the truth of what happened and the false narratives that persist about the Capitol assault, including the continued refusal by many Republicans to affirm that Biden won the 2020 election.

“We must be absolutely clear about what is true and what is a lie,” Biden said. “The former president of the United States of America has spread a web of lies about the 2020 election.”

He said: “We are in a battle for the soul of America. I did not seek this fight, brought to this Capitol one year from today. But I will not shrink from it either. I will stand in this breach, I will defend this nation.”

Republican leaders and lawmakers largely stayed away from the events, dismissing them as overly politicized—some continuing to spread false claims about the election. From Florida, Trump showed no signs of letting go and in fact revived his unfounded attack on the elections.

Even among congressional republicans who condemned the attack in the days afterward, most have stayed loyal to the former president. “What brazen politicization of January 6 by Biden,” tweeted Graham, a Trump confidant.

The division is a stark reminder of the rupture between the two parties, worsening since hundreds of the supporters violently pushed past police, used their fists and flagpoles to break through the windows of the capitol and interrupted the certification of the victory.

Cheney, chair of the house committee investigating the attack and one of the few lawmakers attending the capitol ceremonies, warned that “the threat continues.” Trump, she said, “continues to make the same claims that he knows caused violence on January 6.”

“Unfortunately, too many in my own party are embracing the former president, are looking the other way or minimizing the danger,” she told Today. “That’s how democracies die. We simply cannot let that happen.”

She was joined by Cheney, the former vice-president and now a respected elder, who was greeted warmly by several Democrats. He stood with her, the only Republicans seen, for a moment of silence on the house floor.

He said in a statement: “I am deeply disappointed at the failure of many members of my party to recognize the grave nature of the January attacks and the ongoing threat to our nation.”

The senate also convened a moment of silence. Democrats investigating the events plan to spend the coming months telling the American people exactly what happened last Jan. 6 with a series of public hearings.

Biden and his administration have come under criticism from some in his party for not forcibly explaining to Americans the ways democracy is at risk or pushing Congress hard enough to pass election and voting legislation that is stalled by a filibuster in the senate.

Obama, the former president, said “nothing is more important” on the anniversary than ensuring the right to vote. “While the broken windows have been repaired and many of the rioters have been brought to justice, the truth is that our democracy is at greater risk than it was back then,” Obama said in a statement.

The address and that of Harris who is leading the efforts on the voting and elections legislation, appeared as a direct response to critics. “We must pass voting rights bills,” said Harris, addressing those gathered.

On the house floor, where many members were evacuated and some were trapped as the rioters tried to break in, Pelosi drew on history with a hope that Americans would turn to their “better angels” to resolve differences.

The sharp message and the distance from it come as lawmakers are adjusting to the new normal on Capitol Hill—the growing tensions that many worry will result in more violence or someday, a legitimate election being overturned.

A new poll from the NORC Center for Public Research showed that three in 10 Republicans say the attack was not violent and about another three in 10 say it was somewhat violent.

As Biden directed blame toward the former president, the percentage of Americans who blame Trump for the Jan. 6 riot has grown slightly over the past year, with 57 percent saying he bears significant responsibility for what took place.

In an AP-NORC poll taken in the days after the attack, 50 percent said that. The claims of widespread election fraud were rejected by the courts and refuted by his own department.

An investigation by the AP found fewer than 475 cases of voter fraud among 25.5 million ballots cast in the six states disputed by Trump, a miniscule number in percentage terms.

#january 6

0 notes

air3d3lalm3na · 3 years ago

Text

seeing people from various countries act as though the entire concept of diaspora is a fake and idiotic invention of pampered westerners or whatever the fuck is just so unbelievable to me. do you really think when people leave their country and immigrate to another, they lose all their context, and who they are? no, they exist as members of that culture, IN the new country they’ve arrived in, and they are treated as such. often discriminated against as such.

and even if full acceptance DID exist as soon as they set foot there, magically (which it doesn’t) - WHY would someone WANT to lose their original culture while living in another one? why would this kind of assimilation be seen as a “good” thing? or anything but the very real loss that it is?

