#instead of....you know......joe rogan types | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

formidableaziz · 1 year ago

Text

WHY WE LOVE PODCASTS

Introduction

Ever since Covid began, I felt myself drawn towards podcasts much more than I had been before it. I mean, I used to slip in and out of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast from time to time but I was never hooked into it.

Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, we have seen a huge surge of new and fresh podcast content on the internet, because everyone, was indoors and there was an overwhelming sense of craving for human connection.

It was apparent that the mode of communication was digital, and the only way to truly connect in a more humane way was the long-form content on podcasting.

Podcasts can be considered the modern equivalent of radio but on-demand. The whole idea of podcasts emerged when former MTV video jockey Adam Curry and software developer Dave Winer coined the term “iPodder” back in 2004. It is important to understand that the primary purpose of a podcast is to either entertain or educate its listeners.

Generally, podcasts are categorized into 4 types: Conversational, Narrative nonfiction, Scripted fiction, and Repurposed content. Let’s try to understand them in brief.

a) Conversational podcasts are informal in nature and are usually the most popular type because it is unscripted, spontaneous, and fun. The host and their guests share valuable life lessons, experiences, and anecdotes on the subject matter in which they are an expert. Popular podcasts in this category include The Joe Rogan Experience, Stuff You Should Know, Call Her Daddy, The NPR Politics, and Guy Raz’s How I Built This.

b) Narrative nonfiction podcasts are structured long-form content that dives deep into a specific real-life event or a true story. Popular ones in this category are S-Town, The American Life, Wind of Change, and Simon Whistler’s The Casual Criminalist.

c) Scripted fiction is a fairly new type of podcast where intriguing fiction topics like Alien, Sci-fi dystopia, and historical fiction are explored with the purpose of entertaining the listeners. The most popular ones are Edith and Girl in Space.

d) Repurposed content are podcasts that highlight or summarize key events of let’s say, a TV show or an analysis of a movie by the producers or actors. It talks about already packaged content to a niche interested audience.

The top 10 most popular podcasts according to Edison Research’s 2022 third-quarter report are as follows:

The Joe Rogan Experience

Crime Junkie

The Daily

This American Life

The Ben Shapiro Show

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder

Morbid: A True Crime Podcast

Dateline NBC

Office Ladies

Although Youtube is the preferred source for binging on podcasts, there are other platforms where you can listen to podcasts. These are:

Apple Podcast

Spotify

Google Podcast

Overcast

Podcast Addict

Recently, the appeal of binging on video content gave rise to Vodcasts (Video plus podcasts) as more and more people prefer watching and listening to the content instead of just listening to the audio format.

Immersive Storytelling

Podcasts have the ability to transport the listener to different worlds, historical periods, and perspectives. One only has to listen to Dan Carlin’s The Hardcore History’ to understand what I mean by immersive storytelling.

The long format allows the host/guests to take the listener on a journey from start to finish making sure to lay out the entire story without missing any details.

Informative and Educational Content

Apart from the aspect of fiction or non-fiction storytelling, podcasts also serve to quench the thirst of knowledge seekers with up-to-date information from industry experts. It is the perfect medium to learn about a particular topic in-depth. Nowadays, there are many niche podcasts dedicated to exploring key and current trends in the field of science, history, philosophy, geography, etc. For instance, in the scientific space, Andrew Huberman’s podcast fits perfectly as both informative and educational. He covers extensively in-depth on the topic of mental health and makes videos on optimal performance and health, sometimes crossing the 4-hours mark.

Multi-tasking and Convenience

Personally, this one is big for me. I dislike staring at a screen for a long period of time. It makes me feel guilty and uneasy for wasting away my precious time when I could be doing something productive instead. However, I do not feel that way when I tune in to podcasts. Mainly because I am able to do other things besides listening to podcasting such as working out, doing my usual chores, or doing other creative work. I am sure this point resonates with many other people who love listening to podcasts.

Now you might ask, why listen to podcasts when there is music as an alternative? Well, music can be really distracting and over time becomes repetitive and monotonous without adding that extra layer of knowledge to the listener. Furthermore, if you can pair the habit of listening to podcasts with doing your chores or tasks, you will begin to start looking forward to doing that task next time! Ain’t that an amazing psychological tip?

Authenticity and Intimacy

Perhaps one of the foremost reasons why people are flocking away from the scripted agenda-fueled mainstream media to podcasts is because the unscripted and raw conversations in podcasts make the audience feel they are not being manipulated and coerced into accepting any beliefs or opinions. It eases the audience and makes them feel like they are in the company of genuine people. Gradually, the audience starts feeling a sense of belonging to that community created by the podcaster. Many people reported feeling as though they were sitting beside the podcaster and the guest. Furthermore, I personally feel as though there has been a shift in my personality ever since I started listening to podcasts. I have noticed that I have become way more open-minded and empathetic as a person after listening to countless hours of real-life tragic stories from guests and their moving and inspiring stories.

Niche and Specialised Communities

The amount of new podcasts released every day means the niche communities are getting larger and larger. This allows people to learn in-depth about a specific topic, let’s say cancer, in-depth. Honestly, without the medium of podcasts, it would be near impossible for an ordinary person to receive such insider industry information from the experts, that too in detail.

I sincerely believe these niche podcasts also allow marginalized communities of other faith or ideologies to likely be more accepted and embraced by others. The long form opens the audience to gain a holistic viewpoint and perspectives coming from that specific community. As a result, this makes people more tolerant and inclusive. In this societally-fragmented digital age, it is ever important for people to become a part of a larger community.

Diverse and Inclusive Voices

Expanding on the previous point, podcasts provide marginalized communities with a voice to express themselves better. It gives them a chance to express their way of life, ideologies, beliefs, and opinions. It makes them feel heard.

It is not just about communities though, many sub-culture topics considered taboo before, such as the use of psychedelics or MDMA to cure anxiety or depression emerged from podcasts. Early proponents like Joe Rogan and Aubrey Marcus spoke about these topics at a time when they were not considered mainstream but part of a sub-culture. People became more warm and receptive to these ideas as time went by through listening to their podcasts.

Interactivity and Listener Engagement

Because of the niche communities, the audience is encouraged to participate freely by commenting, suggesting, or recommending as subscribers. Podcast creators value the input of their loyal subscribers and often pave a two-way interaction between the creator and subscribers.

There are also specific episodes dedicated to the audience. For instance, Andrew Huberman started an ‘Ask Me Anything’ series for paid subscribers where he answers the questions posed by the subscribers. So, podcasts inspire the audience, and the audience in turn keeps the creator going.

Varied Formats and Genres

As mentioned earlier, there are so many types of genres and formats to choose from that it can cater to different segments of the population. There are serious academic podcasts only discussing science, literature, history, geography, business, arts, etc.

On the other hand, there is also the funny, humorous, and sarcastic type of podcasts where hosts seem to have a good time nonchalantly discussing random topics in a casual manner in order to entertain the audience, such as Logan Paul’s ‘The Impaulsive Podcast’. It depends on the person’s mood. Sometimes, we feel like listening to something serious and educational, and at other times, we want to listen to something that makes us laugh and where we can unwind and relax.

Conclusion

Now, we can clearly see why there has been an explosion of podcasts recently and their rising popularity over the past decade. I highly encourage my dear readers and listeners to explore different types of podcast genres and find the right one for you. Who knows, you might become a podcaster yourself over time!

To conclude, I believe the natural tendency for humans to interact and connect in meaningful ways, will only make podcasts more popular in the future. This will only further push the demand to churn out more juicy podcasts in the future and I cannot wait to hear them all!

#podcast #entertainment #internet

1 note · View note

centrally-unplanned · 18 days ago

Text

I don't know if the Dark Enlightenment types are the right frame for this - that movement is pretty contemporaneous with the Internet Atheist community, even if peaked a few years later. Steve Sailer was doing his stuff in the late 90's; Curtis Yarvin started sketching out the Cathedral in 2007, a year after Dawkin's God Delusion was published. Reddit itself was only founded in 2005; R/Atheism wasn't taken off the "front page" till I think ~2013?

Instead I think the right frame is the "Intellectual Dark Web", which was Jordan Peterson's initial grouping. He is the most-discussed person imo in the name-defining 2018 NYT's column, for example. This was fundamentally an anti-SJ movement, but while it of course petered out I can't say they did as a whole any worse than Richard Dawkins? Looking at other names on that list, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Claire Lehmann, etc, all seemed to do quite fine! Don't have to like them, I am neutral-to-negative myself, but I can't say they did "worse" than Atheism did. And of course others like Shapiro & Owens were always just conservatives, and took the natural course that would - as Trump supporters they are doing exactly what that looks like and succeeding well enough (it did turn out to be the not-ideal horse to ride compared to bootlicking conspiracy nativism I guess)

Jordan Peterson was "in between" a lot of camps, flirting with neo-reactionaries and trad conservatives and even a little bit heterodox centrists, and ofc was always a "moment" figure as these sort of Grand Idea people (versus conflict-of-the-day pundit types like Shapiro), but I could see him going a lot of ways. A different version of him could absolutely be doing a Joe Rogan. He just, you know, become a lunatic, and a drug addict, and just a hot fucking mess. Similar to Eric Weinstein (never followed the other one), who just clearly went insane on conspiracy nonsense. Couldn't survive that as an atheist either!

Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins apparently had a debate or a discussion or something, and it's only just occurring to me that

a) Peterson really missed his moment in becoming famous a decade after the Atheist Wars, could've been the fifth horseman of the apocalypse on those /r/atheist memes.

b) Him and the other "Dark Enlightenment" types were an attempt to recapture this, or at least they were downstream of the aesthetic, which failed in part because in switching the enemy from "Religion" to "Feminism" meant there was selection against the types dumb enough to think they were against the same level of argument as before, and in part because that's a move that alienated much of the same vaguely-left-wing group that used to make it up

22 notes · View notes

fantastic-nonsense · 5 years ago

Text

@writer-of-words replied to your post “also like…just so y’all know…this nonsense and my response isn’t...”

I wish we had a (truly) leftist candidate who didn’t compromise their ideals to appeal to “centrists” by throwing the most marginalized under the bus. All I know about JR is his transphobia and that’s all I need to know. I’d be more keen to wholeheartedly back Warren (as opposed to casually support for pushing Dems more left) if she’d do the work to make up to Indigenous folk

Oh but she is! I’m actually really excited that I get to talk about this, because I think it’s one of the biggest misconceptions of Warren and her campaign.

First of all, I think it’s important to note that she has formally apologized on more than one occasion and has been actively meeting with leaders from various Native American tribes and communities to discuss policies that are important to them. So in that respect, she is actively making the effort and doing the work by meeting, listening, and absorbing.

Second, Warren was the first candidate to come out with a policy agenda specifically aimed at lifting up and empowering indigenous communities; she remains the only candidate still in the race to do so (Castro also rolled out a detailed plan; Castro has since endorsed Warren and is actively campaigning for her). Sanders has two bullet-pointed paragraphs on the subject, but Warren is the only one that has clearly done the homework (with the input of indigenous leaders!) on what actually needs to be done with respect to those communities. She is actively listening, learning, and bettering herself on the subject, and that’s something that is very rare in politicians (especially these days, unfortunately).

Finally, she also tapped Deb Haaland (one of two of the first Native American women in Congress, elected just two years ago in the 2018 midterms) to be one of her three national campaign co-chairs (a position of enormous power, influence, and voice); the other two are Katie Porter (a progressive that won a traditionally Republican House District in California and a former student of Warren’s) and Ayanna Pressley (current House Rep from Massachusetts and the fourth member of “The Squad”).

I note Haaland specifically not just because it shows Warren is genuinely making the effort by elevating Native voices to positions of power within her campaign, but also because Warren has been collaborating with her for quite some time, such as introducing legislation to address chronic underfunding and tribal sovereignty issues in Indian Country back in August.

All of this is to say that Warren is actively working to “walk the walk” and not just talk the talk, both in elevating indigenous people to positions of power and influence and actively working with them to understand what is going on in their communities and how they need help. Which goes back to one of the many reasons I support her: she is someone both humble enough to recognize that someone else's plan might be better and more informed than hers and someone who is proactive enough to listen to her constituents, use them to identify pitfalls in current legislation and law, and write plans and legislation to address those gaps.

Hope that helps clear up at least a few of your concerns, and let me know if you’d like to talk about anything else!

#writer-of-words #elizabeth warren #us politics #politics #2020 election #2020 democratic primary #also a big plus in that her focus is turning out the actual Dem base and pulling in fiscal conservatives/anti-corruption folk #instead of....you know......joe rogan types

13 notes · View notes

angelicguy · 3 years ago

Text

pop journalism is really huge rn because like. no one trusts media outlets. and everyones over the idea that reporting can be unbiased (it cant be) so instead of trusting a gigantic business to form your opinions most people are placing their trust in guys they think they kinda like and relate to but dont know (anyone with a politically centric blog or podcast) problem is, theyre just interpreting the facts that are generally floating around. on the ground reporters are doin the legwork. so essentially you have hardworking folks on the scene trying their best to scrape a narrative from an event so its not totally lost to time and space for very tiny paychecks and then joe rogan types go "heres what i bet happened" and make one jillion dollars off of it

39 notes · View notes

runthepockets · 1 year ago

Text

White trans men kinda piss me off and are impossible to talk to for this reason. Like they're socialized with the idea that anyone with a dick is the enemy, and they just believe it. Even when they transition and are regularly read as people with penises, they're just like "well this doesn't apply to me" instead of wondering what leads people to these conclusions in the first place. Growing up many of my peers were black and latino boys, and that was the manhood that shaped me. Becoming a man and regularly passing as your average cis black guy lead me further down a hole of intersectional feminism and brought me closer to these men that I previously thought possible and made it easier to accept myself, too. I don't understand why white trans men are not doing this for themselves and the men (both cis and trans) in their lives.

And it's not entirely their fault, of course, there's also the Gamergate guys and the Incels and the Joe Rogan types, centuries upon centuries of slavery-- it's definitely harder for them to make peace with their birthright in some ways than it is for mine in the same ways. I come from the men who invented everything from Rock music, Rap, R&B, and Hip Hop, to the guys that probably built the sidewalks you walk on and pick up the garbage you put out every week. This is a very different and kinder reality than the descendants of men who stole these things, and are directly responsible for putting other men (and women) in positions of financial and physical vulnerability. They have very few role models that do the right things for the right reasons. As much as they annoy me, I feel for white trans guys.

That said.....those guys are a fairly small demographic of the world. The right wing / annoying dudes you knew in high school do not have the monopoly on anything. Those guys are more often than not read as incompetent weirdos who live in insular echo chambers with other white people and a handful of self hating nonwhite people. Like, just cus me and Andrew Tate are both straight black guys doesn't mean you're going to see me trying to make up for all of his failures. That's simply not realistic and simply not what I was put on this Earth to do, especially when I know most straight black men are not Andrew Tate anyway.

There are some very nice white boys out there, some who laugh at inappropriate times and some with shaved heads and "poor" fashion sense and many with penises. And a lot of them are chill dudes. I'm personally a big fan of John Goodman, Tony Hawk, Steve-O, Riley Gale, John Tardy, Dylan Walker, Chase Mason, Zach Hill, Hunter S. Thompson, and, of course, Travis Miller (Lil Ugly Mane). My best friend in 3rd grade-- a white boy-- started the semester hating me for racist reasons, then came around to protect me from every bully and indulge me during every playground LARP fantasy of Mortal Kombat and the previous weekend's Naruto episode, because he got to know me a little better over the course of the year. It's not the end of the world if you slip up, sometimes. It's your reception (or lack thereof) to change and growth that really dictate your character.

There are many ways to be a good white dude that don't boil down to perpetually framing yourself as frail and waifish to alleviate yourself as all responsibility, or constantly self deprecating, or worse yet framing yourself as superior due to being a male feminist (that's basically what every post that frames trans men as superior to cis men boils down to, to me) and/or knocking cis guys for everything from being (understandably) insecure around hobbies and clothes that they were taught to read as feminine, to, like, just straight up having "different chromosomes" rather than their actual, material harm toward women children and queer people. Like it's really not as stressful as a lot of you are making it for yourselves. Please heal.

Every day a white trans guy has to reconcile being a feminist with his white masculinity and he has to make it everyone else's problem. Like bro, you can smoke shirtless on your porch and still think women are people. You can lift at the gym and still think women are people. You can play video games with a shaved head and still think women are people. You can have a dick and still think women are people. Cis men do it every day. Trans men too. You will be ok.

14 notes · View notes

blazehedgehog · 2 years ago

Note

Thoughts on all the UFO/UAP news recently?

When that footage was declassified last year it was pretty interesting until it was discovered that the guy pushing for that was some kind of lifer who's been behind a lot of really shady things in the past. I caught a whiff of an ulterior motive and checked out.

And to be quite honest, despite maintaining an open mind about topics like this, I haven't paid too much attention to it in years. I used to be a big listener of things like Coast to Coast AM, but in modern times, the idea of a "conspiracy theory" takes on a different tone than something fun like the X-Files. Instead, you have preppers with assault rifles storming pizza parlors because reddit told them there was a child smuggling ring in the basement. That's not very fun!

It doesn't help that the few times I've dared to check out what's happening in Coast to Coast AM lately they're always doing a discussion on issues like covid and vaccine side effects. The worst kind of scaremongering paranoia junk. Or worse, I think I saw them doing episodes on NFTs and bitcoin. I have little interest in diet Joe Rogan garbage.

Which is to say nothing of Mysterious Universe, a podcast I used to love quite a lot. I'm sure what Coast to Coast AM is doing looks downright tame compared to how angry and psychopathic the Mysterious Universe guys went.

So my sources for this type of information have sort of dried up, let's say.

I dunno. Skimming the article about the hearing from last month, my only concern was what this was trying to distract people from. That seems to be how these things operate lately. Ignore climate change, ignore the pandemic, ignore what the supreme court is doing, we're getting vague gesturing that UFOs could possibly be true, maybe! Or something! It's very non-specific.

Maybe I've just become very disenfranchised with this whole concept lately because of what a shambles it feels like the government is in now. And their big reveal of "We don't know what these are but they aren't aliens" is very much in line with that idea. This will end with another half-coherent explanation of "oh it's just ball lightning" and once again nothing will come of it.

#questions #Anonymous #ufo #uap

3 notes · View notes

palmtreepalmtree · 4 years ago

Text

Hey everyone! I am pleased to present the first holiday edition of...

The Worst Movie on Netflix Right Now™!

