#gross consumerism

[glitterdustcyclops]

made the mistake of counting up all the nail polishes i have on display on my rotating stand thingie

the total is 189

i just bought 7 more....

[wingsdippedingold]

I cannot be the only one deeply uncomfortable with the rampant sexualization of religion and people who work in it within the only book sphere. I’m not even Catholic.

I understand a lot of dark romance has religious elements, that’s not what I’m complaining about… BUT WHEN THAT’S YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE

BROTHER (not father) EUGHHH

Like what on earth??? Not even mentioning how all the art used to promote it is AI

[loptrcoptr]

Social media ads today are all just fuckin

BLACK FRIDAY STARTS ✨TODAY✨

get ready, Black Friday deals ARE HERE!!!

It’s officially BLACK FRIDAY!!!!! 🦃🦃🦃🦃

And I just

[phregnancy]

i have so many interior decor ideas i should be given a lot of money to decorate Now instead of buying some pieces every month

[viderose]

post some itty titty

i have a problem. i like attention, love it even. and i sometimes think i should post some cute pics again, yk, because obviously i’d get a kick if people paid attention to and liked them. however, the problem you see, is that when i like someone i never want to post those pics. i just want to send them to the person i like :/ because i don’t want anyones attention bar theirs. so i’m sorry anon, but the only person seeing more itty titty pics from me atm is the guy i’m obsessed with 💔

[mantaraymax]

this is def the most amt of books ive bought in a short amt of time... is this how booktokers feel cuz idk how anyone makes haul videos that often

[cosmogenous]

eww

[violetsandshrikes]

i wish there was a way to switch the toxic self care consumerism buy 100 products use 10 actives a day on your face eat random powders roll your skin 25x a day minimise pores trends to something more simple and real

because when i was 19-20, undiagnosed and untreated ptsd and mdd, out of control binge drinking, incredibly destructive lifestyle and habits, being able to slowly shift into those “self care” style habits really helped actually

like yeah. cleanse, moisturiser, sunscreen, so i feel like dried out and gross and im trying to be nice to my biggest organ. got blood tests from my doctor and got put on iron and vitamin b supplements. made sure i not only had a robust teeth brushing regime, but added in tongue scraping and flossing. like. these things have such potential to be actually good!! but have been morphed into some evil non-stop spending and publicly performing beast

[thedevilsrain]

western feminists: sex and the city is really funny and it was very important to hear women of the 1990s talking about sex and consumerism so openly 🥺

brazil 1970s: highest grossing movie in the history of the country is a sex comedy about a woman whose dead husband comes back to life only so that she can fuck him. also she's remarried so now she has two husbands, and every scene the ghost dead husband is in he's naked. also there's a hit song that ends with an all-female band screaming "I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU CRAZY INSIDE ME" while they pant. we're in a military dictatorship btw

[glitterdustcyclops]

i forgot to share since my brain is entirely zelda rn but i got my custom Xbox controller in the mail the other day & added the lil custom thumb grips i bought

looking pretty stinkin' cute if i may say so

[stairset]

Aight now that I've slept a bit and am less tired and have had some time to think about it, here is my hopefully coherent enough attempt to get my thoughts across on the Degenerate video, because I'm The Starset Guy and this is like the first major controversy they've ever had and even I have concerns about it and thus feel the need to get my thoughts out there. Cut-off for those who don't wanna scroll past all this cause it ended up being kinda long:

So first off just to get it out of the way: the song itself is great, as is to be expected with Starset. Vocals great, lyrics great, etc. No surprises there. Now to the actually controversial part, the music video. If you even wanna call it a music video, the video title calls it a visualizer instead but whatever. Semantics. Not the point.

So yeah, to start, I'm not exactly a fan of AI "art" for well, all the reasons everyone else has already brought up about it. But as other people have pointed out, in the case of this video there ARE some nuances to its usage that are worth discussing before jumping the gun and canceling the band. So first I'm actually gonna defend it a bit by going over the artistic intention behind it, then also point out the reasonable concerns that people have with it in spite of that intention.