part of these diaspora groups standing up for their basic dignity is their asserting the right to continue the existence of their own culture, as a micro-culture within that country. using their own language at LEAST at home, eating in certain ways, sometimes religious life; even things that people see as “shallow” like clothing/hair from your original culture, are absolutely not, because they are politicized and they mark you out. to assert this original culture is a form of maintaining your own pride, dignity and strength, and letting your children, their children, know and remember who they are, in the face of a destroying force that pressures people to give in and lose who they are to assimilation.

the idea that this is somehow racist or following the “one drop rule” is blatant manipulation………like i can’t even begin with these ppl, wtf. why are they like this. if anything their words show a totally shallow view of the situation, even while they use this manipulative rhetoric to call people in these cultures too shallow and too stupid to just “think normally about how culture works” like they supposedly do.

if we all “stopped being stupid” and thought like them, then we’d break our backs from day one, working 24/7 to shame-facedly deny our own families’ entire history, as soon as we stepped off the proverbial fucking boat, and spend all our time kissing the dominant culture’s ass. then who would we be? giving up any real confidence or self-acceptance for the acceptance of others?

the same perspective refuses to acknowledge that diversity is a good thing…linguistic diversity, multiculturalism, parallel cultures existing side by side on the same ground, how could any of this ever be a bad thing? their ideas would see it totally destroyed.

and a lot of these ppl are from euro countries, so i have trouble seeing this as anything but blatantly xenophobic.

like…do they agree with the insistence that all newly arrived people be FORCED to assimilate to their specific euro country’s culture, or else be treated with ostracism and discrimination until they do? how do they feel about long-standing culturally differing groups in the countries where they live - i.e. jewish people, romani people? i’d really like to know what goes on in their heads when they talk like this.

i just don’t know how you can actually defend the idea that diaspora is a silly idea that doesn’t exist, or if it does, it shouldn’t.

how do they treat diaspora members from their own country when they return?

i know a guy from the balkans (leaving out specifics for his privacy) who was adopted out to americans as an infant, and returned as an adult. and his family of origin embraced him with open arms. he even changed from an english name back to one from his culture of origin. they embraced him even as he’s visibly gay, because they missed their son they had never met but always wanted to.

i guess i’m overly broad to some people, but i don’t see how this is so deeply entirely different from descendants of immigrants who were fleeing certain conditions, still knowing that their original culture matters, and so, saving money for years and returning to this country. your people are your people! if you say they are your people, chances are you have good reason!

sometimes diaspora members embarrass themselves (i’m thinking irish americans and their parades…). that’s unfortunate, but also: not all members do this, some are more educated and want to intentionally do better than that. either way, to be diaspora is still, on a functional level, being a descendant of that culture and they have the right to recognize that part of their reality.

and the next argument people against this make, using black-and-white thinking, is that to accept them, somehow excludes immigrants to the same countries who do want to assimilate there, as somehow “against” calling themselves members of this country. i disagree. that’s an either-or view, another manipulation. if someone lives there and wants to emphasize their membership as part of this culture, ok, then they have the absolute right.

at the same time, if they live there, and yet also emphasize the place where their own ancestors are from, and use that culture’s language even while living there, etc…of course, that also needs to be respected. no one should have to fully assimilate to earn respect.

so why not both? why not all? why not a descendant AND an immigrant/descendant of one, ALL be acknowledged as “true members” of that culture? like…what’s with the absolutism?

the extreme myopic nature of this way of seeing things, the refusal to acknowledge nuance, is just too much for me. i can’t deal.

#queued #no reblgs 1238102389012 #spicy opinions #apparently #to use a blunt example transmasc lesbians and mtf lesbians can both be lesbians lol #and ftm gay guys and transfeminine ppl who stay in the gay male community…..#can coexist like…..#this is how i view culture #you are who you are #whats with the setting of so many strict unnecessary rules?#why not acknowledge that multiple situations exist and they’re all normal natural parts of cultures existing in the world?#black and white thinking #either or #absolutism #denial #disrespect

0 notes

jasmineholiday · 4 years ago

Photo

On April 10, President Donald Trump gave somber remarks on COVID-19, which by then had been spreading in the U.S. for months. He cited models that it would kill as many as 220,000 Americans ― although he predicted “substantially” below 100,000 ― and said “our people had to be extremely strong and brave to be able to put up with what they’ve put up with.”