Today we’re going to talk about the first Netflix holiday release, Holidate.

Deep sigh.

OYEZ, OYEZ. NOW COMES BEFORE THE COURT THE CASE OF PALMTREEPALMTREE V. NETFLIX.

NETFLIX PRESENTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE HOLIDAY ROMANCE GENRE THE NETFLIX FILM KNOWN AS HOLIDATE (HENCEFORTH ”THE FILM”). THE FILM IS CHARGED WITH UNNECESSARY ADULT LANGUAGE, POOR CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, CRUELTY TO SINGLE PEOPLE, AND NEGLIGENT TREATMENT OF SERIOUS FIREWORK INJURIES.

PALMTREEPALMTREE, PLEASE PRESENT YOUR CASE.

Thank you, your honors and friends and gentlepeople of the jury. Today we consider a film known as Holidate and whether it’s worthy of our collective viewing. Let’s cut right to the chase here. It is not worthy of our time.

Let me break this one down for you:

THE PREMISE

The premise of The Film is pretty much the only thing that’s not bad about it. A young woman, tired of feeling uncomfortable as the only single person at family get-togethers, makes a pact with a handsome man that she randomly met at the mall to be each others’ so-called holidates. They basically agree to attend whatever events need attending on the holidays with zero romantic expectations.

As a premise for a rom-com, this is totally sound. We’ve arranged for our two heroes to spend quality time together that will eventually lead to them falling in love, right? Right.

So where does this go wrong?

UNNECESSARY ADULT LANGUAGE

The Film kicks right off with a mature rating. It really wants you to know it’s mature. In fact, this is the first line of the movie:

She promptly extinguishes that cigarette on the head of a light-up Santa Claus. You might immediately think, OH HAHA FUNNY. But no, it’s not. Take it from an expert. Cursing for cursing’s sake is not funny. It’s true that the word ‘fuck’ may have a funny fucking rhythm to it, but the word alone is not a fucking joke. It’s not inherently funny to say ‘FUCK.’ Also, ‘pussy,’ ‘slut,’ and ‘clitoris.’ Not funny when you’re just working it into a sentence for no purpose.

It’s like this movie wants to be the Bad Santa of holiday rom-coms. But who the fuck asked for that? This movie is like the girl who claims she’s ‘not like other girls.’ This movie is the girl who ‘doesn’t know why, but only has guy friends.’ This is the ‘girl who listens to the Joe Rogan podcast’ of rom-coms. None of these things fucking exist. But this movie sure is trying.

POOR CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

Listen, I’m not saying that all women in the world have friends. But most women in the world (especially pre-long-term partnership) have some sort of friend group. Even if it’s long distance or online or something. But the main character here, played by Emma Roberts, appears to have no one. Just her consistently abusive family members (more on that later).

The premise of this movie quickly morphs from “I need a date to bring to my family events,” to “I need a date for every holiday on the calendar including ones that don’t involve my family.” Why does she want to hang out with this rando on St. Patrick’s Day? Cinco de Mayo? Halloween? WHERE ARE HER FUCKING FRIENDS?

There are no friends in sight. This would be more believable if the script even hinted that she had friends. Like maybe she’s tired of third-wheeling it with her couple friends while she tries to find dates of her own? Or maybe she’s super emotionally wrecked from her last guy (even though she only dated him for a few months!?!?!?) But no. Instead, she spends the better part of the year of this movie going out with this fucking placeholder instead of trying to meet people or having fun with her actual fucking friends.

Her personality is just a general sketch of habits: eats junk food, smokes and lies about it, works from home, enjoys pajama pants, etc. We know nothing about her otherwise. At least she’s not clumsy.

If it seems weird that I haven’t mentioned the male lead that’s because he’s fucking boring and I don’t really give a shit about him. He’s oatmeal.

CRUELTY TO SINGLE PEOPLE

I honestly can’t believe I have to say this, but if you’re going to make a rom-com that people can relate to maybe you should not spend the entire film showing contempt towards single people? Actual lines from the movie:

[with shock horror] “What do you mean, you don’t have a date for Valentine’s Day!?”

“She’s going to die alone in a wheelchair and a diaper.”

“Human beings aren’t meant to be alone on the holidays.”

“She doesn’t need another friend she needs a husband. A partner. Someone legally bound to be there during the chemo.”

The main character’s single status is treated by everyone as sad, pathetic, something that needs to change as soon as humanly possible. They are aggressively cruel to her about her single status. Her mother says things to her like, “I care about you.” And characters are always observing that she seems sad. I can credit the Film with these expressions coming out of a sincere place. But because it simultaneously always plays those moments for laughs, there’s an element of meanness to it.

“YOU SEEM SO SAD, HAHAHA!!!!”

Look, I’m not saying the movie doesn’t have a point. I think human connection is really important. Caring for other people and having people who care about you is important. But this movie and all of its characters treat romantic relationships as if they are the only type of relationship worth pursuing. What if this movie ended with them just being friends? Would that have been so bad?

Also, nearly all of the other romantic relationships in this movie are a fucking disaster --- and again, they are played for laughs. The main character’s sister is trapped in a marriage where she and her husband are living separate lives with different priorities and values; her brother has gotten engaged to a woman after three months of dating who HAHA he doesn’t even seem to know very well; and her mom is single and maybe possibly is projecting her own fears and loneliness even though that’s never actually acknowledged in any way?

I don’t know guys, but I think a rom-com should leave you feeling optimistic about love. I mean, what the fuck else is the point?

NEGLIGENT TREATMENT OF SERIOUS FIREWORK INJURIES

Look, I don’t want to get into the weeds here, but in the pursuit of cheap laughs, this movie absurdly treats some pretty serious injuries lightly and it’s weird and it doesn’t work and I honestly don’t know why this movie is what it is. It should be called Holidate: a movie in search of a tone.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

A good rom-com requires several things to be truly successful: 1) a fun, engaging premise; 2) believable characters that you care about and want to end up together; and 3) a good feeling at the end that leaves you optimistic and warm and fuzzy. This movie may succeed in being occasionally funny (I guess, if that’s your sort of thing, it’s not mine, I just thought it was weird and gross, and I don’t fucking know), but it fails on 2/3 of those requirements.

Not to mention, WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF KRISTIN CHENOWETH.

In conclusion, your honor and gentlepeople of the jury:

THIS MOVIE IS A FUCKING MESS AND IT SHOULD LEAVE SINGLE PEOPLE ALONE.

#ptpt reviews #also does he look weirdly older than her?#mcg can fucking bite me

43 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 4 years ago

Link

It was the mid-1980s, and African American rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and blues musician and activist Daryl Davis had just finished performing a set with his band in a bar in Frederick, Maryland.

As he left the stage, a White man—who would later reveal himself to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan—went up to Davis, put his hand around his shoulder and expressed his approval and admiration for his performance. “This is the first time I heard a Black man play piano like Jerry Lee Lewis,” he told Davis after they exchanged pleasantries. Surprised with the statement, Davis quickly replied, “Well, where do you think Jerry Lee Lewis learned how to play that kind of style? . . . He learned it from the same place I did: Black blues and boogie-woogie piano players.” The White man was in disbelief and refused to accept Davis’ proposal.

Hearing about this incident on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast made me realise that I had been just as ignorant and oblivious as this man about the extent of the artistic contributions of Black people to American music. The moment also sparked within me many questions about my state of ignorance. Why did I not know about these artists? How much more did I not know? How much of the music I listened to was indeed Black?

As an Indian girl growing up in Kuwait in the 2000s, my exposure to American popular music came primarily through television channels like MTV Arabia (the Middle Eastern iteration of MTV) and MBC (Middle East Broadcasting Center) as well as the radio station Radio Kuwait FM 99.7. Hit singles from a range of American artists, including Black artists, were in heavy rotation along with other shows. My favourite was an MTV show called ‘Rewind’ which played classic pop, R&B and hip hop hits from the previous decades. Songs were played in cars and at parties and hummed in classrooms by local as well as expatriate teens of various nationalities who, like myself, were unaware of the cultural and historical backstories of the music.

For example, I heard of Elvis Presley, dubbed the “King of Rock ‘n’ Roll,” on television shows and news media due to his iconic status, but until recently, I had no idea that Presley was profoundly influenced by and “borrowed” from Black blues, gospel and rhythm ‘n’ blues artists of and before his time. He was influenced by radio performances of then local Black disc jockeys like B. B. King (who later came to be known as the “King of the Blues”) and Rufus Thomas (who also became a successful recording artist) and by performers at the Black nightclubs he visited during his teenage and young adult years.

Furthermore, I only recently learnt that many of Presley’s early recordings were covers of original songs by Black artists and that some of his biggest-selling songs like ‘Don't Be Cruel’ and ‘All Shook Up’ were penned by a Black musician by the name of Otis Blackwell. In fact, the first time I heard about it was last year in a YouTube video of a speech that Michael Jackson gave in 2002. While facts like this have now become somewhat common knowledge for most people in the West, my lack of awareness of Blackwell and others like him may be the residual effect of a time in the United States’ past when racial segregation permeated every aspect of life, including music and entertainment.

Dr Portia K. Maultsby is a renowned ethnomusicologist and professor emerita at the Department of Folklore and Ethnomusicology at Indiana University and the founder of the university’s Archives of African American Music and Culture. Maultsby took up the study of African American popular music traditions in the 1970s when there was no one looking into it as a valid area of research. She explains that segregation ensured that White Americans remained ignorant of Black musical traditions.