So, I know this band. I know the lore and the narrative and the central themes and all that. The band's story centers around how technology shouldn't be abused by greedy corporate shitheads lest it ruin our society. Literally just a few months ago they released a book where the main antagonist was an AI that gained sentience and tried to enslave humanity. I'm not parasocial enough to pretend that I Know Dustin, but I know what he's about. And he's smart enough that I have to believe he didn't just make a move like this for no reason with no self-awareness. So yeah, I 100% get what the intent is here. As Dustin has said and others have repeated, the AI usage is clearly meant to be "ironic" and satirical, which becomes pretty clear when you actually watch the full video. Essentially it's using AI imagery to make fun of AI images. Real "I used the stones to destroy the stones" moment I guess. Lyrically, the song itself isn't SPECIFICALLY about AI, but it definitely is a big criticism of modern consumerism and commercialism in general, essentially talking about how we feel the need to stuff our faces with corporate-produced shit while our society is slowly falling apart around us. And while AI certainly isn't the sole problem there, it has certainly become a notable aspect of that larger problem, so it makes sense to satirize it to get the larger point across. The visualizer is gross and uncanny to look at on purpose. And it's clearly not trying to trick you into thinking it's NOT AI or anything, not trying to pass as something an actual human made with their own hands. It doesn't want you to be impressed by the visuals, it wants you to be disturbed by them. I compared it to the video for Linkin Park's "Lost" from last year since that was also made with AI visuals and as much as I also love that band and that song I'm still not exactly a fan of that particular choice. But the reason I bring it up is because I do think there's an interesting contrast in how it's being used in these two videos, as with the video for Lost it really did feel like it was using AI just for the sake of using it, riding the current trend, whereas here with Degenerate there's at least an actual reason for it, a reason that one can at least understand even if they don't like or agree with it.

Apparently Dustin's also said that they did pay artists to make the images for the specific purpose of running them through the AI for the video, though didn't really elaborate beyond that. But just based on what we know it does sound like these were consenting artists who knew what they were getting into here and were compensated for it. So it's not like it's a case of just stealing art or trying to replace actual humans to save a few bucks or anything, which is good since that's obviously one of the main concerns with AI in general.

There's also the fact that, as much as I don't like AI shit, the harsh reality is it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Personally if I had a magic button that could indefinitely halt all development on AI stuff until I can be sure that everyone will use it ethically and not abuse it then I would definitely hit that button, but the fact of the matter is that, for better or worse, it's here, it exists, and it will continue to evolve and be used. We can't just un-invent what's already been invented. And I'd argue that specific, limited, one-off uses like this are probably just about the most ethical way to implement it. Though of course I personally would rather this STAY a one-off thing, I absolutely do not want this kind of thing to become like, a regular thing for them. Or a regular thing in general.

But of course this video doesn't exist in a vacuum, there are other nuances here. Because as still more people have pointed out, using AI to make fun of AI is still using it. It's not like the video is in a completely neutral position, just commentating on the situation from afar. Even if it's making fun of AI, the fact that it's using it to do so means it's still feeding that AI, it is now another step forward in the evolution and proliferation of the thing that it's criticizing. One could argue that they maybe could have found a way to poke fun at it without actually using it. There's definitely a certain irony to be discussed in Making Fun Of The Thing By Doing The Thing. Is it being clever and meta? Or is it lacking forethought? Or maybe it's a bit of both. I don't know. Either way it's not exactly the best look, regardless of the intention and thought process behind it. Insert Torment Nexus joke here.

And although I SAID earlier that the satirical intent is pretty clear, it might not be clear to everyone. Even if the video isn't MEANT to set a precedent, it could unintentionally set a precedent anyway by inspiring copycats. Because unfortunately some people are simply too stupid to get obvious satire, especially if they're the ones the satire is aimed at. So it's entirely possible certain people will just see the trippy weird AI visuals and either won't realize or won't care what the the purpose behind them is and will just want to do it themselves because they think it's cool. And then THAT raises the whole question of "how much should you blame the person who made the satire for people being too dumb to get it, especially in cases like this where the satire is incredibly unsubtle and on the nose?" But then that's getting into a whole 'nother topic entirely so I'm not gonna dive into that.

And then of course there's other concerns like how research has shown that AI has a negative effect on the environment. As far as I know THAT particular concern hasn't been addressed so I don't know if they even considered that, but if they didn't then yeah, that's pretty irresponsible and lacking forethought.

There's also just the matter of personal preference, like even if you get that it's satire you might just think that it's not very good satire which is a fair opinion to have. Like personally I just didn't even really enjoy watching the video despite knowing full-well what The Point of it was.

So, in summation, taking all these points into account, I don't think that this particular usage of AI tools is THAT bad. I might even go as far as to say that it's like, fine I guess, at least in isolation. I think many assumed the worst before it came out but I don't think it's worth suddenly denouncing the band or going all "well actually they sucked the whole time and I totally never liked them anyway" or anything like that. Though I'm sure some people will start doing that. I'd say this is a somewhat questionable but not-too-egregious move, that there are legitimate concerns to be had and that I do share those concerns, and as I said I don't want this kind of thing to become the norm for them or for any other band, but I also don't think we should immediately conclude that the band has been Ruined Forever or anything. This kind of thing is a slippery slope, so I guess all we can really do is hope that Dustin doesn't end up falling down it. But that's my take on the whole thing. Maybe I'm being fair and nuanced and unbiased. Or maybe I'm just a hypocrite who's bending over backwards to give my fav the benefit of a doubt. I don't know. All I know is I just wanted to get all this off my chest at once so I can hopefully stop thinking about it and just enjoy the song on its own.

[littlesmartart]

DRAWTOBER #18 - Objects of Devotion by @emileesaurus

"Is that why you want me with you in New York?" Louis asked. "In case it's the end of the world?" Lestat looked at Louis strangely, his head tipped slightly to one side. His white hair fell against his shoulder, and Louis fought the urge to brush it back. They were in public, surrounded by mortals, but Lestat loomed so large in Louis's vision that none of it seemed truly real. "Would you be there with me if it was?" 1999. After months on the run from the Talamasca, Louis just wants to spend Christmas in New Orleans with Lestat. Will either of them ever manage to say what they actually mean? Featuring religious imagery and a trip to Montgomery Ward.

more book!loustat??? I'm spoiling you guys I know. I rarely read anything set so late in the series, but I'm particularly biased towards the author, and I wound up really enjoying how the general... deeply-fucked-up-ness of what happened in Merrick added to the depth of the Loustat relationship in this. with Y2K looming, the dead disasters spend the holiday season swimming through the tides of gross consumerism and find themselves in an unexpectedly tender moment in a church. gorgeous characterisation, managing to balance that sweet sweet emotional vulnerability with the realism of how messed up these two boys are. fully recommend.

[youreonyourown-kid]

Sorry to everyone but I still Stan Ariana Grande and I can’t wait for Wicked and Cynthia Erivo is perfection and has killed every roll she’s ever had and I can’t wait for the soundtrack and there is so much movie tie in crap being released and part of me is like ugh gross consumerism junk destroying the planet but it’s all so cute and I love pink and green and skdkcldmkclzmandkdkdnndmdksmnsnan

[thelesbianpoirot]

drag was ok when it was a subculture meant for gay men to try femininity and express themselves and connect to others. the moment it became mainstream it became about consumerism and mocking women as much as possible. theres nothing revolutionary about exaggerated make up and lipsyncing. i dont understand why people would pay to see that but thats just me.

It wasn't okay when it was that too. I have watched several documentaries about drag in the 60s-90s and it was misogynist then too. Lesbians at the time who were trying to form a united gay revolutionary movement were offended by their rampant misogyny then too and Drag queens responded to this criticism by telling lesbians we need to get fucked then too. Drag queens never had respect for women, even their gay sisters - their "importance" to femininity is the latest made-up bullshit to justify their behavior. But it was an underground gay male specific example of building something from nothing. And like an indie movie that's schlocky but was made by ambitious amateurs on a budget of couple $1000s of dollars, and blood, sweat and tears, you have respect for the struggle, even if the product is still not good. I will not lie. The mainstreaming and consumerism, plus trying to make family friendly celebrities of talentless vulgar men makes it worse. A drag queen gets cancelled for racist remarks, grossness towards kids and etc every other week on twitter but the lgbt crowd forgives and protects them, but is willing to throw away women (gay or straight) no matter how accidental or slight their fuck up is or how they beg for forgiveness. Drag becoming what it is, is a big example of male privilege. While female majority, female orientated, performance art gets mocked and stays unprofitable, slam poetry, modern dance, etc. This "art" can be dragged out of the sewer and be painted gold and put on display for the world to see.

[deadmeat]

people's obsession with consumerism and materialism is really gross to me idk why

[justforbooks]

Morgan Spurlock

American film-maker best known for his acclaimed 2004 documentary Super Size Me

Few film-makers can say that their work has made a change to the real world, but Morgan Spurlock had a stronger claim than most. His 2004 documentary Super Size Me, an exposé of how the fast food industry was fuelling America’s obesity epidemic, appeared to have direct repercussions for the world’s largest fast food chain, McDonald’s.

Shortly before the film came out in May that year, the company introduced its Go Active! menu, which included salad items; six weeks after its release, the company abolished its supersize portions entirely.

McDonald’s claimed these menu changes were a coincidence. But the director, who has died aged 53 of complications from cancer, struck a timely blow at the business when awareness about fast food’s corrosive role in public health was on the rise.

Super Size Me’s high-concept premise – eating three McDonald’s meals for 30 days straight – was key to conveying Spurlock’s message. With the director gaining 11kg, plumping out his body fat from 11% to 18% and inflicting heart palpitations, impotence and depression on himself, his gonzo approach put him at the forefront of the early noughties boom in cinematic documentaries instigated by Michael Moore. “There’s real power in a documentary,”Spurlock later said.

Doubts later emerged about Spurlock’s experiment in bodily attrition, after he refused to release his diet logs from the period; and then when it later emerged that he was an alcoholic who had also imbibed during the shoot.

An inveterate attention-seeker and twinkly-eyed showman, he was not going to let these details affect either the purity of Super Size Me’s marketing line, or his emerging career as a documentary star; a budding Moore for the Jackass generation. He would consistently target totems of modern capitalism and consumerism, though none of his subsequent works had the same kind of influence as his 2004 lightning-bottler.

Spurlock was born in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and grew up in Beckley in the Methodist household of his auto-repair shop-owning father Ben and mother Phyllis, an English teacher and high-school counsellor. Though his parents later divorced, he credited his mother in particular with instilling in him a sense of activism: “She was one of those people who speak up when she didn’t agree with things. She was a collector of people too: if you had the ability to help people, you should,” he told the International Documentary Association.

A childhood fan of British humour such as Fawlty Towers and Monty Python, he was already exercising his entertainer’s streak doing “funny walks” around the house aged six or seven.

Rejected five times by University of Southern California’s film school, he graduated from the New York University Tisch School of the Arts in 1993. “I wanted to be Spielberg. I wanted to write and direct scripted movies,” Spurlock told Interview magazine. He originally showed promise in this direction, winning an award for his stage play The Phoenix at the New York international fringe festival in 1999.

After stints as a personal assistant on Woody Allen’s Bullets Over Broadway and Luc Besson’s Leon (both 1994), Spurlock first stepped in front of camera as a promotional spokesman for Sony Electronics. But his breakthrough came though hitching himself to the reality TV bandwagon with the self-created internet webcast, and, later (in 2002), MTV show, I Bet You Will. As one of the presenting team, Spurlock goaded members of the public into humiliating themselves for money – with stunts such as being “wedgied” or eating a worm burrito.

Super Size Me grossed $22m on a $65,000 budget, making it one of the most profitable documentaries of all time. Spurlock believed his body never fully recovered – though he lost the weight thanks to a special diet concocted by his then girlfriend, the vegan chef Alex Jamieson (the pair married and had a son, Laken, in 2006, before divorcing in 2011; Spurlock had been previously married to Priscilla Somer between 1996 and 2003).

He also later expressed doubts about the longer-term impact of Super Size Me on fast food corporations, later reflecting: “People say to me, ‘So has the food gotten healthier?’ And I say, ‘Well, the marketing sure has.’”

Spurlock could not skewer the zeitgeist again to create a second “doc-buster”, despite tilting at big-hitter topics such as terrorism (in 2008’s Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?) and product-placement and advertising (POM Wonderful Presents: the Greatest Movie Ever Sold in 2011). With his trademark handlebar moustache, he settled into a reliably affable front-of-camera presence nosing around socio-cultural issues and foibles – sometimes fatuously.

In total, he directed and produced nearly 70 films and series, including a One Direction hagiography in 2013 and a Super Size Me sequel in 2017. But he retained keen business sense and marketing nous throughout this prolific output. “He taught us that we have to be chief executive artists,” his fellow documentary-maker Ondi Timoner told Variety.

Towards the end of Spurlock’s life, his career was on hold after he confessed in a 2017 blogpost to sexually abusive behaviour, including an allegation of rape while at college and paying off a production assistant he had harassed. “I have been unfaithful to every wife and girlfriend I have ever had,” he also wrote, explaining he had been sexually abused in his youth. He divulged all this possibly pre-emptively in anticipation of future accusations in the up swell of the #MeToo movement.

Making himself the focus of the story was true to his modus operandi, and his professed desire for self-improvement could indeed have made a fascinating documentary.

But the mea culpa proved an effective self-cancellation, with him resigning from the production company, Warrior Poets, he had founded in 2004 and being sued by Turner Entertainment Networks for an aborted project.

He divorced his third wife, the producer Sara Bernstein – with whom he had a second son – in 2024. His final documentary credit was for a mockumentary creating a fake history around the classic 1992 Simpsons episode Homer at the Bat.

Spurlock is survived by his children, Laken and Kallen, by his parents and his brothers, Craig and Barry.

🔔 Morgan Spurlock, director and producer, born 7 November 1970; died 23 May 2024

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?