Five months later, the nation is hurting even more. The U.S. surpassed 200,000 COVID-19 deaths on Tuesday ― losing enough people to fill nearly four gigantic football stadiums, or 131 times the number lost in the sinking of the Titanic. It’s indisputable that tens of thousands of further deaths lie ahead. A University of Washington model that almost exactly pinpointed when the country would cross the 200,000 mark now envisions nearly 400,000 deaths by Jan. 1.

Past predictions were wrong, not just because of the difficulty of modeling a novel virus’s spread but because they relied on an assumption that the U.S. and the administration would take the virus seriously.

As it turned out, that was too optimistic.

“It affects virtually nobody,” Trump said of the coronavirus on Monday, the day before the grim milestone of 200,000 American deaths from COVID-19.

The U.S. has already lost more people to the virus than any other country, including much larger nations like China and India. Various states have struggled at different periods as the coronavirus has spread from coast to coast; over the last week, Montana has reported more cases than in any other seven-day period since the pandemic began. Presently, about 800 Americans are lost to the disease daily, according to The New York Times and Reuters.

The mismanaged approach to the virus continues to hurt millions of people. Even those spared from infection are struggling because of its effect on the economy, the upheaval of the country’s health care and education systems and often painful individual efforts to keep themselves and their families safe.

Tuesday’s marker is a striking one because it’s a reminder of the promises that things would not be this way. Trump and his staff began promoting the number of around 200,000 total deaths, based on modeling chiefly promoted by Trump health adviser Dr. Deborah Birx, when they were still encouraging social distancing and business closures. Once they publicized that figure, they felt they could be guided not by health concerns but by the president’s desire to lift restrictions and shift responsibility away from himself to state leaders.

When Trump aides were citing those predictions, beginning in late March, medical experts warned that they were based on the assumption that the U.S. would successfully enforce tactics like mask-wearing and distancing for months to come ― a big factor to take for granted.

Privately, even some within the president’s team, like health officials Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Robert Redfield, warned that too many variables were at play to make an accurate prediction, The Washington Post reported. And analysts cited by the White House told the Post its procedure in forming estimates was rushed and overly predictive.

The president’s team was less interested in feedback than presenting a rosy story. A New York Times deep dive reported that Birx’s repeated private references to the models helped drive Trump’s public proclamations that the U.S. had the virus under control.

After Trump presented a figure he could describe as the extent of the crisis, he turned to his political priorities and instincts, even though he was aware of COVID-19’s seriousness, Bob Woodward’s recently released book showed. Trump began encouraging states to “liberate” citizens by ending lockdown policies even though they had not met guidelines set by his own administration and his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, sought to limit public appearances by Fauci, whom Trump aides saw as overly pessimistic.

The direct result was the politicization of a nonpartisan concern: protecting people from a little-known and highly contagious new disease.

With Trump leading the charge, Republicans challenged policies requiring people to wear masks in public as assaults on Americans’ liberties and questioned the importance of testing people so they could be made to isolate. Top officials began noticing an uptick in infections in early June, the Times reported, but by that point the damage was done. The forecasters Birx had relied on were updating predictions upwards and debates over coronavirus mitigation policies had activated tribal instincts among both conservatives and liberals, making it near-impossible to restore the shared sense of urgency ― and openness to public health measures ― that existed in March before the talk of estimated death tolls. In some areas, people even began attacking health officials.

Still mired in crisis and political discord, the U.S. has proved unable to either stem the spread of the virus or even process its effects thus far. Activists who lost family members to the virus are planning events to ensure the latest increases in numbers affected have a greater effect than simply making people’s eyes glaze over. Yet acknowledgement involves taking responsibility ― a big ask in current times.

Asked on Tuesday about the 200,000 milestone, White House press secretary Kayeligh McEnany responded that at least it wasn’t 2 million.

#9.22.20 #daily news #huffington post

0 notes

leonbloder · 4 years ago

Text

Keep Dreaming

I have this recurring dream that I usually will dream right as I am drifting off to sleep. It's nothing elaborate---just a head-on car crash... that's all.

When it happens, I will awake with a jolt, typically with a feeling of falling forward. Also, I almost always have that dream when I am feeling stressed, tired, worried, or just harboring a feeling of impending doom.