“Due to the segregated structure of the country for years and years, White Americans were kept away from the sounds of Black music,” Maultsby says. During this time, many Black jazz, gospel, R&B and soul artists enjoyed popularity in and even toured different parts of Europe. However, within the United States, Black artists were relegated to the so-called category of ‘race music’, an umbrella term—later replaced by ‘rhythm ‘n’ blues’ in the 1940s—used to denote essentially all types of African American music made by Black people, for Black people. The songs were distributed by mostly White-owned record labels catering exclusively to Black audiences, which meant that the White population remained largely ignorant of the large volumes of work that was recorded by countless Black artists. Black artists also did not get paid as much as White artists or have as many resources, and segregation ensured that their performances were limited to smaller venues.

By the early 1950s, however, a number of independent radio stations (again, mostly White-owned) began popping up, including rhythm ‘n’ blues or “Negro” radio stations. Since it was not possible to segregate radio waves, Black music became accessible to everyone and White teenagers began taking an interest in it. Seeing this, the music industry recognised the potential of appropriating Black music and record companies started making sanitised covers of the music with White artists to distribute to White listeners. But as Maultsby explains, they did so while “keeping the original artists in the background, unexposed” and rhythm ‘n’ blues music, covered and performed by White artists, was now marketed to the mainstream White listener as ‘rock ‘n’ roll,’ a term coined by radio disc jockey Alan Freed.

Record companies and White artists wanted the Black sounds and styles that appealed to the White audience but they did not want the Black artist. American record producer and founder of Sun Records Sam Phillips had been looking for “a White man with the Negro sound and the Negro feel” when he found Elvis Presley. The Beatles got their start by covering various blues artists like Arthur Alexander and rock ‘n’ roll pioneer Chuck Berry. Janis Joplin, who was dubbed the “Queen of Rock”, wanted to sound like a Black blues musician and was influenced by Lead Belly, Bessie Smith and Big Mama Thornton. Pat Boone covered ‘Tutti Frutti’, an original song by musician, singer and songwriter Little Richard, and reached 12th place in the national charts of 1956—several places ahead of the original.

Covers like these were made by record companies much to the disapproval and discontentment of the artists. Little Richard, nicknamed “The Innovator, The Originator, and The Architect of Rock ‘n’ Roll” and whose style influenced big names like the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, Michael Jackson and Prince, told the Washington Post in 1984 that he felt as though he was “pushed into a rhythm ‘n’ blues corner” to keep him away from the White audience. He said that “they”—who he does not name—would try to replace him with White rockstars like Elvis Presley who performed his songs on television as soon as they were released. He believed that this was because “they” didn’t want him to become a hero to White kids.

Little Richard’s statement reveals the racism and the lack of agency that Black artists suffered while under exploitative record labels. Exploitation happened to almost all artists in the music industry, but Black artists were particularly targetted as they would receive very little or nothing in royalties. Forbes reports that Specialty Records purchased ‘Tutti Frutti’ for a meagre 50 USD and gave him just 0.05 USD per record sold in royalties, while White artists received much higher rates—a discriminatory practice that was quite common in the industry. Richard, after he left the label in 1959, sued Specialty records for failing to pay him royalties.

Dr Birgitta Johnson is an associate professor of ethnomusicology in the School of Music at the University of South Carolina and teaches courses on African American sacred music, African music, hip hop, blues and world music. She explains that Black artists were not protected by copyright laws and would often have their music recorded and sold by record companies without proper contracts—in other words, their music would get stolen.

“Back in the day, there was no expectation that the Black artist could fight someone in court even though some of them did,” Johnson says. “If they didn’t have the copyright stolen from them, the record companies would own the music [instead of] the artists, and [the artists] wouldn’t know it because a lot of the time, they wouldn’t have the legal know-how to recognise what was happening in contracts. They wouldn’t get paid royalties . . . even though they were due royalties.”

While this exploitation of Black artists continued, in the late 1950s, after the development of smaller and more portable transistor radios, a wider audience of White teenagers began listening to Black radio stations. This new generation no longer had to depend on the family’s devices and gained more autonomy over what and who they listened to. “Young White people, who would become the hippies of the ‘60s, are the generation of people who started to press for their freedom . . . to [listen to] what they wanted to hear,” Johnson explains.

Listeners who heard the originals would call up the radio or go down to their local record store and ask for the originals, and record companies had to start supplying to demands to stay relevant in the market. “The covers made money but didn’t last long,” Johnson says, “because young White people no longer wanted the covers, the fake versions, the copies.”

The problem was that cover bands and artists tended to simply do whatever the producers asked them to do, which was usually to copy the original artist’s sound, style and moves, and more often than not, it made for bland and inauthentic renditions of the originals. The covers lacked the authenticity that Black artists conveyed in their performance and the young audience who had heard the authentic versions could see this. “They knew what the good music sounded like—it was almost like they understood... they may not have understood the racial dynamics of it, but they knew [the real thing from the fake],” Johnson says.

Moreover, artists who did covers were performing in styles that were foreign to them. “It was outside of their tradition; it was outside of their aesthetics; [and] they couldn’t bring the same excitement to it sometimes,” she explains. The music, performance and singing style had characteristic elements such as polyrhythms (layering of multiple rhythms), call-and-response, dance and improvisation—elements rooted in traditions that were brought to the United States by enslaved West and Central Africans between the 18th and 19th centuries. More importantly, the lyrics of songs by Black artists reflected the unique social customs, trends and living conditions of Black people, and these were not fully understood by people covering the songs. As a result, “[the covers] couldn’t compete with the real thing,” Johnson says.

Maultsby explains that due to the increasing popularity of the originals, record labels soon began recording more Black artists. However, she says, they watered down or “temper[ed] [their] heavy gospel-oriented sound” to make it more palatable for the White audience, and “one way they did [that] in the ‘50s and into the early ‘60s was to use pop production techniques” which meant a “background of strings and backup singers that sounded more White—concert-type singers—to soften the more raspier, emotional sound of the Black singer.”

By the 1980s, Black music gained exposure to an even wider international audience through television channels like MTV as well as broadcasts of live performances. Throughout the 1980s and ‘90s, collaborations between interracial duos were used as a mass-marketing strategy to increase the reach of Black artists and pop production continued to be used to “soften the Black sound.” Record companies also paired up White artists with Black producers to achieve that ever-popular Black sound.

“Thus, more White artists embodying or imitating aspects of the Black style made it acceptable and soon . . . that Black sound began to define the American sound,” Maultsby explains. However, this imitation and dilution meant that people could never experience authentic Black music.

According to Maultsby, who helped pioneer the academic study of African American popular music, the way non-African Americans experience African American music, even in the United States, is from the perspective of an outsider, and this applies to the international audience as well.

“By and large, within African American communities, music is created as a part of everyday life . . . music is a part of our lived experience,” Maultsby explains. “When that music is then taken out of that context and placed in the music industry, it becomes a commodity for mass dissemination, and it takes on a different meaning and a different function.”

She explains that the live performances of legendary artists like Aretha Franklin or James Brown were very different from the studio-recorded performances because the records were “mediated so that [they] fit a certain format that [could] appeal to a broader audience.”

“Record labels didn’t like recording performances live because they felt the audience interaction would interfere with the performance,” she says. “But that audience interaction [was] very much a part of the way Black music is created and experienced.

The writing and coverage of Black music both in and outside of the United States also did a poor job of representing its true essence. As Maultsby explains, White journalists who covered Black music would write about it from a White perspective rather than a Black one.

“A lot of misconceptions early on had to do with the music being reported by White journalists who reported through the lens of White audiences,” Maultsby says. “When journalists wrote about Black music . . . in the US—and this carried on to Europe and the rest of the world [including] Asia [and the] Middle East—they wrote about it through their observation of performances in venues with predominantly White or all-White audience, or in general, non-Black audiences . . . they did not go into the Black community to see how the music was performed and experienced.”

Writing about Black music and culture from a Eurocentric or White point of view has resulted in early Black contributions to popular music being misrepresented as well as erased from the general consciousness. Black culture was appropriated, exploited and diluted and in the process, consumers were left with watered down, commodified versions of the art that did not represent the people that were at the heart of creating it, and its after-effects have carried over to the present-day, among non-Western consumers.

Black contributions to music are also rarely discussed in mainstream media, which is largely controlled by White executives.

“The influence of Black music in a lot of American music are things that only get discussed in classes or documentaries—sometimes award shows—but mostly in formal environments, unless you’re from that tradition,” says Johnson. “[Artists like] Steven Tyler . . . [have] said, ‘I grew up listening to the blues; I love the blues’ . . . but the people who promote him don’t really have any interest in [promoting that] narrative because it’s really about selling a personality when you think about how the music industry works.”

She explains that though most people are analytically aware that the United States is a diverse country, images that are promoted by American companies are very White-centric. What is sold to the rest of the world as “American” is usually centred around Whiteness, whether that’s through music, movies, television or other forms of entertainment.

“The outside world sees a very limited package and predominantly a White or Eurocentric image . . . people look at America and assume this is basically a White space even though we have all this diversity—we’ve always had this kind of diversity of culture,” remarks Johnson, who often does not get recognised as Black American when she travels internationally. “When I go to China, they don’t assume I’m American. When I go to Thailand, they don’t assume I’m American."

Even though a lot has changed for Black musicians and artists in the United States since its “race music” days, the impact of racism and Eurocentrism lingers on and affects the way Gen Z as well as millennials outside of the United States, like myself, understand pop music in the 21st century. Many tributes have been paid to pioneering and legendary Black artists in award shows, documentaries and biopics and their contributions have been studied academically by scholars like Maultsby and Johnson, but my awareness of Black music and culture as a non-American is not only limited by what’s been given to me in the media, but also by what’s been left out of the conversations around popular music. How do we change this?

As Maultsby expresses, it starts simply with acknowledgement—just like a symphony orchestra’s roots are acknowledged to be European no matter who performs it or how it is reinterpreted in different cultures, or how a sitar is recognised as an Indian musical instrument whether it’s played in a jazz performance or a symphony orchestra, we need to continue to learn and acknowledge the Black roots of the music even when it has a local interpretation or variation.

“We all know [the symphony orchestra] comes from Europe; there’s no question there; we don’t try to claim it as our own conception, but we do participate in that culture. That’s how we have to think about Black American culture,” she says.

We need to recognise African American music for its role in shaping Western popular music, and understand what constitutes Black musical traditions and what differentiates it from the rest of the world, rather than generalise it as merely American music. And while music may have transcended cultural and racial boundaries, transcendence should not come at the price of obscuring and erasing the source.

“It’s fine as long as we keep in mind the source of that music,” Maultsby says. “We can say it transcends race—it just shows how influential Black has been internationally—but at the same time, we don’t need to erase the group that created the music and make Black people invisible in terms of their contributions. And that happens a lot.

“If we are not reminded that Black people are the ones that created the music you love, we question their contributions to society and to the world. We shouldn’t need to be reminded every day. It belongs in our consciousness.”

10 notes · View notes

lifepros · 5 years ago

Text

#8440

Tips/stratagies for amazon workers to work more "comfortably" (applies to most warehouse workers as well)

Lately I've been seeing documentaries on the physically demanding working conditions at Amazon warehouses and felt like I needed to share some tips on how to work to make it a little bit easier (maybe, Idk, but it works for me). I work at a production warehouse where its also physically demanding. These types of jobs are usually hard on joints and feet so I will target those areas.

Feet:

Buy shoes or boots that absorb stepping shock. What stepping shock? When feet hit the ground while walking or running and the vibration of that contact transfers towards your feet and knees. At my workplace we are required to wear steel toe boots or shoes. I wear leather boots because they usually last longer than shoes made of cloth or fiber, so I get most for my money in the long term (even though they are a bit more expensive. Many of you might say "but leather boots make my feet sweaty", which I will get to on my next point. There is a lot more information on my post on workboot tips on r/Boots . Get quality boots or shoes from genuine stores. NO WALMART CRAP. Don't cheap out on what your are spending most of your days on. Don't buy from facebook or pintrest stores as well. They are usually poorly made shoes made from shit material. If you cheap out on this YOU WILL SUFFER. Boots are heavy, especially steel toe, but a lot of places don't even check so I suggest aluminum, carbon fiber or composite. I own a pair of I-90 wolverines with carbon fiber toe (not very expensive btw) and it is slightly lighter than steel, but after 8 hours you feel the difference. Wolverine also makes a sole technology called durashocks that I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend and I also have a tip to enhance the absorption a little later. TALCUM/GOLDBOND POWDER IS A LIFE SAVER. Friction and sweat are not a good combo. Get some good thick cotton socks reserved for work. Sprinkle some in the sock and close the opening with one hand and swish it around and then put it on. Goldbond is also great for areas prone to chaffing like your you know whats or you know wheres. This is great if you are wearing leather boots, since they are prone to make feet sweat and blister. Insoles or inserts: DON'T BUY GEL OR AIR TYPE INSERTS. It's a fucking gimmick. "Gel" is a polymer based substance that doesn't capture shock waves, Air is even worse because it transfers shock. What you should look for is foam inserts that have dense material. Yellow memory foam inserts to me are the best because of the density. Also layers matter as well. If your shoe or boot doesn't have a memory foam insole, I suggest buying this particular insert (I know amazon link hur dur). Why this one? because it is flat and you can add one more layer. If you have more room between the insole and your heel, and you think you can fit another small insert there, do so with this one. My wolverine I-90s have a memory foam footbed, and I paired it with those dr. scholls inserts and I feel very little to nothing after 12 hours. It's also small so you can have more toe room on top of the memory foam insert. Another reason to get boots instead of shoes is that boots act as a brace for your ankle. If you are walking and making fast maneuvers in the process, there is more of a risk for your ankle to twist if it is not supported right. I recommend 6 inch lace up boots.

Joints:

Joints are the parts that are going to take a lot of damage in these jobs. Repetitive stress injuries are dangerous because they cause fatigue and one wrong movement can ruin your health. BRACE YOURSELF. literally. lol. Brace every joint that you can that is going to move the most. I brace my knees, elbows, shoulders and lower back. "But Sirmandudeguy, I don't have any pain or problems in those areas, why do I need braces?" Well, neither do I, but I found out that bracing these areas greatly reduces the strain when working. It keeps the joints and ligaments mostly in place as reinforcement so you have less of chance of something slipping and causing an injury. The sooner you do this, the more effective it will be in the long run. Here are some links to what I have: here , here, and here . I have a double of each (with the knee braces I have two pairs ) so I can wash one and have the other ready. Usually it takes two to three days until they start smelling iffy and I just put them in the washer. It's kind of an expensive investment, but as they say its better to be safe than sorry. Glucosamine with MSM (thanks Joe Rogan for this tip). This is like oil for the joints. people think it for those with arthritis, but I suggest it even if you don't have it. It's kind of an expensive supplement, but I don't take the recommended dosage and usually take one right before work, and if I do OT I take another. It lasts me about two months with the bigger bottles. A lot of them are shellfish based, but there are plant based if you are allergic to shellfish or are vegan. It takes a while to really feel the effects since it needs a week or two to circulate in the blood system.

Other tips:

Melatonin supplements if you have trouble sleeping.

you can also add a bit of talcum powder on the braces if you sweat a lot.

soft sleeping earplugs if you are a light sleeper like me and work swing shift or overnight.

I hope this helps! Tell me if it does and if you have questions about work shoes or boots ask away! If you want to add please do!

Take care!

#life advice #life pros #life pro tips #lifehack #tips and tricks

5 notes · View notes

ear-worthy · 3 years ago

Text

Are Podcasts Getting Too Long

Too often, a people's greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. That maxim relates to organizations, industries, and nations. For example, people who are results-oriented can also create win-lose situations and be unnecessarily demanding. In business, Kodak's skill in boosting sales in existing markets overwhelmed its inability to recognize the potential of new digital markets.

In podcasting, a podcast's lack of time restriction -- unlike a time-limited radio or TV program -- is a strength because it enables the narrative to expand or shrink depending on the content in a specific episode.

However, that strength becomes a weakness when podcasts use that time flexibility to expand the running time of the podcast episode without a compelling reason to do so. A back-of-the-envelope calculation of the top 10 podcasts reveals that the time of the average episode has increased by 14 percent in the last year.

Interview podcasts have increased in length the most, driven primarily by celebrity podcasts, where the sense that "less is more" is close to editorial blasphemy.

Political podcasts have also increased in length, as axe-grinding and demonizing the "other side" is a never-ending process.

Listener surveys reveal that 26 percent of podcast fans speed up their podcast to finish an episode.

"Many podcast fans are involved in a routine activity like commuting, cleaning, or working while listening," says podcast consultant George Witt. "Therefore, the time restriction may not be a concern for the podcaster, but it is for the listener, who has limited time to consume an episode."

In fact, a company has devised its own solution to the podcast length issue. Snippet·fm now offers a service where every show is less than twenty minutes. The network includes software that removes pauses, “ums and ers” and other filler words, to respect audiences’ time. The network’s CEO, Tyler Russell McCusker, previously worked in radio for thirteen years.

Snippet does not shorten existing programs like other services. Instead, "we aim to create compelling listening experiences that get straight to the point from the moment you press play," Snippet claims.

Some popular podcasts keep their episodes within a manageable time range. Podcasts such as 99% Invisible and Twenty Thousand Hertz tend to maintain a 30-40 minute running time range.

"That steady time range per episode helps loyal listeners budget time for their favorite podcasts," notes George Witt. "They know how much time they'll need to listen to an episode."

Still, there are listeners who enjoy being immersed in a podcast with a long running time. Joe Rogan hosts one of the most popular podcasts week-in and week-out, and its running time is often two to four hours.

So how does a podcaster determine length for their podcast?

"It depends on your podcast," says George Witt. "Interview podcasts tend to be longer than single-topic podcasts like the Quick and Dirty Tips podcasts."

The key seems to be that podcast length is determined by your topic, the type of podcast (interview, informational, true-crime) and the expectations of your listener.

Of course, longer run times for podcasts does usually translate into more ads and consequently more revenue for the podcaster or the podcast network.

So what's the appropriate length of a podcast?

False Facts podcaster Dave Stenhouse says, "It depends on the type of podcast you're producing and the profile of your listeners."

Stenhouse's podcast about urban myths, things your mom told you, things you heard as a child, facts that people quote repeatedly, distortions that once started as facts and “alternative facts” tops out at 15 minutes.