Which is pretty much how I feel every other day right about now.

The other night I had this elaborate dream where I ended up driving my car off the edge of one of those really tall on-ramps that we have in Austin. As the car was sailing over the side and into oblivion, I turned to my unknown passenger and said, "I'm sorry."

I know--it's messed up.

There's so much that I feel right about now---feelings that have been difficult to put into words. There are days when I've had just enough bad cable news, just enough encounters on social media with angry, frightened people to feel like I'm about to drive over the edge.

Some days it feels like things will never be right again. It feels as though we will never be able to come to any kind of unity in America over even the most basic things like equality, health, and well-being.

It also feels like that for many of us, our definitions of what constitutes the common good are separated by a great partisan gulf that will never be bridged. It's like we're not even seeing the same things.

Still, I hold on to hope. I hold on to the hope that the dreams I'm having will be replaced by beautiful ones, hope-filled ones that might actually come true.

I read this poem by Langston Hughes the other day that gave voice to that longing within me.

The Dream Keeper

Bring me all your dreams,

You dreamers,

Bring me all of your

Heart melodies

That I may wrap them

In a blue cloud-cloth

Away from the too-rough fingers

Of the world.

Is it the voice of God speaking in the poem? Perhaps. It could be the voice of God telling us that our secret dreams are safe with God. It could be the voice of God assuring us it's okay to dream of a better world, a more just world, a world united in seeking the actual common good... for all.

A world where we're able to differentiate between personal freedom and responsibility. A world where we don't politicize viruses. A world where everyone is given the opportunity to fairly and equitably pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

It could be the voice of God telling us we are safe to bring our dreams to God, and they will not be lost or dismissed. If so, it reminds me of the words of Jesus, who told those who were listening to him:

Come to me all you who are weary and overburdened and I will give you rest.

I learned that verse when I was a little kid in a church context where the people asking me to memorize didn't really understand it at all. They assumed that the call from Jesus was to too-weary "sinners" who were tired of living a life of sin, and wanted to get right with God.

But it's more than that for sure. Jesus was speaking to people who had grown weary with all of the rules, regulations, checklists, and pressures that were being placed on them by the overly-religious crowd. They had given up on their dreams for a just and inclusive world... a world filled with hope in the midst of even the worst circumstances.

And Jesus reminded them that their dreams were safe with him... safe with God... safe with the Dream Keeper, who protects our dreams from the "too-rough" fingers of the world.

So we keep going. What else are we to do, right? We move forward in faith and hope that the dreams we hold tightly in our hearts will one day be realized.

We move forward knowing that despite all that seems overwhelming and impossible--the Dream Keeper is the God of the impossible, the champion of lost causes, the restorer of diminished hope and the One who resurrects that which we thought was dead and gone.

I read this line from a Wendell Berry poem the other day and it resonated with me--especially considering what I've just written:

He knows if he can hold out long enough, the good is given its chance.

If we can just hold on long enough... If we can keep the faith a bit longer... If we can trust our dreams to God... perhaps we will begin to see that "the good" is given its chance at last. We might be able to see our dreams for a better world come true right before our eyes.

Keep going... keep holding on... keep dreaming.

And may the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you now and always. Amen.

0 notes

lakeshoredisaster · 4 years ago

Text

I am tired.

I’ve been watching the news carefully from my parents’ townhouse outside of DC.

Today, a reporter asked an ER doctor if he thought it was “okay” or “safe” for certain states—suffering from an uptick of COVID-19 cases—to consider reopening their local business. This is supposedly the dilemma, right? Do we punish local businesses for our country’s mistakes? Are we keeping our store owners and minimum wage workers any safer by restricting their ability to work? It’s an interesting question. If you ask me, I’d say we should all be indoors, practicing social distancing measures and being cautious of our interactions with those we love.

But, understandably, that view is a little hypocritical. I flew to Maryland about a week ago, braving airport germs and airplane etiquette because I wanted to see my family. So upon arrival, I’ve kept my distance, only seeing a select few relatives, and I’ve given numerous lectures about the benefits of mask safety. I’ve spent most of my time with my parents, both at home from work, watching the news or soccer or whatever strikes our fancy. All of that being said, I still broke *my* travel rule. So, I tell myself, maybe it’s unfair to judge others for their choices. But today’s news cycle has been a great reminder of why I’m okay labeling myself as a hypocrite when it comes to quarantine.

I flew to Maryland, not just to see my family, but to check on my father (and my mother), both who are old enough that their susceptibility to the disease is concerning. Even more concerning are the mental health consequences of COVID-19.

You see, my father —the youngest of 13— lost his elder brother to the pandemic a little over a month ago. As the youngest child, my dad spends many hours recalling stories of his siblings’ bond. My uncle Rayman, although not someone I was *super* close to, played a huge role in my father’s childhood development. My grandfather passed away when my dad was about 8 years old; leaving his young children (and older children) behind left an impact that I doubt he ever considered. So of course, my uncle stepped up. He was probably almost 30 at the time, but he had siblings to feed and nurture. And regardless of how close he was to my father (or to me), he did just that. My dad’s greatest memories of having a father, beyond the small memories he shares with my grandfather, are of my uncle. He was a father to my dad when he had no one else to look up to. In that same vein, as they both got older, I always noticed his ability to “father” my dad in a way that no one else really could. Simply put, it was because my dad respected him. He respected how hard he worked, he respected how much he cared, and he respected how he taught everyone else to do the same. He fed them, made sure they had shelter, and he watched them grow into their own persons.

My uncle went on to have a beautiful family: a loving wife, two amazing daughters, and several grandchildren–all full of life in an indescribable way. He was indeed their patriarch; he taught his daughters to be strong, independent women, and he loved his grandchildren so much that it hurt him when he wasn’t around them. So when my uncle got sick in April, their world came crashing down.

All the classic symptoms of COVID-19 were present, but they weren’t convinced just yet. Even worse, they lived in the epicenter of the pandemic at the time: Queens, NY. Instead of rushing him to the hospital, doctors asked if they could hold on just a little longer.... there weren’t enough beds available or enough doctors to treat him. So, naturally, he held on. His symptoms raged, and my cousins (and aunt) continued to worry. You see, they knew. They weren’t ready to say it, but they knew something was terribly wrong. And finally, he was admitted to his local hospital.

He died alone.

He died without his wife, his daughters, his beloved grandchildren. He died, in a cold, barren hospital room, with doctors and nurses a few feet away. We couldn’t see him. They couldn’t see him. They didn’t even get to see him before the funeral. They’ve been grieving for months because they never got any closure; it’s something no one will ever be able to provide them.

So, everyday, when I see people out on the streets having a blast without any care for others, or I see people say that COVID-19 numbers aren’t real, or I see people refusing to wear masks because it infringes on their personal freedom, my heart hurts. And it’s not because I claim to be overly connected to my uncle, but it’s because I love my father. And I know how much he loved my uncle, whether or not he had the chance to tell him that. He’ll never have that chance, and I hope my uncle died knowing how beloved he was. Because, in reality, he was the father that my own father needed in order to show him that he could raise a child.

COVID-19 isn’t just a disease or a pandemic. It breaks families apart in a way that you don’t realize. It tears people away from their loved ones without giving them the chance to express their love for that person. Most importantly, the pandemic brings out the most selfish and inconsiderate behaviors that I’ve ever seen. Somewhere along the way, we politicized the issue so much that people stopped giving a fuck about the people that have died. I’m writing this today because I am tired. I am tired of seeing my dad drown his sorrows, and talk about how much he’s hurting because he didn’t get to say goodbye to his brother. I am tired of seeing people display a lack of empathy that feels sociopathic. And I am tired of watching thousands (MILLIONS) of people die per day and per week, while we do nothing to stop it.

All I can ask is that if you know me, or if you’re reading this, you consider doing your part. Wear a mask, social distance, have empathy for others. Think about the black and brown and LGBTQ+ communities that are suffering from this pandemic. Consider how low-income neighborhoods are unable to directly combat the pandemic at unfortunate rates. Be more considerate, and don’t get caught up in “fake news” or in spreading rumors about how “numbers are inflated” and how we don’t know what’s “real” because our president says so.

At the end of the day, we should all agree that one death is one too many.

0 notes