"I think my topic captures listener's attention span for about that time frame," Stenhouse admits. "Any more than that ignores what my listeners expect."

So, after all this: Are podcasts too long?

Fact: Podcasts are growing in overall run time.

Fact: 26 percent of listeners play their podcast at 1.5X speed.

Fact: There is a service -- Snippet.fm that now markets shorter, more concise podcasts.

In conclusion, there is evidence that listeners are coping with longer podcasts in several ways. The increased length of podcasts does not appear to be a serious industry-wide issue at this time. There is some evidence that swollen podcast lengths are affecting some listeners.

I must confess that one of my favorite podcasts is about two minutes long. It is the Word Of The Day podcast from Dictionary.com.

#podcast #podcasting

1 note · View note

beaversatemygrandma · 3 years ago

Text

Its strange. I don’t usually talk to my mom and then when she randomly calls I’m on the phone with her for like an hour and a half. Idgi. I actually don’t feel like hell after doing so. Wow. At least she knows of my trip going down to the hometown here soon now.

There is one thing tho, i got another weird medical take on my health that apparently was a real diagnosis AGAIN that i had no idea about. Apparently I’ve got ovarian cysts and i literally had no clue. (Hormonal imbalances and endometriosis make sense now tho) I have for years. So. That’s a thing. And she ended up going on this tangent about how things have been better since she got a hysterectomy. “My acne has cleared up, weight is easier to manage, etc etc etc” and I’m just like “If Only i could do that before 25 bc I’m in the ‘prime reproductive years’.” and she tells me that i might be able to guilt a doctor into doing it easily bc of said cysts and how i have no goals to even have kids. They’re not cysts that are dangerous to have, and have likely gotten smaller in the years and with the mini pills the endo is basically nonexistent. Idk, but she’s fully supportive of me getting my girlie innards taken out. “Better gay than pregnant” as she said when the doctor tried to put me on E bc I had high testosterone. That’s even continued through adulthood and honestly, thank god.

She also recommended me witch hazel for my acne. Apparently she’s ‘allergic’ to the microbeads in most exfoliating scrubs and we have the same skin type. Tho, it makes you kind of smell like an old lady. And me looking like a butch lesbian paired with old lady scents would be something. (Maybe I should just embrace my old lady habits of keeping hard candies and caramels around and all my other tastes... And the old soul comments i get constantly.) So, I looked up witch hazel and all that stuff. Apparently it’s an old natural remedy for it (saw that one coming, she’s always doing that all natural stuff) and it’s like a 50/50 chance of working due to different skin types. Which is basically the same risk as literally every other product for acne. Apparently it’s an astringent that dries out the skin (I’m Fuckin Oily) and i think it might be worth a shot. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than my current products thats for sure.

She also asked if i was sick of my dad’s opinions yet. I am. It’s the Joe Rogan shit. She knows. It’s annoying for all of us. The weird thing is, idk if she’s flipped on opinions for the the vax and shit. But that conversation at least left me thinking that she’s finally on the fence instead of brashly against it. AND AND She actually offered my old bedroom to me again. Like, i think that’s finally a real option for the first time since i moved out right at 18. Her ex husband isn’t even in the area but she got his dog in the divorce. :D Even tho I’ve got a place to go once I’m finally ready to leave here. Once I’ve got my license and surgeries done. Surgeries are cheaper out of FL. Tho i would rather get my license down there bc this city is bonkers traffic wise. Almost got into a wreck yesterday AGAIN bc of somebody else literally not giving a shit. Like bro. Look where you’re going. I might just bring my driving log and drive with the partner of sorts down there. I prefer the tourist ridden small town traffic to this shit. Don’t complain about downtown until you see this bullshit. I’d take downtown anytime to this fucking city. AND I’m staying the entire week at the partner’s place. Let’s see it as a test to see if we can live together. I don’t think I’ve ever been around them for longer than 8 hours at a time and i think that’s with a work shift attacked to it. Then my mom proceeds to remind me that i can’t be in a house filled with cats and the partner has like three. I need to stock up on antihistamines before going down there.

Idk but after complaining about having the TINY hallway room in a trailer the idea of my old bedroom from high school is mighty tempting if the apartment with cats and a lovely person doesn’t work out. I want a room i can fit a queen sized bed in again. If there was a queen in the current room, there would be no room. Just bed. Me and the partner were actually joking about that at some point. Like i should just modify a king size mattress and make the entire floor bed and mount the dressers and shelves on the wall so it’s a sleep anywhere kinda room. Expensive idea, but good idea indeed lmao

I never thought I’d be excited to go back to FL. Specifically that crazy hometown I got stuck in during high school. There’s some interesting people there. I say interesting bc there’s the amazing people that are definitely friends. And then also the very unusual ones in town. The locals there are Quite Something. Then again, bad gas travels fast in a small town. Even tho it’s not That Small. But still, there’s some strange occurrences. And honestly, I love it. It’s better than the ‘strange’ occurrences here. Which is weekly shootings, hundreds of car accidents, crime, other bullshit, and just what happens when you put too many people into one area that’s still racially segregated. Sure, the small town isn’t nearly as diverse, but at least the diverse part isn’t literally separated from the rest of the city. And you live in that diverse part and it’s noticeably less worth living in. (The roads, the schools, the everything... like there’s people down the street who are late to work constantly bc local trains literally block of roads for hours at a time) I’d prefer the weird people to this. I’ve at least got a bunch of other likeminded people out there. Sure, there’s not a very visible queer community there (the one here i’m too scared to even put myself out there in), and there’s the obnoxious fake rednecks (their truck styles are literally illegal in this state and i find that hilarious), and the strange Wiccan girls who force their way into your groups and slip you psychedelics. But it’s not bad. Small towns are tight knit and you’ll always know somebody out there. I thought I’d hate that idea, but it’s lonely when you’re surrounded by so many people and all of them are strangers who want nothing to do with you and you want nothing to do with them. Yeah, the state is expensive and politically toxic, but having more people with the other mindset in the area is the only way to get it to not be that. I know I’m not the only one there. My friends of course. And then the valedictorian at my school literally was putting together the BLM protests a couple years ago. (There’s a person who i never talked to much but I’d totally want to run into again. I hope she’s still in town.) Idk. The kids are alright. The future might be okay. Sure, if it’s not there’s no more FL at all, but I’m willing to take that risk. Once global warming goes too far I think me and the partner would make the move to the middle of fucking nowhere VA mountains in some old haunted cabin. It’s just a place to live. I honestly want it back oddly enough. I’ve changed in appearance enough that all the awkward exes i want to avoid wouldn’t even notice me. (Ideally one should be fuckin gone or there’s gonna be problems and I’ll need a restraining order on him.)

Honestly, I think i want to be back in FL. Yeah i talk shit. It’s an awful state and climate but the area grew on me. So did the people. It’s a hell of a lot better than a place where everybody is entirely egocentric and doesn’t care if they hurt you. And you’re not a hundred feet out from the second shooting this month. Yeah, everybody has a gun down there, but in a way that they actually know how to use them and keep others safe around them. It’s the kind of area where everybody agrees that gay people should get married and have guns to protect their marijuana plants. Which is a step closer to what is okay to live with.

Not to mention i REALLY NEED a break from my dad and sister. No more Joe Rogan related rants from him (you know exactly what this means...) And no more attention seeking chaos from her (she told the guidance counselor at school she was suicidal bc she was told to do dishes once). Just for a little while. Being here this long is just socially draining. I don’t even think my mom is nearly that socially draining and that’s something huge. Because she usually is, but at least it’s in a different way that i can appreciate as long as her ex husband is out of the picture.

It’s weird wanting to go to the place that i so badly wanted to leave.

Side note: I’ve also learned that I’m a city 4 and a small town 8. So. That’s fun. (Likely village in appalachia 9 so. do with that what you will) I’m only cute here to lesbians and I’ll take that. But down there, I Can Get It no matter the gender. (AKA a snipe according to an old fwb and now that i understand the context I Really Want To Punch that man. My friends booted him out of the group after i left and I get why now. Sure, he was cute, friendly, and a good dude, but lets be honest. He was a fuckboi.)

#taks speaks #some personal shit #the brain has to be organized and thoughts need to be fleshed out so theyre not stuck there #actually wanting to go to FL is a weird feeling tbh

0 notes

shirlleycoyle · 4 years ago

Text

Eric Weinstein Says He Solved the Universe’s Mysteries. Scientists Disagree

The quest to come up with a successful “theory of everything” is one of the guiding lights of modern theoretical physics, reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. The inventor of such a theory would no doubt be hailed among the all-time intellectual giants of science, and Eric Weinstein really wants everyone to think it’s him.

Weinstein is primarily an investor, but also a self-styled public intellectual. He graduated with a PhD in mathematics from Harvard, and is currently a managing director of Thiel Capital, which invests in technology and life sciences. He also belongs to and coined the name for the “Intellectual Dark Web,” largely a crew of reactionaries with public profiles that includes Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. He is also the inventor of what he calls “Geometric Unity,” a theory of everything that he’s been flogging since 2013.

At that time, Weinstein―by then long out of academia and working as a consultant for a New York City hedge fund―made waves after promoting his theory by giving a lecture at the University of Oxford and scoring a write-up in The Guardian, instead of writing a scientific paper. The Guardian article was titled: “Move Over Einstein, Meet Weinstein.” Typically, researchers produce a paper containing equations that is then pored over by the wider community of scientists; this element of peer review and discussing ideas and evidence in the open is generally accepted to be a critical part of the scientific process. Weinstein’s audacious approach earned as much criticism as the theory itself, and his latest move has ignited furor all over again.

Earlier this month, Weinstein finally posted a paper describing Geometric Unity online, uploaded the Oxford lecture to YouTube, and went on Joe Rogan’s immensely popular podcast to discuss it. There’s even a website called pullthatupjamie.com full of videos and resources on Geometric Unity that was created to make it easy for Rogan’s tech guy, Jamie Vernon, to pull up videos on the podcast.

The appearance on Rogan’s podcast, which has been previously used as an uncritical platform, has generated both new interest in Geometric Unity and intense criticism from scientists who remain unconvinced.

On the podcast, Weinstein said that his theory is an attempt to go “beyond Einstein” and push theoretical physics forward that could unlock amazing possibilities or terrible power.

”I was somewhat holding this back because I’m afraid of what it unlocks,” Weinstein said, “and now that I know we're willing to elect Donald Trump, not store masks, play footsie with China, be Putin's bitch, all of this stuff… to Hell with this.”

When Rogan asked what the main fear is, Weinstein recalled that “the last time we gained some serious insight into how nuclei worked,” nuclear weapons were invented. But, if the theory is correct, it might also give us the needed insight to make humanity into a multi-planet species, Weinstein said.

“One of the great dangers is, great power…. I cant tell what the power would be if the theory is correct, it might give us the ability to escape,” he said.

Rogan, for what it's worth, didn’t seem overly impressed with Weinstein's theory. In an attempt to explain his complicated theory, Weinstein handed Rogan a water wiggle (one of those cheap toys that looks like a small balloon filled with water), and explained how it symbolizes the mathematical concept of a U(1)-bundle. Rogan looks down at the toy in his hand while Weinstein speaks and gets progressively, visibly confused and angry.

"I don't know what the fuck you just said," Rogan finally says. "How about that?"

So, what is Geometric Unity? At the moment, modern physics has two frameworks that do not nicely unify: general relativity and quantum mechanics, which describe reality at two vastly different scales. Whereas other physicists might try to square this circle by attempting a quantum version of general relativity, Weinstein's proposal was to begin with general relativity and its geometric descriptions of reality to try and discover equations describing the universe in its mathematical reality instead of our observable one.

At its core sits the idea of a 14-dimensional "observerse" which our four dimensions (the three spatial dimensions, and time) lie within. A Guardian article at the time described the interplay between these two dimensional spaces as "something like the relationship between the people in the stands and those on the pitch at a football stadium" in that we are observers who can see and are affected by the observerse, but cannot possibly notice or detect every detail. Weinstein's theory proposes that there is a set of equations in these 14 dimensions that encompass Einstein’s equations, as well as several other famous equation sets, that altogether account for all fundamental forces and particle types.

Timothy Nguyen, a machine learning researcher at Google AI whose phD thesis intersects with Weinstein's work, co-authored a paper based on Weinstein’s Geometric Unity lecture evaluating the idea in February. The paper identified gaps in Weinstein’s theory “both mathematical and physical in origin” that “jeopardize Geometric Unity as a well-defined theory, much less one that is a candidate for a theory of everything.”

In a blog post accompanying the paper, Nguyen wrote that the theory does not actually bring in quantum theory, relies on a poorly-defined “Ship in a bottle” (Shiab) operator of Weinstein’s own invention, and contains anomalies as well as a dubious assumption about supersymmetry in 14 dimensions. After Weinstein published his paper, Nguyen wrote on Twitter that it “addresses none of the technical gaps presented in our response,” although he did describe it as a “testament to perseverance.”

“If you’re interested in technical gaps, the gap most glaring arises from the ‘Shiab' operator. It is one of several uniquely idiosyncratic operators of Geometric Unity (it does not exist anywhere else in mathematics), unlike supersymmetry which is already a well-established and well-defined notion,” Nguyen told Motherboard in an email. “Weinstein fails to define the Shiab operator properly and so his theory does not even make mathematical sense, a more egregious problem than having desirable physical properties.”

Nguyen said that Weinstein’s initial PR splash was confusing at best, and that the resulting paper didn’t clarify the most important points.

“Much of Weinstein’s Geometric Unity involves using obscure notation for objects that nobody else has defined and which he disingenuously expected others to understand from watching an over 2 hour long YouTube video,” Nguyen added. “Now that he has released a paper, we find that even Weinstein does not know how to construct the Shiab operator (he makes many qualifications that he no longer has the details).”

Richard Easther, a cosmologist and professor at the University of Auckland, pointed out some eyebrow-raising aspects of the idea in a 2013 blog. For one, a Guardian op-ed by Marcus du Sautoy―Weinstein’s chief academic promoters―seemed to hint at a dynamic constant in the universe, while most physicists support the idea of a constant that is, well, constant. What Weinstein eventually published didn’t impress him, he told Motherboard.

“The theory itself has had no visible impact, and what Weinstein actually delivered looked massively undercooked after the buildup it got from du Sautoy,” Easther said in an email. “A throwaway comment at the time suggested that it might predict a time-varying cosmological constant, but I haven’t seen any meaningful developments about this.”

Weinstein did not respond to Motherboard’s request for comment.

All of this matters because despite the criticisms, Weinstein only finally released a paper this year after years promoting the theory in public forums while questioning the legitimacy of peer review, lamenting the need to provide evidence, and otherwise dismissing critics or skeptics hesitant to accept his theory with open arms. In a May 2020 interview, he said skeptics that wanted him to publish a paper on his idea for verification were simply “irritated” and “pissed off” at “themselves.”

On Rogan’s podcast, Weinstein painted the academic field of physics as being generally untrustworthy and stifling, which is why he didn’t share his theory in full until now.

“I don’t trust these people,” Weinstein said, referring to physicists at universities. “It’s an entire system that believes in peer review, it believes in forced citations, you have to be at a university, you have to get an endorsement to use a preprint server. It’s too few resources, too many sharp elbows.”

Nguyen said he was spurred to evaluate Weinstein’s idea after this attitude set off alarm bells. At first, “It was refreshing to see a former part of my life being discussed outside the cloistered walls of academia and in the wider context of the world," Nguyen said. But after multiple conversations with Weinstein and watching how he interacted with his fans, Nguyen says he realized none of it was "consistent with my image of how a good-faith scientist engages with his audience."

Many scientists do in fact unveil their work before peer review on popular sites such as arXiv. However, they do it in paper form (“preprints”) and with the goal of submitting their ideas to the wider community for approval or rejection. Authors do have to have an endorsement from someone in academia to post on arXiv, specifically, but in theory that shouldn’t have been an insurmountable obstacle for Weinstein; du Sautoy has posted several papers to arXiv. Besides that, papers can be posted anywhere, even a dedicated website as Weinstein has now done.

“Even if the physics isn't interesting, this story does say interesting things about the science. Einstein wrote up his ideas [and] submitted them for peer review just like everyone else―but many self-described ‘outsiders’ portray the scientific community as a closed shop,” Easther told Motherboard. “There is undoubtedly ‘sociology’ at work in the community at times, but anyone making a serious attempt to sell a new idea knows they are asking for busy people to give them a slice of their time and attention―and one of the ways you do that is by making your work as accessible as possible to the people you want to understand it.”

Releasing a paper did not silence the critics. Nor did it vindicate Weinstein’s PR-focused approach to sharing his theory. And all of this may well end up being rather pointless, because the paper ends with disclaimer that Weinstein "is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast." The paper, the disclaimer ends, is merely a “work of entertainment.”

Now that Weinstein has finally published a paper describing his theory, it’s entirely possible that further analysis and investigation may show it to be more interesting than its critics have so far found. As Weinstein said on Rogan’s podcast, “I’ll find out [if] I’m wrong.”

But for now, it seems the only relevant question is: Are we entertained?

Eric Weinstein Says He Solved the Universe’s Mysteries. Scientists Disagree syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

0 notes

andrewdburton · 4 years ago

Text

Finding a millionaire money mentor

You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.

You've probably heard that saying before. It's from motivational speaker Jim Rohn. He used it as a way to encourage people to learn and grow from others' experiences, habits, attitudes, and so forth. He wanted folks to seek out and spend time with people of high quality.

Unfortunately for most people, this advice can be difficult (if not impossible) to implement.

That's because we tend to group with like-minded people, which includes hanging out with friends with similar levels of success. Those who are unmotivated often spend time with others who are unmotivated. And those who are motivated by achievement tend to associate with others at a similar level.

When you resolve to improve yourself — to become smarter or fitter or wealthier — it can be tough to find new friends with a similar desire. It can be difficult to change the five people you spend the most time with.

Today, I want to talk about finding a money mentor.

Seeking a Money Mentor

Let's say you're a new business owner and you want to hang out with successful business people to learn their secrets. Do they want to hang with you? Probably not.

Even if you knew five successful business owners, it might be tough to get them to share their experience. That's because — you guessed it — they're probably hanging out with other successful business people.

Or let's say you want to learn podcasting. What are the chances you'll create a mastermind with Tim Ferriss, Joe Rogan, and three other high-flying audio experts? Your odds are slim. Honestly, your odds are zero. These folks are out there being friendly with each other in the stratosphere. They're not likely to spend their time with a new podcaster who is just starting out.

Or say you want to date a lovely, fit, out-going, friendly, charismatic lady or man but you're awkward, out of shape, disagreeable, and surly. You aren't going to connect with a single person (pun intended) like this — much less five of them!

I even see this principle at work in the pickleball world. [J.D.'s note: John is a pickelball fanatic. When I had lunch with him in July, we had to schedule around his multiple pickelball matches that day haha.] New and inexperienced players want to play with much better players so they can get better. But the better players want to play with each other (for the challenge).

Unfortunately it's the same way with money. And no one knows this better than me.

I was young when I first heard Jim Rohn's adage about being the average of the people you spend the most time with. At the time, I was interested in growing my wealth. “I need to find some friends who know something about money!” I thought. “I need to find a money mentor — or five.”

I started paying attention to people in my life who fit that description.

First, I looked to my family but there was no one who made the cut. We were lower middle-class most of my life and generally lived paycheck to paycheck.

Next, I turned to my friends and saw a group just like me — a bunch of people who were clueless with money.

Finally, I considered work acquaintances. But again, I couldn't find anyone I thought I could confide in who was good with money. Most of my co-workers had high salaries, but they didn't know how to manage the money they earned.

Ultimately, I decided I'd dig deep into my “network” (which was razor thin to begin with). I wanted to make a list of people I knew even slightly who were wealthy and/or good with money.

I still remember everyone on that list to this day. Here it is:

__________________

That's right: No one. My list was blank.

And how was I even supposed to know a wealthy person? I was a fresh-out-of-graduate-school executive who was fresh-out-of-small-town-Iowa a few years earlier. If it was possible to have a negative number of network connections, I was there. If it was possible to be greener than green, that was me.

Five Wealthy Friends

I had to create my own group of five wealthy “friends”. (I put that in quotes for a reason which will become clear in a moment.) Here's where I found them.

Books

My first wealthy “friends” were money manuals. I started to devour and apply almost any money-related book I could find. My “best friend” happened to be Thomas Stanley, who wrote The Millionaire Next Door. I read his book, applied what he said, and my wealth grew.

I found other friends in books, as well. I read everything I could from every type of author.

Of course, I had to plow through a lot of junk to mine the gold nuggets. Even as a newbie, I could tell what was trash (like “no money down” real estate books). In time, the good stuff stuck with me.

Magazines

Remember magazines? They were like mini-books you could have mailed to your house each month. (Oh, the good old days. Ha!)

This was in the olden days before the internet, so magazines were my only option for money articles. I subscribed to three money magazines for many years: Money, Kiplinger's, and Smart Money.

Again, there was lots of junk (e.g., each month there was another “Seven Great Stocks to Own Now” sort of article) but I navigated my way through the crap and kept some good stuff.

Other Money Novices

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, right?

Well, believe it or not, my wife and I started coaching people at our church early in our marriage. We didn't know much, but we knew more than most. We did budget coaching: how to set up a budget, how to track spending, how to balance the budget, etc.

My wife and I actually got pretty good at this. We could take a family with minimal income and wild spending, then steer them to a balanced budget within two or three hours. Of course, there were hard choices for them to get to that point…

We saw some hideous spending practices, and we had multiple discussions with people trying to communicate Needs versus Wants versus Desires. (So many would try to justify Wants and Desires as Needs — like getting your nails done once a week was a Need. Yikes!)

Anyway, these people taught us…but in the opposite way of what we expected. They showed us what not to do with real life examples.

Writing

Over time, as our little bits of money knowledge accumulated, I developed a side hustle as a personal-finance writer.

You see the irony in this, right?

I held myself out as an expert — as did the magazines I wrote for. It works the same way with journalists these days. Perception is reality, right?

I did know more than most about money, and the publications I wrote for were more general interest versus hardcore money magazines, so it wasn't like I was giving advice on complex tax subjects.

Despite my shortcomings, I happened to be a great marketer (which is what I did for a living) and a decent enough writer (my wife was a brutal editor and made my stuff better, though I fought her changes most of the time) to keep myself pretty busy.

The financial writing became a side hustle. We did this for a few years, using all the money we earned to pay off our mortgage. (In those days, the rates were 8% or so, which made paying off your mortgage much more of a no brainer than today.)

While I wrote, I also researched and started to develop my own philosophy of managing money. My money knowledge and financial habits grew and developed.

After several years, we had our home paid off. This led to a 20+ year run of no debt. So I guess we were better off than most.

Blogging

Many years later, blogging became a thing. I started writing on the web in 2005.

This took my writing and money skills to a whole new level. Now people could comment on what I posted. They could (and did) ask me pointed questions about what I wrote.

This forced me to whittle down what I believed and what I didn't. If I got off track even a bit, my readers let me know it.

This also set the stage for my current site, ESI Money. After so many years of refining my message, I was able to focus my writing on what really mattered and throw away much of the rest.

Of course, these days there are a gazillion blogs and many financial sites, and I read several of them. That's how many people get their financial information. Unfortunately, a large portion of these are written by people with limited financial knowledge and experience.

Nowadays, anyone looking to grow in financial wisdom can hit the web as well as partake in any of the methods I employed. There's a wealth of information out there if you have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff.

But doing so is still a far cry from having five actual friends who are experienced with money — people you can talk to, ask questions of, get responses from, etc. Reading about money isn't the same as having a real-life money mentor.

Besides, people crave person-to-person mentorship in their lives. I know this because they tell me. I hear about it day in and day out.

Connecting with Millionaires

Several years ago, I started interviewing millionaires.

I didn't do it because I wondered what they did to make themselves wealthy. By this time, I understood the keys to wealth.

Instead, I wanted to hear these millionaires tell their stories in their own words. And I wanted to share a new story at my website every week. My hope was that these wealthy men and women would re-iterate that the keys to wealth boil down to a few basic principles. And they did!

To this date, I've published 202 interviews with millionaires at my website.

J.D.'s Note After I sold Get Rich Slowly (and before I bought it back), I wanted to create what I called “The Millionaire Project”. My idea was simple. I would travel the country to film interviews with wealthy people. I'd ask them how they made their money — and how they managed to keep it.

I never followed through on my project, obviously. So, I was excited when I learned that John had begun his own series of millionaire interviews. It's not exactly what I had envisioned, but it's close. (And honestly? In some ways, it's better.)

Shortly after I started publishing these stories, the requests began coming in.

People wanted to connect with millionaires (me and others) for feedback on money issues. They had questions. They wanted advice. In essence, people were seeking to add a millionaire money mentor to the group of friends they spent time with.

Here are some typical comments I received:

“Can you give me your thoughts on this?”

“Can I get more specifics on how you invest in real estate/dividend stocks/etc.?”

“How can I find someone to review my financial situation? I don't know anyone good with money. Will you do it?”

“Hi Millionaire 192, I loved reading your story. It’s inspiring and where I would love to end up eventually with my real estate investments. Would you be willing to talk over the phone about your real estate strategy? I’m happy to pay for your time.”

“I have read, and re-read your story and am very inspired. I wish I was friends with you so we could talk finances on a regular basis. lol.”

At the same time, millionaires were sending me notes wanting to “connect down”. Some of these folks were eager to “pay it forward”. They were willing to be one of the five wealthy friends that people need.

That's when I knew I had to connect the two groups.

The Millionaire Money Mentors

After months of thought and planning, I created the Millionaire Money Mentors program.

People kept telling me they had NO ONE in their lives that they could talk to regarding finances. Now they do. 😉

The Millionaire Money Mentors program is exactly what it sounds like: a way to connect with (and ask questions of) millionaires — and other members of this program. It's an online community dedicated to wealth building.

Members currently have the ability to connect with over 60 millionaires. These money mentors are willing to share their experiences in how to earn more, save more, invest better, and save time doing the right (and avoiding the wrong) money moves.

I hope that you already have a group of wealthy people you can meet with to share your plans and ask for feedback. Even one such money mentor would be amazing!

But if you don't have any wealthy friends, perhaps the Millionaire Money Mentors program is worth a try.

There are several additional benefits to membership in addition to the millionaire-to-member connection. There are expert Ask Me Anything sessions every other week (Sarah Fallaw — Thomas Stanley's daughter — and Wes Moss are just two of our upcoming guests), a Millionaire Book Club, and more! (Not to mention we have a long list of potential future add-ons).

If you think you're interested, I invite you to try it. There's a 7-day money back guarantee so there's really nothing to lose. Plus, membership is affordable (GRS readers have a special price for the next few days) and includes bonuses worth more than the annual cost. I tried to make joining as much of a no-brainer as possible from a value proposition standpoint.

And FYI, it's not just me who loves the site. Here are some comments after our first full week of being open:

“The value of the site is amazing! I have learned so much. I only wish I had more time to read everything!”

“I believe the price of admission to this site is already undervalued! The value of the content more than covers the cost and then factor in the ability to ask questions.”

“Super excited for every one of these (AMA discussions). Thanks and great work putting together this list of incredible people. Well worth the price of admission.”

I hope you stop by and give us a try. But if not, I do suggest you find and connect with a money mentor in Real Life. I took the long and winding road to find my five money “friends” — and even that tough journey was very much worth the effort for me.

from Finance https://www.getrichslowly.org/finding-a-millionaire-money-mentor/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes