#now I have to result to other lesser used forms of social media to communicate with my little friends in my little device

[sotepidheroes]

I wish elawn mauwsk a very explosive diarrhea

[belonglab]

Gaslighting: A Tool of Oppression and Exclusion

by Alisha Patel, Communications & Research Fellow at GenLead|BelongLab

February 2, 2021

“I don’t see color.” This is one of the most common phrases people will use to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It isn’t the best, but at least it’s not explicitly racist, right? In a culture where calling out institutional and systemic racism feels like an ongoing battle that’s fought tiny steps at a time, that phrase feels like an adequate place to start. However, this phrase is actually a form of racial gaslighting, and its acceptance only perpetuates stereotypes and the racism we are trying to fight.

Gaslighting in general is a form of manipulation and psychological abuse where the perpetrator convinces the victim that they are imagining or overreacting to abuse. Over time, this can solidify the perpetrator’s position of power over the victim, turning it into an ongoing cycle of abuse. The effects of gaslighting are extensive-- the victim will start to second guess themselves and their judgments. While this form of manipulation is often talked about with regard to personal relationships, it can additionally be used to to cloak bigotry like racism.

Racial Gaslighting

Racial gaslighting often is used to excuse microaggressions in all forms. It can invalidate someone’s experience of perceived racism by subtly denying their feelings and emotions, excusing implicit comments meant to demean or discredit them, or even excusing explicit attacks on them. Its effects are grave; it subtly reinforces and sustains racial and social hierarchies that inevitably hurt minority groups. Not only does racial gaslighting allow stereotypes to continue, but it also degrades the victim’s sense of self and teaches them to invalidate their own instincts and judgments.

For example, imagine if someone had experienced racism in the workplace and attempted to tell a fellow coworker about the incident; instead of empathizing, the coworker reassured the victim “it couldn’t possibly be racism,” “it is all in your head,” or “you’re too sensitive.” Statements like this place the perpetrator in a position of power and control under the guise of morality, while undermining the victim’s experience as lesser-than. In turn, the victim can develop feelings of anxiety and depression as they start believing they cannot trust themselves and cannot express their emotions outwardly. According to clinical psychologist Dr. Roberta Babb, racial gaslighting also, “overtly and covertly erodes a person’s sense of self, self-worth, agency and confidence.” Thus, racial gaslighting feeds internalized oppression and Imposter Syndrome.

Racial gaslighting is so common that it is sometimes difficult to tell when it is happening, and it can even be unconscious or unintentional. Normalized phrases like “I don’t see color” seem to mean well at first glance, but in actuality serve to invalidate the struggles of a minority group while erasing the group’s lived history. It tells the listener, quite unequivocally, “I am not racist. What you are perceiving as racism on my part cannot possibly be racism.” Phrases like these are un-nuanced and oversimplified takes that may have been accepted in the past, but as we learn more about deep and entrenched racism, we see they are outdated, insensitive, and quite frankly, racist.

This type of manipulation often is used by mainstream media and people in power, ingraining its use in our culture and further highlighting the power dynamics underpinning racial gaslighting. Think of Donald Trump and his response to protest movements through the past year: On one hand, he refused to condemn Neo-Nazi protestors, saying there were “fine people on both sides.” But he mischaracterized Black Lives Matter protests calling for an end to police brutality as thugs and threatened them with the National Guard, warning “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” He then mischaracterized the white supremacist, violent insurrection he incited on January 6th as a march, declaring his love for the insurrectionists. According to Trump, white supremacists are allowed the benefit of the doubt and could possibly be good people at heart. Yet, those in support of black lives are automatically dangerous and should be perceived as a threat. With these statements, Donald Trump at once validates the platform of white supremacists while invalidating black lives in the United States and negating the idea that racism is a problem; he normalizes the presence of white supremacy while revealing the inability of the country to acknowledge its inherent racism and bigotry. Anyone witnessing photos and images of how the BLM protesters were treated versus how the white supremacist insurrectionists were treated at our Capitol can see that racial gaslighting has deeply permeated our country systemically and is a problem that outlives the Trump presidency.

Gender Gaslighting

Also problematic is gender gaslighting, where a woman may not feel comfortable voicing concerns about sexism because her concerns are automatically dismissed. Consider a woman -- let’s call her Jana -- who has been working for a company for many years and is very qualified for a promotion. Yet every time Jana expects to be promoted, a man is given the promotion instead, even though he has had less time at the company and is not as qualified. Jana may attempt to discuss this with her boss, but he insists it has nothing to do with her gender; he tells her she is overanalyzing the situation and being over-sensitive. While it is possible that Jana’s boss could be telling the truth, it is more likely that her gender is in fact playing a role in not receiving a promotion, as this pattern has repeated multiple times. However, Jana has learned that she does not have a space to speak up about this sexism, will likely be negatively judged for speaking up and thus have an even harder time getting that promotion, and therefore most likely will not attempt to speak up again. This is the same situation that is seen with racial gaslighting-- the cycle will continue for Jana, and her emotions may inevitably turn inwards, convincing her that she is not qualified for any promotion and deserves to be limited to her current level.

COVID-19 Gaslighting

We even see gaslighting around COVID-19. As a college student at a very urban university, the pandemic has shaken up every single aspect of college life. Though my school has adjusted as best as possible (we are tested twice a week and receive our results within 24 hours; most classes are online and if they aren’t, there are usually less than five people in-person, all socially-distanced; so on and so forth), interacting with other students and people my age really reveals the mindset around the pandemic.

As the pandemic has raged on, it feels as though people have accepted its presence, or stopped caring altogether. It’s a stark difference from the first lockdown in March, where it felt (at least for the most part) that everyone was on the same page. But now, instead of staying inside and mitigating the impacts of the pandemic, it feels as though it’s now a matter of working around the pandemic to do things we used to do. Those who are still staying inside have become more of the minority than the majority, and are sometimes gaslighted to feel overly paranoid for continuing to take the pandemic seriously. This gaslighting is clearly very harmful to society as a whole, as it simultaneously perpetuates coronavirus while undermining common sense and the empathy to care about the collective nation.

COVID gaslighting can exist on a small interpersonal level. Consider a situation where two friends want to get together, but one is insisting on following social distancing regulations while the other is suggesting to abandon them altogether. The one wanting to abandon social distancing may claim that they have both been isolating themselves since the beginning of the pandemic, and it is unlikely that they could infect each other. They may go on to call their friend overly paranoid of the virus and accuse them of not wanting to get together. Though this is not actually the case, the friend who was attempting to follow COVID regulations is made to be the villain, which is a common gaslighting mechanism.

Even worse, COVID gaslighting has been perpetuated by some people in power, who can afford to preach a careless and selfish mentality around COVID-19 because, even when they contract the virus, they have the money, power, and resources to combat it. Meanwhile, they continue to manipulate the American public into believing that COVID is not something to be taken seriously.Their followers adopt the same invincible mindset, but it is clear that they -- and most other average Americans -- are not in the same situation and do not have the same money and resources to combat COVID if needed. The situation is even worse for identity groups that have been historically oppressed.

Many Black and brown communities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19: African-Americans deaths are two times higher than would be expected for their population, and it is the same for Hispanics and Latinos. On the other hand, white deaths from COVID are “lower than their share of the population in 37 states.” These disparities result from institutionalized and systemic racism (fed by racial gaslighting) that has been snowballing since our country’s inception.

Combatting Racism by Contending with Gaslighting

It is in no way, shape, or form the victim’s responsibility to attempt to change their gaslighter’s behavior. Instead, it is important for us to create safe spaces for these victims to be heard and validated. Thus, putting a stop to gaslighting begins by looking inwardly at our own behavior and preconceived biases; particularly, if you find yourself recognizing some of the behaviors symptomatic of gaslighting, it may be wise to engage in self-introspection and attempt to accept some responsibility. Though some gaslighting may be done unintentionally or what you believed to be well-meaning, it clearly is still harmful and must be mitigated. To confront the biases that may underlie your possible gaslighting of others, you can also take this online test that examines and assesses internal biases that you may not have even noticed (it takes about 10-15 minutes). Attempt to challenge these internal biases, and pay attention to how they affect your interactions with others.

Additionally, be prepared and open to truly listen to and learn from other people and their experiences, and focus on increasing your awareness of others’ circumstances. These steps can begin the process of acknowledging gaslighter responsibility. By first starting on a personal scale, we can expand this introspection to a larger scale and begin holding the racist systems in our country accountable.

If you find yourself a victim of gaslighting, it is important to safeguard your mental health. This can be done by taking a step back from the situation and removing yourself from the environment to consider the hurtful behavior and resulting emotions. You can write down your thoughts to affirm your judgement as valid and for reference if necessary. It also can be helpful to talk with other members of your identity group and share experiences like this. Affirmation from others with similar circumstances can validate your experience of harmful gaslighting and remind you that you are not alone. This can help you to trust yourself more as well as recognize the gaslighting as it is happening.

In the moment gaslighting is occurring, it is important to call out the behavior publicly (when possible and safe to do so), showing the perpetrator and others in proximity that the behavior is inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Further (again, to the extent safe and not harmful), you can talk one-on-one with the perpetrator to discuss the behavior, making sure to describe the behavior and why it is harmful. Setting boundaries (e.g., taking a step back, removing yourself from the situation, as described above) will help to loosen any grip the negative environment or perpetrator may have on you.

As an ally, it is important to help support victims of racial gaslighting by helping to call out the unacceptable behavior, as well as creating a safe space for victims to express themselves and be heard and respected. Make sure that what you are doing is not self-indulgent or performative, but rather is truly helpful to the victim and in their self interest.

Combatting racism in a present day context is not an easy task -- it is extremely complicated and has far-reaching and entrenched roots in the United States. That said, the task should begin with dismantling the practices that perpetuate racism on interpersonal and societal scales. By recognizing racial gaslighting, it is possible to disrupt stereotypes and racial hierarchies, while also offering the historically oppressed, excluded, and marginalized a safe space to speak and be heard, which uncloaks hard truths from underneath imposed false narratives. Those who insist they don’t see color are not seeing people of color and their lived experiences.

Without seeing the hard truths, we are unable to address them.

[quasarlasar]

Lesser Known Black Hole Misconceptions

During NASA’s Black Hole Week I saw a lot of social media posts, press releases, videos etc. that were not really correct. 

One big issue with science communication about black holes is that while it has gotten good at dispelling the trivial myths (like “black holes suck everything into them and so you should be afraid Sgr A* will kill us all”) it has perpetuated other myths that require more detailed knowledge of general relativity and astronomy to debunk. 

I thought it would be interesting to go over some of these misconceptions...

Myth: Stuff that falls into a black hole appears to freeze just outside the event horizon from the perspective of an outside observer.

Reality: Stuff that falls into a black hole disappears from view quickly.

People who perpetuate this one usually say it’s because time dilation makes the stuff appear to stop moving. But time dilation also causes the photons released by the object to be redshifted, and for fewer photons to be released with each moment of time. The end result is that the stuff will get exponentially fainter, and become invisible to your eyes.

Myth: You can’t escape the event horizon because the escape velocity is the speed of light.

Reality: You can’t escape the event horizon because no paths through space-time lead outward.

This myth is technically correct...but insufficient. It is possible to escape an object with less than its escape velocity if you continuously apply a thrust. This is in fact how rockets are launched from the Earth. If escape velocity = light speed were all there was to a black hole, then you could escape a black hole with a strong rocket.

But you can’t. For once you cross the event horizon, all paths through space-time are so warped that no paths lead outward. This is the true power of a black hole: the curvature of space-time is such that nothing inside can ever causally affect the outside. 

Myth: A singularity is an infinitely dense point.

Reality: Singularities are where space-time is incomplete.

This one is a really obscure misconception. A lot of people say infinite density is what defines a singularity, but technically it’s something called “geodesic incompleteness.” Basically a space-time contains a singularity when paths through it abruptly come to an end. The singularity isn’t really an object in space-time so much as an edge to space-time itself. Approach a singularity, and curvature increases asymptotically to infinity and space-time itself ends  and you simply cease to exist.

For this reason, a singularity can’t really be an infinitely dense point of stuff. As far as classical general relativity goes, stuff that falls into a black hole is destroyed at the singularity. 

It is often thought that a true quantum theory of gravity will replace the singularities with something else, but for now, the singularities represent where we cannot tell how space-time continues beyond.

Myth: The singularity’s gravity creates the black hole.

Reality: Black holes are self-perpetuating.

Once an imploding object collapses into a black hole, forms an event horizon, and destroys itself in a singularity, it’s gone. The rest of the Universe doesn’t even know it ever existed. But its gravity continues on, because the curvature of space-time created in the process can create perpetuate itself due to the nonlinearity of Einstein’s equations. Essentially a black hole is pure gravity. The singularity isn’t some solid object that curves space-time to create the black hole; the curved space-time is the black hole. 

Myth: Black holes are very dense objects.

Reality: Black holes are empty space-time.

This is related to the preceding myth. Black holes are vacuum solutions to Einstein’s field equations, and don’t have any matter anywhere save for what’s falling into them at the moment. Their mass comes from the ability of gravity to source itself.

You might think that at the very least you’d need a very high density of matter to make it implode in on itself and create a black hole in the first place, but this isn’t necessarily true either. You could make a supermassive black hole just by filling a solar system with regular density water. 

Myth: A black hole’s internal radius is its Schwarzschild radius.

Reality: A black hole’s internal radius is not well defined.

The Schwarzschild radius is the radius of circumference of the event horizon for a non-rotating black hole, and is very famous because it is easy to calculate. Many people assume that if it is the radius of the event horizon, then it must also be the distance from the horizon to the center of the black hole, like the black hole is a spherical volume.

Unfortunately, this neglects the fact that space-time inside a black hole is extremely curved. In fact, it is curved in such a way that the distance to the center of the black hole is not well defined. It is time dependent, and changes depending on your choice of coordinates.

Curved space-time is really difficult to get your head around. Visualizing curved spaces in flat space-time is simple enough, but curved space-time itself? It messes with things we find sacrosanct, like distances and volumes, and it’s impossible to map it all onto a single coordinate system. It’s not like those “bowling ball on a sheet” analogies you often see...it’s something far more complex and abstract.

Myth: Black holes kill galaxies.

Reality: The jury’s still out on who did it.

This one is just an oversimplification I see a lot in popular science media of the phenomenon known as “AGN feedback.” The simplest version of the idea is that supermassive black holes drive powerful winds and jets that drive the gas out of their galaxy and shut down its star formation. 

However, the current evidence suggests the picture is a *lot* more complicated, with many galaxies not suffering this problem at all, and the galaxies that are often thought of as having been ‘killed’ in this way (the giant ellipticals) may not have been ‘killed’ solely by their supermassive black holes. It’s still uncertain how much AGN feedback played a role in quenching star formation versus major mergers, minor mergers, or even the stars themselves blowing out the gas and choking off their own formation (like through supernovae and stellar winds). 

(Also this should be clear, but when astronomers say a galaxy is ‘dead,’ the galaxy and all its stars and planets still exists! It just isn’t forming many new stars anymore. Supermassive black holes still won’t kill you.)

Myth: Quasars are powered by black holes shredding and devouring stars.

Reality: Quasars are powered by black holes accreting gas clouds.

I’ve seen many people (some of whom are [astro]physicists and should know better) state that quasars are powered by supermassive black holes that are shredding several suns every year. In reality, this isn’t what’s going on. In the center of a galaxy, everything’s moving very fast, so objects need to come close to each other and lose angular momentum to each other to fall into the black hole. Stars are compact and so don’t really get close enough to interact strongly with each other. Gas clouds are much larger and are able to collide with each other, canceling out their momentum and allowing them to fall into the black hole.

As such, while they’re famous for eating stars and planets, most of a black hole’s diet is gas and dust. In that regard, they’re kind of like predators maligned as man-eaters, like sharks. 

Myth: Heavily accreting black holes always launch big jets.

Reality: Some don’t!

One weird thing that scientists have learned from studying variability in stellar black holes is that jets seem to be most prominent in low accretion states. At higher accretion states, the jets at first get more powerful, but eventually they break up into blobs and become a broad wind instead. 

Supermassive black holes do not vary on short enough timescales for us to really see jets turning on and off, but we can observe the population of actively accreting supermassive black holes and try to piece together a progression of accretion states from that. Drawings of quasars always show them with big old honking jets spewing out for many light years around, but it turns out many (perhaps even most) quasars don’t have observable jets! It just so happens quasars were first discovered in radio waves, and the only quasars that are prominent in radio are the ones with clearly visible jets.

Most supermassive black holes with prominent jets are in radio galaxies, which aren’t accreting at high rates. Some think that the minority of quasars which are radio loud might represent the supermassive equivalent of the transition state observed in stellar black holes. 

However it is entirely possible that the quasars that don’t have jets do indeed have them, it’s just that we cannot see them because they are pointed away from us. This is still an active area of research!

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

This may be confusing but honestly, I like science so much in part because I love all the nitty-gritty details and picking apart and over-analyzing stuff. Oh well...at least you can enjoy my dumb black hole comics. ^_^

[tejkohlifoundation]

Tej Kohli: Profile Of A Technologist

Tej Kohli is a philanthropist who is well known for his worldwide mission to eliminate corneal blindness from poor and underserved communities by 2035.  In 2006 he sold a company that he had founded just seven years earlier as part of a high value sale.  The company specialised in online payment gateways for high risk sectors and also in the acquisition, turnaround and trade sale of online gaming properties.  Since this 2006 liquidity event Tej Kohli has been actively engaged in building the not-for-profit Tej Kohli Foundation.

Tej Kohli is also an impact investor focused on artificial intelligence, robotics and biotechnology ventures that have the potential to drive positive human impact.  His impact investments include proprietary technologies that have the potential to have a transformation impact in a variety of applications.  Ventures backed by Tej Kohli are engaged in activities ranging from resolving the treatment gap that leads to poverty-driven blindness through to solving the logistical challenges of organ donation and even using machine learning to dramatically increase the efficiency of plastics recycling.

Tej is a father to two teenagers and has been married to his wife Wendy for over twenty years.  He is a keen esports fan and an unashamed supercar enthusiast.  He is also an avid ballroom dancer who has competed in international events.  Tej Kohli regularly shares his thoughts and wisdom in a series of #TejTalks blogs and is an active user of social media.

Here we find out more about the colourful technologist…

What is #TejTalks?

Tej Kohli - #TejTalks is where I share my thoughts and also important information about the things that matter to me or which have captured my attention.  I blog using Medium and I also post a lot on Twitter and Facebook.  I am not that well known and I am not a public figure, so I do not have much of a platform elsewhere.  The beauty of place like Medium and to a lesser extent Twitter, is the ability to make unmediated connections with experts.

The Tej Kohli Foundation for example, is entirely depending on forming new partnerships and coalitions all around the world to solve big challenges.  So #TejTalks is a great place to zone in onto some of the constitute parts of those challenges or the underlying factors that are causing them, and to connect and share ideas with relevant experts.  A huge proportion of corneal blindness for example is a poverty-driven ailment, and so you cannot solve it without also looking at the underlying causes of poverty.  Female inequality also plays a big role in poverty blindness, and so recently I have been learning and blogging about that too.

You recently published ‘Rebuilding You: The Philanthropy Handbook’.  Why?

Tej Kohli - My own approach to philanthropy has been heaving focused on rebuilding people and communities around the world.  And one of the things that I have learned on that journey is that in becoming a philanthropist you cannot simply become a kinder and more benevolent version of yourself.  You also need to behave differently, think differently and change your outlook.  I wrote ‘Rebuilding You’ as a guide for others who want to use their wealth for good, so that they can avoid some of the common pitfalls and have a greater impact more quickly.  

I have organised the ‘Rebuilding You’ handbook into key decision areas.  Each area will enable would-be philanthropists to combine some of my experiences with their own to synthesise new ideas about how to define a brand of philanthropy that will best achieve their goals.

What is the biggest lesson that you have learned during your career?

Tej Kohli - I am about to turn 63 and I have led a rollercoaster life.  People often tell me that my life story would make a great movie, but I tell them that if it was a it would do badly it because the story would not seem believable!  I made a single youthful mistake in 1988 that I have regretted ever since and which I still feel great remorse for.  I think what that taught me is that sometimes the important thing is to know what not to do.  

At the same time if you want to achieve something you need to aim higher and go further than almost every other person is prepared to go, and if you start young like I did, it is inevitable that you will make some mistakes.  I feel bad for young people these days as so much of their lives are recorded and documented online.  I counsel my kids and their friends to aim high but also to be very careful as any indiscretion could follow them forever.

But the biggest lesson I think I have learned is that you will always have your critics and not to let them detract from what you are doing.  It’s best not to give them the satisfaction of allowing them to diminish who you are and what you are doing.  The best thing to do is to simply keep going, keep doing good, keep giving back and keep helping others.

What for you have been the key moments in your life?

You know my mother is 86 now and if I am anything in life then I owe it to her.  She has always been there for me and that consistent love and support has been more important to me than any particular moments, except of course for the birth of my son and daughter.  I had my children quite late in life, but my kids are by far the thing that I am most proud of.

In terms of my career, my first job after graduating in Electrical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology was installing tachometers.  I was installing at a facility owned by Rabocomtel and realised that I could design a process controlled which would significantly increase the efficiency of their facilities.  It’s a long story, but ultimately, I was able to pitch the idea to the CEO who placed a big order with the company that I worked for.  That gave me my first real affirmation of my desire to become an entrepreneur.

When the company that I launched in 1999 reached $100m of turnover was also a key moment for me too.  It affirmed my belief in what was possible, and we quickly expanded to employ hundreds of software developers and began buying and turning around companies too.  And obviously when that company was sold in 2006 it was a life changing moment.

You graduated in from the Indian Institute of Technology with a degree in Electrical Engineering.  Do you still consider yourself an engineer?

Tej Kohli - Today I would call myself a technologist, but I think that to be an engineer you now need to be a technologist and vice versa.  It was 1980 when I graduated in Electrical Engineering and ‘technology’ as we know it today did not really exist.  The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) remains today one of the top educational institutions in the world and it has become famous for the problem-solving abilities of its engineers.  

When the COVID-19 crisis hit in 2020, India found itself with a catastrophic shortage of ventilators, but within weeks engineers at IIT had created a low-cost ventilator that could be manufactured using off-the-shelf parts.  They made their design open source so that local manufacturing companies could turn their resources to manufacturing ventilators, which they did.  That is an elegant example of engineering and technology coming together.

In 2018 my alma mater conferred their Distinguished Alumnus Award upon me for serving society at large through my work at the Tej Kohli Foundation.  That made me proud because part of what we do at the Foundation is to deploy technology to solve human problems.

Who has inspired you most in life?

Tej Kohli - The late Kofi Annan was by far the wisest and most inspirational man that I have ever met.  But from a more practical perspective, as obvious as it may sound, I greatly admire Bill Gates.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation approach to philanthropy has set a high standard to which all other philanthropists can aspire.  The way that Bill Gates defined very specific objectives and then intensively targeted vast resources into both grassroots activities and also major scientific innovations, has been a big source of learning for me that has continually motivated and inspired me to do even more.  Bill Gates achieved so much in business and then used that success to achieve so much for others that like me he has almost had ‘two lives’.  His example is a wake-up call for any human who has accumulated wealth to consider how they might use that wealth for the betterment of their fellow human beings.

I am also greatly indebted to Michael Milken.  His story resonates strongly with me because Milken got ‘tripped up’ by his prodigious early success, but then made a colossal comeback and focused on using his success to help others.  Today Milken is one of the biggest funders of research into prostate cancer, and the results are incredible.  In 2004 Fortune Magazine called Milken ‘The Man Who Changed Medicine’.  Milken shows that it is possible to move on from past youthful mistakes and rebuild yourself for the betterment of other people.

You have been at the helm of the Tej Kohli Foundation for well over a decade.  When did your philanthropic ambitions start?

Tej Kohli - It was my wife Wendy who started off our journey into philanthropy when in 2005 we sponsored a group of disabled children in Costa Rica.  By 2005 we knew that a sale of my company was imminent, and we wanted to have something new to put all of our energies into.  The group of disabled children that we committed to help had varying levels of disability, and our job was to make interventions that would improve their lives.  Some had such severe disability that they would need permanent care for the rest of their lives.  At the opposite end of the spectrum, with our support one young girl eventually attended college in the USA.

That same year my wife Wendy launched the ‘Funda  Kohli’ project by establishing a series of free canteens in Costa Rica, which is where she is from.  The canteens are still operational today more than fifteen years later.  They feed hundreds of school age children for free every single day to make sure that they have the nutrition and sustenance that they need to thrive.  

But today you are best known for your mission to end corneal blindness by 2035, where did that mission come from?

Tej Kohli - In 2010 I was invited to fund donor corneal transplants at Niramaya Hospital in India.  There is no history of blindness in my family and corneal blindness is not something that I had known a huge amount about before then.  Nowadays I consider myself something of an expert.  I was present in 2010 as the recipient of a corneal transplant that I had funded - a 50-year-old man who had been blind for decades - had his bandages removed.  The man was able to see his wife and grown up children for the first time in decades.  

That was a life changing moment for him and also for me and was my affirmation that having enjoyed so much rapid success in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, I now wanted to use that success to eliminate corneal blindness.  I felt it was my calling.  

Another one of the reasons that corneal blindness resonated so strongly with me is because it is at its heart it is a poverty driven ailment.  75% of corneal blindness is either preventable or treatable.  But when it is left untreated, it impedes the ability of entire families to become economically successful in communities that are already impoverished.  NGOs do not reach a majority of the remote and rural communities in India.  In communities that are underserved for healthcare provision due to their remoteness or poverty, there is a huge treatment gap.

The other challenge with corneal blindness, is that because it’s not life threatening, it attracts less attention than some other global health issues.  But the social and economic impact of restoring someone’s vision is immense.  It changes families forever.  That’s why I became determined to make a difference.  And by 2015 I was funding so many corneal transplant operations at Niramaya that a bigger facility was needed.  

Is that when the Tej Kohli Cornea Institute project was started?

Tej Kohli - The Tej Kohli Cornea Institute in Hyderabad was the biggest project that the Tej Kohli Foundation had ever embarked upon.  It opened in late 2015 and by November 2019 it had welcomed more than 223,404 outpatients and completed more than 43,255 surgeries.  

People living with corneal blindness or visual impairment in India were often living in total poverty and in some instances could not even afford the train fare to travel to see a doctor, let alone to pay for a complex corneal transplant operation.  We treated anyone referred to the Tej Kohli Cornea Institute for free regardless of who they were.  It meant that we were able to help people who had been economically ‘shut out’ from the life changing treatment.

There was one girl who was the same age as my daughter whose vision was so poor that she was nearly blind.  I was visiting Hyderbad and met her just after she had received her corneal transplant.  She gave me a big hug and I couldn’t help thinking how I would feel if this was my daughter.  After that I couldn’t stop thinking about how many others like her were still out there.  Knowing that I could help them felt like a big responsibility that I wanted to rise to.

The focus of the Tej Kohli Cornea Institute is in India, but you haven’t lived in India for many decades.  What is it that keeps your focus on India?

Tej Kohli - ‘First world’ problems are invariably the ones which it would be relatively expensive to solve.  By contrast, high rates of poverty mean that many developing countries are plagued by diseases that it would cost the ‘first world’ comparatively tiny sums to control.  In 2018 India commenced the world’s largest experiment in Universal healthcare when the Government granted 500 million people the entitlement to free health insurance overnight.  

This will mean that those living below the poverty line in India will no longer have to pay for hospital treatments that would until now have pushed them into crippling debts.  But whilst on the surface this is a hugely positive step forward, too much optimism entirely ignores the fact that it will still take many decades and billions of dollars to bring all of India’s healthcare systems up to the equivalent standard of that in the West.  Until then, highly pervasive treatment gaps will continue to permeate the poorest communities.  

My own focus on India as a philanthropist actually has nothing to do with my own heritage.  Unfortunately, India is an epicentre of poverty-driven corneal blindness, and so it is the obvious place for us to be in our mission to combat this form of blindness, the vast proportion of which is either avoidable or treatable.  But closing the treatment gaps is about more than money – it is also about logistics, resources, education, knowledge, cultural understanding and having a deep reach into communities.  Does my heritage help with this?  Yes, a little.

But in 2020 you announced that you were going to shift your focus away from these direct interventions in favour of finding cures.  Why?

Tej Kohli – What has always been abundantly clear from the beginning is the sheer magnitude of the task of closing the corneal blindness treatment gap.  I have always felt that official data is incomplete and so in reality there could be ten million people in the world living needlessly with corneal blindness.  Most of them are in remote and rural communities across many different countries speaking different languages and with different systems in place.

You simply cannot eliminate corneal blindness by relying on transplantation surgery.  Transplantation is too expensive, too complex and too inaccessible for most of the people who need it.  The only way to eliminate corneal blindness by 2035 is to bring to market a novel solution that is affordable, scalable and accessible in all circumstances.  What you need is a solution that can be applied by ophthalmologists or nurses without surgical intervention.  

Finding that ‘universal’ solution is not something that we have just embarked upon: we have been working on it for years and today we have our own intellectual property which we have developed ‘in house’ as well as sponsoring the projects of third parties at major institutions.  To begin with we tried to synthesise new corneas from yeast and then later from peptides.  We were able to create them, but the rejection rate was too high, and neither solution would have removed the need for invasive sutures and expensive surgery.  

It took until 2019 before we achieved a breakthrough when we created a proprietary regenerative solution, which in theory, could be applied using a syringe and cause the cornea to ‘regenerate’ and repair itself.  Subject to regulatory approvals, this ‘universal solution’ is now years rather than decades away and could be relevant to more than one third of people with corneal blindness.

The “major institution” where you are sponsoring projects, is that Harvard Medical School?

Tej Kohli – Actually the Tej Kohli Cornea Program resides at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston, which is a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School.  It is Harvard professors from the Department of Ophthalmology who lead the research that we sponsor at Mass. Eye and Ear, but our donations do directly to the hospital and it is they who administer the spending.

I donated $2m in 2019 to support the development of innovative technologies to improve medical diagnoses and treatments of corneal blindness.  That money is going toward two major projects, one being similar to our own in-house project, and the other utilising nano string technologies to aid early diagnostics and preventative treatment.  The funds are also used to provide seed funding to projects that address unmet medical needs in ophthalmology.  In my mind the first $2m is just the start and we will do more together in the future too.

In 2019 we also inaugurated the Tej Kohli Cornea Institute UK Centre of Innovation in the United Kingdom.  The Institute is building a research network to bring scientific expertise together and is also harnessing the best of British innovation to bridge the corneal blindness treatment gap in poor communities by awarding grants to UK-based technological and scientific projects.  Decisions are made by an advisory board of UK experts in Ophthalmology.

Recently you returned to your earliest days of feeding children by launching food support programs in the UK.  Why?

Tej Kohli - in the Spring of 2020 the world was plunged into a global crisis due to the Coronavirus.  The pandemic required an emergency response of immediate interventions to alleviate individual human suffering.  We had for a long time been formulating plans for how we could get involved in the mission to combat holiday hunger in the UK.  When the crisis hit we had to bring those plans forward and play our part in supporting the local community.

The Tej Kohli Foundation partnered with community groups to create capacity to deliver 100,000 cooked meals each week to any charities or volunteer groups who need more free food to distribute into their local community.  We also created the ‘YouCube’ box, a youth-focused food initiative that aims to ‘repackage’ food provision as an off-the-shelf initiative that existing charity and volunteer groups can adopt to combat hunger in their community.  

Now the Tej Kohli Foundation aspires to use the organisational memory that has been developed during this period and the deep community connectivity of the scheme to combat ‘holiday hunger’ amongst children.  

You also donated $100,000 toward the development of a vaccine for COVID-19, what motivated that?

Tej Kohli - I donated $100,000 of emergency funding to Harvard Medical School researchers based at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital in Boston.  They had developed a novel and experimental gene-based vaccine which utilises a harmless ‘Trojan horse’ virus as a carrier to bring a tiny piece of the DNA of SARS-CoVid-2 into a patient’s cells, building a protein that stimulates their immune system to fight future infections.  I think it is a promising solution to a major global problem, and I am hopeful that it will prove successful.

Your ‘Future Bionics’ program is funding 3D-printed bionic arms for young people in the UK.  How did you arrive at this project?

Tej Kohli – I am immensely proud of our Future Bionics project.  It captures so elegantly what the Tej Kohli Foundation is all about: making direct interventions to improve people’s lives using technology, with a particular focus on younger people with their entire life ahead of them.  The project came about when I had lunch with the CEO of the company that make the bionic arms and he told me that a lot of families turn to crowdfunding because they cannot afford to purchase one of the arms for their child, and that most of this crowdfunding fails.

The first arm was delivered to a 10-year-old from Blackburn called Jacob as an early Christmas present.  He has set a shining example and is a fine young man who is a great role model to other young people.  And since then we are working our way through to provide arms to ten young people to begin with.  I hope we can continue the program after that, but we will have to take a view on the cost versus the impact once that the current tranche is completed.

Why do you place so much faith and emphasis into technology?

Tej Kohli – you should never underestimate the role of technology in making the world a better place.  We are living through an unprecedented time in human history where a chain reaction of rapid technological development across science and technology is unlocking unprecedented new opportunities to solve major human problems.  Technologists can look out across the vista of a hugely rich and fertile landscape of new opportunities to improve human life.  Many new and novel solutions are within grasp and simply need to be incubated and ‘proven’ to stimulate their widespread adoption.

Many technologists and entrepreneurs have built successful commercial enterprises or pioneered new technology solutions before.  It’s my belief that this expertise is absolutely critical for unlocking the potential of these new and frontier technologies in a way that can have an exponential global impact in terms of solving human problems and improving human life.  

I have long been fascinated by deep tech and new frontier technologies.  When I started my payment gateways company in Costa Rica in 1999 we were figuring out frontier technologies and combining them to build brand solutions and applications.   By the time that I left in 2006 my company employed armies of software developers.  And this experience as a technologist is now also part of the DNA of my objectives and ambitions as a philanthropist.

It was Peter Thiel who noted that “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters��.  Is there a risk that technology will not deliver in the ways that you expect?

Tej Kohli - My real point is that we are now at a watershed moment where the opportunity is to innovate solutions that could eliminate specific areas of human suffering entirely, rather than merely alleviating them. I strongly believe that AI and ‘humanitarian robotics’ have the potential to drive innovations which will alleviate human suffering and hardship, both directly and indirectly.  I also believe that humanitarian efforts the world over will be greatly advanced by these emerging technologies as they continue their exponential growth.

That’s why earlier this year I established a new incubator to back scientific projects and commercial ventures that were targeting solutions to corneal blindness, with the caveat that those solutions must be affordable, scalable and accessible in the world’s poorest countries.

You have predicted that artificial intelligence could become a $150 trillion economy within five years, which is ten times more than the current combined output of India and China?

Tej Kohli - Artificial intelligence, and also biotechnology for that matter, are both frontier technologies that are locked into an exponential growth trajectory.  The cost of deciphering the human genome has dropped from $3 billion in 2001, to about $1,000 today and what took many months ten years ago can now be done in less than one hour.  

I believe that AI will be so manifest within all aspects of life, and that the applications are so broad, that the AI economy will worth four times that of the global Internet economy, which is today worth approximately $50 trillion.  AI is also already transforming developing countries.  In Nepal, machine learning has been utilised to map and prioritize reconstruction needs after earthquakes.  In Africa AI tutors are helping young students to catch up on coursework.  NGOs and humanitarian aid agencies are using big data analytics to optimise the delivery of supplies for refugees fleeing conflict and other hardships.  And in India rural farmers are being encouraged to use AI to improve crop yields and boost profits.  

Technological innovations like these bring us much closer to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on issues like eradicating poverty, ending health-care inequality, increasing access to schooling, and combating global warming.  And yet the world is only just scratching the surface of what these new technologies could do for human progress.  

Your Kohli Ventures investment vehicle focuses on impact investment.  Where does philanthropy end and impact investment begin?

Tej Kohli – That’s a good question.  Impact investment looks at the double bottom line of profit and social impact.  Philanthropy is a good way to spend wealth, but somewhere along the line you need to first generate that wealth.  So why not, when the circumstances are right, try to do both at the same time?  Take for example Detraxi, a Florida-based biotech company that I wholly own.  It’s a commercial venture but could have a significant humanitarian impact.

More than 100,800 solid organ transplants are performed each year worldwide according to the World Health Organisation.  Eight lives can potentially be saved by just one organ donor.  Demand far outstrips supply, yet thousands of organs get discarded every single year though wastage due to the practical difficulties of preserving and transporting organs.  Imagine if you could solve that problem, it would be a good business that would also save thousands of lives?  Well that is what we are trying to do by bringing the Detraxi solution to the market.

But which is more important, philanthropy or impact investment?

Tej Kohli - It was Sir Ronald Cohen who said that “the world must change but we cannot change it by throwing money at old ideas that no longer work.  To change the world, we must change how we do business, starting with where and when we invest our money”.  Can you imagine a world where every investment decision made by every institution also weighed up the human or social impact of that investment?  The consequences would be immense.

Worldwide impact investment is currently was worth around $715 billion in 2018, but the International Finance Corporation estimates that based on current demand from investors’  total demand is nearer to $26 trillion, which is fifty times larger.  Impact investing already has the power to solve issues that are often beyond governments.  And I am convinced that impact investing is one of the best ways of funding the technology-led changes that the world urgently needs in order to solve some of our biggest challenges.

What have been your favourite impact investments so far?

Tej Kohli – my impact investment portfolio is doing very well indeed, but I deliberately do not disclose my investments since having my name associated can eb a hinderance.  And anyway, the focus should be the founders and entrepreneurs at those venture, not on me.  One of the largest investments I have made was in 2019 when I committed $100m into the Rewired robotics-focused venture studio ‘with a humanitarian bent’.  

Rewired is a Switzerland based organisation, so I do not have any direct influence over what they invest in and their portfolio is also a tightly guarded secret.  But based on the Rewired investments that are already in the public domain, one of my favourites is Aromyx based in Silicon Valley.  Aromyx was originally initiated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.  The company is creating new modalities of data that have the potential to be disruptive across many sectors and applications.  In 2019 Aromyx completed a large-scale study with one of the world’s largest chemical companies with a view to deploying Aromyx into the recycling process to improve plastics recycling rates by over 90%.

Other investments publicised by Rewired include Seldon, which is at the heart of accelerating the adoption of machine learning to solve some of the world’s most challenging problems.  There is also Raptor Maps, which was founded by MIT Engineers and makes it simple and affordable for solar companies to adopt drone technology as a tool to increase performance.  Open Bionics is enhancing the lives of all humans everywhere with its next generation of 3D-printed ‘bionic’ prosthetics.  And Elementary Robotics is re-engineering automation intelligence through its deep learning artificial intelligence software.

You have said before that you believe your children, who are teenagers, could live to be at least 125 years old.  What will the world be like by 2125?

Tej Kohli - If I look at how the world has changed since I graduated in 1980, and given the acceleration of technological and human progress, I think it’s impossible to imagine the world in 2125.  Thanks to economic growth the world is already on track to end extreme poverty by 2030, so perhaps the next 100 years of human history will see humanity unlocking the latent potential that has always been restrained by global inequality.  

Of course, there are still major human challenges such as over population, sustainability and climate change that need dealing with.  But even during the next decade AI will change every aspect of our lives.  So by 2125 I am optimistic that technology will have unlocked even more solutions to these major global challenges.

Time will tell.  What I am certain is that the opportunity is right in front of us, and it is for all of us to master it for the betterment of all of humanity.

For more information about Tej Kohli visit:

Tej Kohli official website: http://www.TejKohli.com

Tej Kohli Foundation official website: http://www.TejKohliFoundation.com

Kohli Ventures official website: http://www.KohliVentures.com

Tej Kohli personal blog: https://medium.com/tej-kohli

Tej Kohli Foundation YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/tejkohlifoundation

@MrTejKohl on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrtejkohli

@MrTejKohli on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mrtejkohli

Tej Kohli Amazon Author Profile: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tej-Kohli/e/B08CY13FNR 

Tej Kohli Telegraph profile: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/04/tej-kohli-indian-tech-billionaire-plans-turbocharge-britains/

[13thgenfilm]

An Experiment with Visual Storytelling from Every Zip Code — Helping us find #HOPE in the face of #TRAUMA during the time of #COVID19

Written by 13th Gen’s Founder and CEO Marc Smolowitz, this article originally appeared on THE G WORD blog in April 2020. THE G WORD is a forthcoming documentary film, directed and produced by Marc, that explodes the mythology around what it means to be gifted in the 21st century, revealing the educational challenges, social isolation, emotional sensitivities and physical threats faced by many gifted individuals in our schools and society and the search for solutions.  

Back in January, I had the wonderful honor of being the main presenter at the Mid-Winter Conference of Minnesota Educators of the Gifted and Talented (MEGT). As part of my visit to the great State of Minnesota, I was asked to prepare two keynotes and a breakout session, which in many ways was an unexpected gift to me. For my part, I was able to spend significant time with my own ideas around the “state-of-the-state” of gifted and talented education, especially in states like Minnesota and others that are largely suburban and rural and increasingly becoming some of the most diverse zip codes in the nation. As I contemplated the stories we’ve been capturing for this film in many of those places, I kept coming back to a few key things that are at the heart of THE G WORD documentary -- gifted and talented education is peppered by what I broadly refer to as TRAUMATIC NARRATIVES and as such, it is vitally important that our approach to training teachers and empowering families be what trauma psychology experts call TRAUMA-INFORMED.

As I spent time developing these ideas for the Conference, I realized that while I am by no means a trauma expert, surviving trauma has been a major throughline in my life and work for the past thirty years. Without getting too into the weeds of my own personal biography (a few keywords include: HIV+, gay/queer, Jewish child/grandchild of Holocaust Survivors), I explained to this audience of thoughtful educators how there are a number of key aspects of my lived experience and intersectional identities that have helped me develop the necessary skills and resilience to navigate the treacherous waters of trauma. So much so, my personal and professional trajectory as a storyteller has naturally pushed me in the direction of making activist-driven films on topics that require me to think, in part, like a trauma-informed therapist, including -- HIV/AIDS, LGBTQ+ civil rights, racism, poverty, sexual abuse, and PTSD from military combat, natural disasters, and addiction. As I asked for a show of hands from the audience as to who had experienced trauma either personally or through a family member among the powerful categories that are listed below, literally hundreds of hands went up. This affirmed for me once again that the vast majority of Americans in the 21st century have a deep nuanced relationship to traumatic narratives and that trauma is a commonly shared experience. I pointed out that, for me, gifted and talented education is actually no different than these other very challenging topics. In fact, education can be a fulcrum for trauma. And, with our film’s intense focus on equity, we’re unearthing lesser-known traumas across every kind of zip code across our great nation. But, perhaps, more importantly, we are also unearthing hope, resilience, strength, and leadership in response to this very real and troubling fact.

From there, I emphasized how important it can be to find your own voice through unfettered yet deliberate experiments with first-person storytelling, highlighting that collective forms of empowerment are often my major focus when it comes to this sort of deep and difficult story work involving trauma. So, in the spirit of experimentation and trust, I invited folks to join my breakout session the next day where I would be sharing tools that can help educators bring storytelling and empowerment into their gifted, talented and neurodiverse classrooms. It was in that session with some 30+ brave and inspiring teachers that I piloted for the very first time THE G WORD’s new #MyGiftedStory program, which we are officially launching today, using the following very simple, yet empowering instructions:

1. Take a white piece of paper and create a sign by writing the following information on it in magic marker:

the zip code where you live and/or work;

the hashtag, #MyGiftedStory;

and, five unique words / terms/ phrases that honestly describe the challenges and opportunities that define the situation for you as it relates to gifted, talented and neurodiverse education in your zip code.

2. Take a series of vertical and horizontal smartphone photos of yourself holding up your sign to share it with the world. Stand in that photo with a sense of pride and power knowing full well that your image, likeness, and zip code story are interconnected with thousands upon thousands of others who reside in similar and different zip codes around the country, all people who care deeply about this all-important question -- In the 21st century, who gets to be “gifted” in America and why?

3. Go to https://thegwordfilm.com/my-gifted-story to upload your submission.

As you can see in the examples below, the photo results were amazing that day in Northern Minnesota, and this is just a small sampling. As the one who was witness to what unfolded in that room, this exercise was hands-down fun and empowering, and I left that day with two important take-aways: What a treat to use this exercise focused on zip codes and smartphone photography to help us get a meaningful snapshot of what’s on the minds of gifted and talented educators across the “Land of 10,000 Lakes;” and, what if we could scale this sort of photo challenge to zip codes everywhere?!

Imagine the diversity. Imagine the depth and range of humanity and emotion we could capture. Imagine the joy and hope we’d uncover in the face of great trauma.

Flash-forward to now, and here we are in April 2020. Everyone in the world is experiencing a shared form of planetary trauma with the #COVID19 public health pandemic that none of us could have ever predicted or imagined just 8 weeks ago. My humble view: the trauma of this pandemic is going to define this century, and within that powerful framing, educators, advocates, and storytellers have an important role to play in helping people of every generation find ways to heal and find hope for the future. And, we’ve got the perfect large-scale communal activity and experiment on hand to help foster that spirit!

Warmly,

Marc Smolowitz, Director / Producer of THE G WORD

THE G WORD is delighted to be launching our newest social media initiative, #MyGiftedStory.

Our entire team warmly invites you and yours in the larger gifted, talented and neurodiverse communities to contribute to what we hope will become an unprecedented visual tapestry -- one that serves to put a memorable and diverse face to #gifted, #talented, and #neurodiverse America and beyond!

PARTICIPATE NOW: https://thegwordfilm.com/my-gifted-story

[stateofellagrace]

Comm 10: Assignment 2

A. What are the differences between primary oral cultures and literary cultures? How are they related with each other?

Primary oral cultures are cultures that involve talking and listening. There is no knowledge of writing meaning, the information heard was collected in the minds of the people. The absence of writing made it difficult to preserve the information thus, paving the emergence of literary culture, which in turn employs the manner of reading and writing. However, in literary, there is no involvement of the bodies unlike oral cultures; just pure text and interpretation, but the edge is that, it’s easier to grab the information since everything is written. Regardless of the differences, they’re important because both contribute to the effectiveness of our communication in the present time as well as to the next generations.

B. What does Walter Ong mean by the intersubjectivity of communication? How does this differentiate communication from media?

Intersubjectivity happens when individuals agree on a given set of meanings. In short, it can also be synonymous to the word “agreement.” To achieve an effective communication, an understanding between the sender and receiver and an exchange of roles happens as the sender becomes the receiver expecting for a respond. However, in media, there is only a one-way process allowing the sender to send the information, having to receive no feedback at all. A good example would be reading a newspaper. We may have different stands on the issues yet, we cannot oppose as to what the editor says. Hence, there is no intersubjectivity between the sender and the receiver.  

C. How does the ‘media’ model of communication show chirographic (i.e. writing) conditioning?

The media model of communication shows chirographic conditioning in such a way that written text conveys information, specifically a one-way informational process, in which there is no actual receiver. When information is changed from speech to written medium, chirographic conditioning occurs. It implies that whatever the sender broadcasts, none of the receivers can respond since the information and messages can be grasped by any person.

 D.  What are the industrial or economic factors in the evolution of media from print to radio to television?

In the earlier years, print media was a great way to disseminate information. Newspapers were the leading forms of prints as they serve as a way for people to connect on communal issues. As time goes by, prints from newspapers evolved into radio news, which technically marked the start of convergent media since there is already a merging of different forms. In no time, another medium was invented and it was the television. The process of the evolution of media had made people access information without any struggle. And because how fast-paced the demands of the people are, it resulted to the fast evolution of mass media.

E. What does the digitization of videos mean for information producers and consumers?

The digitization of videos for both producers and consumers mean that the information we need can now be easily accessed.  It is basically in this process that has revolutionized the communication system because of the capacity and ease it provides for both production and consumption of media. For producers, information could be disseminated in different ways whereas for consumers, it makes life convenient because we can easily look and search for the things, we want to know easily.  Digitization of videos also means transforming traditional home media into various digital formats that could be accessed anywhere through the help of the internet.

F. What are the pros and cons of media accessibility?

The best thing accessibility of media probably brings is that it makes us all connected. In an instant, it makes us aware of the news and information happening across the globe. Media is also used for advertising and marketing business.  With it, it has help businesses reach potential consumers faster and easier. Broadcast media is a way of conveying information in vast audiences and keeps us updated with news. But in every progress accompanies downsides. The fact that it has already existed everywhere, it leads to lesser human interaction and more time on social media. It can also be used for misinformation because media as a whole is vulnerable to propaganda and lies.  Knowing these cons, it is our responsibility to teach ourselves how to become media literate individuals.  

G.  What constitutes a convergent media? How is it differentiated from traditional media? Would you consider convergent media under the categories of new media? Explain your answer.

Media convergence, generally means the merging of different media channels- e.g, magazines, radio programs, TV shows- into a single digital bit-stream accessed through mobile digital system. Convergent and traditional media do not differ really, because both are tools for communication. I guess the distinguishable difference between the two is the period of existence in which traditional media obviously came out first which had involved the use of prints. The convergence of media is somehow under new media since it refers also to the combination of traditional and new media considering that it has allowed us to communicate in a whole new level. Technically, convergent media has just started before but has further elaborated at present through the combination of text, videos and audios

H. How does convergent media empower individuals to assert themselves in the bigger society? Think of the metaphor of David and Goliath. 

In a world wherein technology is constantly evolving, media convergence has become an important element to people most especially that we are bombarded with different issues today. Let us think of the bigger society as Goliath, wherein along with him lies the societal issues which needed to be given attention. But David, who basically represents us, believes in the power of voicing out our thoughts and feelings. With the help of the sling and rock, David was able to take down Goliath by hitting his weak spot. And that sling and rock, depicts media convergence. It has become a medium for us to fight against the unending issues in the society. Through it, we could also be a part of a positive change, and could plan for an effective solution for the betterment of the society. 

I.  Compare and contrast the evolution of communication from orality to literacy and the evolution of media from traditional media to convergent media. Reflecting on how these developments came about, what could be assumed (or predicted) for the future of media production and consumption and/or mass communication?

The evolution of communication from orality and literacy is not that apart from the evolution of media from traditional to convergent. Basically, orality paved the way to the existence of literacy in the same manner the convergent media came from traditional media. These evolutions differ according to the period of time they emerge but they are similar in the way that both developed through time and became into something much more helpful and convenient. In the next years to come, we can expect that there will be greater and even more advanced inventions to improve our accessibility to media and communication. We can also assume that more individuals will likely  engage in the use of media to further connect and adapt in the constant change technology has brought to the world.

J. What is Bitzer’s definition of a rhetorical situation?

In the context of Lloyd Bitzer, rhetorical situation refers to the natural context of persons, events, objects, relations and an exigence which strongly invites utterance. In addition, a rhetorical discourse can only occur if there is a rhetorical situation. It serves as a guide of the rhetoric to consider what must be conveyed to the audience. 

K. What are the different aspects of a rhetorical situation?

Lloyd Bitzer mentioned that in order for the situation to be considered rhetorical, it must comprise the three components which basically are- (1) exigence, which refers to the importance of the subject; (2) the audience, that introduces the discourse and actions, and (3) the constraints, which limit the decision or actions.   

I. Which of the issues you encounter today do you think warrant rhetorical discourse?  

The issue that I personally believe still warrants rhetorical discourse is the War on Drugs by our President Rodrigo Duterte. 

m.i. What were the different persuasive strategies mentioned in the chapter? 

The different persuasive strategies mentioned in the chapter are: Taking and Avoiding Sides; Explicit Appeals to Common In-Group Membership; Constructing Aspirational Identities; Implicit Displays of Rhetorical Alignment; Who are “WE” Flexibility and Vagueness in the use of first-person pronouns; Using Pronouns to Display Complex Political Allegiances; Using First-Person Plural Pronouns to Convey Ideological Messages.

m.ii. Of these strategies, which have you encountered during political campaigns? 

For me, the most usual persuasive strategy I have encountered so far that was used by politicians during political campaigns would be taking the side of the common people.

m.iii. Were these strategies effective for you? Why or why not?

Personally, the strategies mentioned in the chapter are effective since without the strategies, the political discussions and debates would no longer matter. We have our leaders and politicians sitting in the government, leading us today because we, citizens were convinced by their rhetoric discourses which had influenced us to vote for them.

[bridiemcquade-blog]

Big Brother: For protection or for interest?

Big brother (his wife and her friends) are watching you, but is it the price of connection?

Right now, we are under constant surveillance online and offline; every move we make is saved, categorized and analysed.

Over the last decade, shifts in technology and communication infrastructures have allowed for commercial exploitation. If you’re wondering how the bag you were telling your friend you wanted, miraculously appeared at a discounted price on your news feed, it is because of ‘Surveillance Capitalism’. This is defined as “the monetization of data captured through monitoring people’s movements and behaviours online and in the physical world”. The rise in economic pressures to make profit produces a constant drive for connection and monetization, which in turn warrants this consistent surveillance. However, such principles must be queried; the decline of one’s freedom of choice comes into question with anyone active online being bombarded with ‘products suited to you’. As a result of this, the lines of decision become blurred.

“By shaping the menus we pick from, technology hijacks the way we perceive our choices and replaces them with new ones. But the closer we pay attention to the options we’re given, the more we’ll notice when they don’t actually align with our true needs” - https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-15/surveillance-capitalism-monetizing-smartphone-user

For most of us, our biggest spy is the phone in our back pocket. What’s worse is that we voluntarily allow this intrusion and tell him everything he knows. So why complain? Well, I’m sure I speak for many when I say that I was NOT fully aware that I was being listened to and tracked online. It was a big enough worry after being warned that our social media may be thoroughly investigated after applying for a job or submitting university applications. Alongside that, came the realisation that an active presence on social media comes at the cost of privacy. Unfortunately for our generation, the past can be inescapable – even a trivial comment made in an argument or a horrifically drunken photo shared on Facebook is enough to have your CV binned.

In my opinion, a level of naivety is acceptable mainly because this form of ‘surveillance’ is largely secluded from us. However, those who have recently purchased Amazon’s latest invention ‘Alexa’, gave up their expectation of privacy when they handed over their card details for payment. This internet-connected device listens to your every word but (apparently) only wakes to ‘Alexa’ and then begins to track, analyse and store what is requested thereafter.

This statement however is contradicted in a recent murder case in the state of Arkansas, whereby Amazon was requested to hand over all of Alexa’s recordings as evidence. The question here is, should Amazon be allowed to store actual voice recordings in the first place? And is it right to share these recordings and use them against people in court?

On the other hand, this could be considered a revelation to many. Not only can it tackle crime and catch offenders, but it can provide citizens with security and protection. Although people are concerned with where their information is stored and sent onto, mostly it is only exposed when required for urgent matters, such as murder case. I’m sure if one of you needed to seek information like your life depended on it, then this wouldn’t be as problematic. So, perhaps, ‘Big Brother’s constant surveillance is a lesser evil than we first thought.

It is clear that ‘Big Brother’ treads a fine line between inflicting harm and positive virtue upon others in this type of intrusion.

So, I ask YOU should we in fact consider this form of Surveillance Capitalism as a necessary evil in todays society?

 References:

https://www.bestaiassistant.com/alexa/does-amazon-alexa-record-everything/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/21/amazon-echo-alexa-home-robot-privacy-cloud

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-15/surveillance-capitalism-monetizing-smartphone-user

 ​#tags

[swordoforion]

The Orionist Model; an Essay by DKTC-FL

The Orionist Model is the baseline for Orion. It defines our goal, our ideals, and our composition - how, why, and what we do. This is why, above all else, the Model is so essential, because without a clear reason for what we do, without a unified vision of how we bring about improvement, and without a cohesive system for organizing, Orion would tear itself apart in disagreement and confusion. 

It is composed of three parts - THEORY, PHILOSOPHY, and STRUCTURE. Theory defines the mission to which we are dedicated, philosophy defines the ideals for which we stand, and structure defines the method by which we organize and act. It must stand upon all three legs, as if you are to remove one, the other two are worse off for it. Without theory, the intent of Orion might prove unsuccessful. Without philosophy, change is pursued with no moral center to ground it. Without structure, we are but a loose collection of believers with no path forward. 

But together, we are given a goal, a reason to pursue it, and the means to accomplish it. How we get from this foundation to the end result is up to the ones who make use of this tool; in this way, the Orionist Model is only half the solution. The rest is up to how it is used - the creativity and ingenuity of the members and founders who create their own chapters and teach their own communities, as well as the leaders who they elect to direct the collective. We stand with the Model as the hammer in our hands above the metal to be fashioned, and yet, it is the mind of the smith that determines what shape it will take, and how well it will be crafted. 

There is no one way to follow the Model, as it was designed to be interpretative. What is laid down is basic truths, but the finer details are vague, for while Orion was created amidst chaotic times, it was not created solely for those times. It was created to serve its goal for as long as it is able, no matter what shape the world around it takes. After all, its central concepts are universal and timeless - society is most efficient when it benefits the people, and our shared experiences give us cause to foster kindness. The structure, too, is simple yet effective - while having a centralized focus and command, the chapter system allows for autonomy and specialization according to region. 

We begin with theory, which posits that society is composed of four fundamental factors - economy, government, socialization, and the relationship with the environment. Society, of course, is a construct created by humanity to streamline the process by which our physical and psychological needs are fulfilled. The most efficient model of human society is that which fulfills its objective - achieving maximum fulfillment with minimum input - and so the improvement of society to reach this ideal is our goal. Socialism and world federalism provide the most stable models of economy and government, and a more environmentalist approach to balancing society with the natural world is best for life in general. Because of this, Orionist political theory is called eco-socialist federalism. 

Eco-socialist federalism, or ESF theory, is not merely a collection of theories, but a synthesis. It can be best summarized as “a democratic federation of socialist nation-states formed with the express purpose of standardizing human rights and environmental protections.” In the interests of both the survival and prosperity of all humanity, there are certain qualities that must be made universal across the nations of the world, to ensure that all people, no matter what they look like, who they love, where they come from, or who they are, are given the same opportunities and freedoms. In addition, if we neglect to take a careful approach to our own growth and presence, we will not only endanger other life on Earth, but ourselves as well. Something of this scale touches every part of our lives, and thus, it will require not only a legal shift, but a sociological one, as we train ourselves to be kinder and wiser as a species.

Philosophy dictates five levels of realization about the self and its connection with the wider world, and the responsibility we hold as Orionists to better the world for ourselves and others. We first realize that no matter your conclusion, everyone finds meaning in the world by observing beauty, and determining the self in relation to the rest of the universe. Following from that, if everyone searches for some form of satisfaction and the fulfillment of their needs, we can relate and understand each other as humans. If we can relate, we can understand the apprehension towards suffering, and thus it follows that we should provide the helping hand that we would want in our time of need, for we can see ourselves in the lives of others. To accomplish this, however, requires discipline - as so many people let our differences divide us, it requires a temperance of our more negative emotions to hone our passions and give us strength. Finally, dedication to this mission requires a degree of sacrifice - a kinder world cannot come about spontaneously, and we must be willing to work for it so that our dreams can be fulfilled by those around us, and those that come afterwards. 

Philosophy and theory both tie into the idea of the Mission - the enduring and unending goal of Orion. The mission, simply, is to uphold the survival and prosperity of humanity, from now until our last member falls. Everything we do is about not only ensuring that the human race survives what could be our potential extinction, but that it learns, evolves, and flourishes equally. Survival alone is not the goal - for people could live full lives in bondage and suffering, and that would be a truly terrible existence. People could live forced down and treated as less than human, given a lesser lot in life for factors outside their control. Thus, prosperity is also important - to be given the chance to live a happy and satisfying life, not without struggle, but without unjust struggle.

Structure is divided between the chapters, the most basic element of Orionist organization, and the command structure, which is divided between executive and representative authority. A chapter consists of at least a Service Officer, a Research Officer, a Communications Officer, and a Chapter Head. The three officers and their respective teams represent the three branches of Orion - the Sword of Orion, our media and communications branch, Liberius, our service and activism branch, and the Museion Institute, our research and development branch. Chapters themselves are divided into geographic regions, with a regional command chapter, or REGCOM, at the head of each region. The head of a REGCOM is a Flagbearer, elected by the members of their region, and the various Flagbearers of Orion form the representative house of command, the Council of Flagbearers. 

REGCOMs act as a hub for Sword and Liberius operations in their region, while Museion is centralized into the titular institute, as well as any necessary secondary locations. The branches themselves are overseen by Branch Heads, appointed officials who serve on the council of Sword COMMAND, the executive house of command. While Flagbearers are only elected by a regional vote, Sword COMMAND’s head, the Instruist, is elected by an organization-wide vote, and the rest of the staff is selected for appointment by the Instruist themselves, with the Council of Flagbearers’ vote of approval. These staff members include the individual heads of each branch, a Financier (who handles financial matters) and a Parliamentarian (who handles record-keeping), each with their own offices, as well as the Instruist and a Lieutenant, who acts as an Instruist in training. In the event of the death or resignation of the Instruist, the Lieutenant will hold office until an election can be run, where they will run against a candidate of the people. If the Lieutenant wins, they will become the new Instruist, while if the people’s candidate wins, then the Lieutenant will continue to serve their position, and act as a guide and informant for the new Instruist. 

It is a simple and yet endlessly important idea that people, as complicated as they can be, deserve the opportunity to live their lives and express themselves freely, and if they fall by the wayside, to be given a chance to learn, grow, and recover. No one is perfect, because if we were perfect, we would not truly be alive. Life is that quest, through good times and bad, to understand oneself, and it takes some trial and error. Yet, with all this talk of freedom, we must not allow the mistakes of some to hurt others so seriously as they have in the past. The ability to live life comes hand in hand with the inability to outright deny it to others, and it is that balance we find ourselves charged to protect. 

To protect something so fundamental, and to seek change to monumental, may seem like an impossible task. What we seek is nothing less than a complete revolution in the way we live, the way we think, in the way we conduct ourselves, and in the way we see the world. To achieve peace and to undo our past mistakes will require unlearning what we have learned, understanding those we think far distant from us, and dismantling structures we deem so essential. But there is a strength we hold that surpasses the difficulty of our mission. We are not alone. You are not alone. 

I know as I write this that there are many others out there, who wish for a better world, who dream of a land untainted by bids for power and cycles of revenge, where two people from distant lands can stand hand in hand, united by what they share. Whatever drives them - hope, fear, love, guilt - there are those off on missions of their own, and with this, I take comfort, for as long as there is hope, my fire shall never die. With the Orionist Model in mind, no matter how big of an impact you make, know that you have a place among us, and that there is always room for new friends and faces in our ranks. The more who are willing to work so that others may be given hope, the closer the dream becomes to reality. 

And yet, even when federation is established, the world is reformed and the climate is saved, the mission will not conclude there. It may never end, for the role of an Orionist is twofold. We seek to protect that great journey of life, true, but it is equally as important to partake in it. To appreciate the value of life, one must learn to appreciate their own, and as the world moves towards the future and towards the stars, we will be right there with them, ready to help and guide whenever we are needed, but ready as well to experience the joy of discovery firsthand. That is what the Model means, that is what the Mission means, and that is what Orion means. 

Respice ad futurum, respice ad astra.

- DKTC FL

[statetalks]

What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Poverty Must Solve Itself

Republicans believe that poor people are usually poor for a reason, be it laziness, choice or whatever. Unless we demand that people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and solve their own problems, people will not be motivated to do things. Therefore, the issue of poverty cannot be solved by the government. Charity should be the choice of individuals.

Republicans Cant Understand Democrats

Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were voting in the best interests of the country.  Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media, or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits.

We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country.  We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might.  For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.   

But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote I dont want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy! Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated free college, free health care, free welfare, and so on.  They see Democrats as voting in order to get free stuff without having to work for it was extremely common roughly one in six Republican voters used the word free in the their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way. 

How Bipartisan Is Democrats Infrastructure Plan

All Videos

But Trumps continued popularity among key GOP constituencies prevents Republican insiders from undertaking a formal, public discussion about his political shortcomings and how the party should move on from him. Everyone in the GOP knows that irritating Trump could result in the former president attacking them, which would make them vulnerable to a primary challenge, with conservative activists likely backing their opponent. So there will be no autopsy of the post-Trump Republican Party, akin to the Republican National Committees report in 2013 following Romneys defeat, at least not in public. 

Democrats Remain United Around Ideas

While some Democrats remain coy about it, they are broadly united in the objective of moving the United States much more toward European-style social democracy. That includes a much more extensive social welfare system. A government-directed economy. Heavily regulated capital, labor and consumer markets.

This is not socialism, properly understood and defined. Markets would remain the primary mechanism for allocating capital and labor, and setting prices. Even the members of the Democratic coalition who call themselves socialists arent really.

Now, there are disagreements among Democrats about the specifics of what should constitute a European-style social democracy in the United States. And differences about how rapidly to get there.

Nevertheless, there is sufficient consensus on the direction that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were able to agree on a unity platform headed into the election.

What Does Democratic Mean

Starting alphabetically, the word means pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

Simply put, the lowercase democratic is a word used to refer to anything that resembles or has to do with a , a form of in which the supreme power rests with the people and is exercised by them directly or by politicians that they elect to them. In practice, this is usually accomplished through a fair, organized system of voting, in which  or cast votes in support of political or societal issues . 

So, the word democratic is used to describe government systems that are or resemble democracies and the people that run these types of governments. The United States of America is a representative democracy in which the people elect representatives to perform the demands of politics on their behalf. This is why we say that the US is a democratic country or that we have a democratic form of government. 

The English word democratic dates all the way back to the late 1500 and early 1600s. It is derived from the Greek word dmokratía . The government system of the ancient Greek of Athens, in which the people held the power , is considered the worlds first democracy. Considering that Athens was a slave-owning society, its form of democracy was much different than the democratic governments of today. 

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.  More than four in ten Democratic voters   felt that most Republican voters had the countrys best interests at heart .  And many tried their best to answer from the others perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.  A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to stop abortion stop gay marriage from ruining our country and give us our coal jobs back.

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOPs opposition to Obamacare, lower taxes and to support a party that reduced unemployment. 

What Does Republican Mean

The word means of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a . A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf. 

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic. 

Republican Vs Democrat: What Are The Differences

When it comes to U.S. politics, two prominent parties dominate democrats and republicans. Each party, despite some of their common grounded principles, stands for a very different system where beliefs and applications might vary.

Here is an unbiased breakdown of some of the major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

  The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Why The Gops Lack Of Party Platform Matters

President Trumps refusal to commit to accepting Novembers election results is the latest example of this president abandoning the norms of constitutional democracy. And although high-profile Republicans have issued statements affirming that they support a peaceful transfer of power, they have also been carefully deferential to Trump.

This is a notable continuation of the party slowly becoming the party of Trump. Nowhere was this clearer than in the decision not to have a 2020 party platform and instead simply affirming enthusiastic support for Trump and his America First agenda. That move, more so than statements pledging fealty to the peaceful transfer of power, signals wavering Republican commitment toward equal rights and democracy.

Platforms declare a partys values and commitments. While the substance of the Democratic and Republican platforms often differs sharply, both have historically used certain key words, like the American Dream, economic opportunity and freedom from discrimination. Examining Republican platforms over time shows that what once had been a big-tent strategy of carefully managing intraparty differences over equality has been replaced by a hierarchical model of leadership where the party faithful should acquiesce to one individuals vision of political community. Indeed, the 2020 resolution ruled out of order any effort to adopt a platform.

What Do Republicans Stand For

Since this is a presidential election year, and the Republican Party wants Americans , it is fitting to ask the question: What do Republicans stand for?

Writing in Politico Magazine, chief political correspondent Tim Alberta hit the nail on the head: The supposed canons of GOP orthodoxy limited government, free enterprise, institutional conservation, moral rectitude, fiscal restraint, global leadership have in recent years gone from elastic to expendable. Identifying this intellectual vacuum is easy enough. Far more difficult is answering the question of what, quite specifically, has filled it.

The Republican Party held a truncated convention in Charlotte last month because of coronavirus restrictions on gatherings and concern for the safety of convention attendees. Every four years at their convention, Republicans adopt a new party platform but not this time. Even though the Democrats adopted a new for 2020 and a 110-page of recommendations issued by the BidenSanders unity task force, the Republican National Committee unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement. Had the Platform Committee convened, it would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Partys strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration.

Education

Health care

Democrats Return The Favor: Republicans Uninformed Or Self

The 429 Democratic voters in our sample returned the favor and raised many of the same themes. Democrats inferred that Republicans must be VERY ill-informed, or that Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.  Or that Republicans are uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want free stuff, many Democrats believe Republicans think that I got mine and dont want the libs to take it away, or that some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side.  Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, I like a dictatorial system of Government, Im a racist, I hate non-whites. 

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

The GOP is viewed more negatively 38% say they have a positive view of the Republican Party, while 60% rate it unfavorably. These views are modestly changed since last summer, with the share of Americans rating the GOP unfavorably slightly higher than it was in August and the share of Americans with a negative view of the Democratic Party down slightly .

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Nearly all Republicans who say they strongly identify with the Republican Party express a favorable opinion of the GOP. Among Republicans who say they not so strongly identify with the party, 77% say have a favorable view, while 56% of independents who lean toward the Republican Party say the same.

Democrats who very strongly identify with the Democratic Party nearly universally view their party favorably, as do 87% of Democrats who describe themselves as not-so-strong Democrats. About six-in-ten Democratic leaners have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Within both partisan groups, views of the opposing party are overwhelmingly unfavorable across-the-board, with more than eight-in-ten strong partisans, not so strong partisans and leaners alike saying this.

Public Opinion On Foreign Policy

In June 2014 the Quinnipiac Poll asked Americans which foreign policy they preferred:

A) The United States is doing too much in other countries around the world, and it is time to do less around the world and focus more on our own problems here at home. B) The United States must continue to push forward to promote democracy and freedom in other countries around the world because these efforts make our own country more secure.

Democrats chose A over B by 65%-32%; Republicans chose A over B by 56% to 39%; Independents chose A over B by 67% to 29%.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Red States Outnumber Blue States

In February 2016, Gallup reported that for the first time since Gallup started tracking, red states now outnumber blue states.

In 2008, 35 states leaned Democratic and this number is down to only 14 now. In the same time, the number of Republican leaning states rose from 5 to 20. Gallup determined 16 states to be competitive, i.e., they leaned toward neither party. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah were the most Republican states, while states that leaned the most Democratic were Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Trump Loses Then Attempts A Coup

In Georgia, Trump is attacking the Republican governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state. In Arizona, he is attacking Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who has been a GOP statewide officeholder for more consecutive years than Trump has been a Republican.

The reason? They are not willing to try to overturn duly certified election results in their states.

There has been an attempted coup of the presidential election taking place. But Trump is not the victim. He is the perpetrator.

The legal strategy was to delay certification of election results. The political strategy was to pressure Republican officials to ignore the election results, irrespective of whether they were certified, and have Republican state legislatures chose Trump electors in states where Biden won the vote.

Internet Safety And Decency

DemocraticThe platform supports a free and open internet at home and abroad. The party would seek to strengthen cybersecurity while protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

RepublicanThe platform states: The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say their party should be accepting of elected officials within the party who disagree with it on some important issues. At the same time, very few in either party say their party should be welcoming of elected officials who support groups advocating for violence against members of the other party.

But there are clear distinctions between the two coalitions in their appetite for accepting members of the party who criticize the partys standard bearers: While most Democrats say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of elected officials who criticize Joe Biden, the majority position among Republicans is that the GOP should not be welcoming toward Republican elected officials who criticize Donald Trump, and an even smaller share of Republicans say that those who voted to impeach Trump should be accepted in the GOP. 

Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the Democratic Party should be very or somewhat accepting of Democratic elected officials who disagree with Democrats on important issues, while 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say their own party should be very or somewhat accepting of Republican officials who disagree with the GOP on some important issues. Just 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans say their parties should be not at all accepting of elected officials who disagree with the party on some important issues.

The changes did not affect the reports substantive findings. 

The Partys Core Activists Dont Want To Shift Gears

This is the simplest and most obvious explanation: The GOP isnt changing directions because the people driving the car dont want to. 

When we think of Republicans, we tend to think of either rank-and-file GOP voters or the partys highest-profile elected officials, particularly its leaders in Congress. But in many ways, the partys direction is driven by a group between those two: conservative organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, GOP officials at the local and state level and right-wing media outlets. That segment of the party has been especially resistant to the GOP abandoning its current mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, opposition to expansions of programs that benefit the poor and an identity politics that centers white Americans and conservative Christians.

You could see the power and preferences of this group in the response to the Capitol insurrection.

In the days immediately following Jan. 6, many GOP elected officials, most notably McConnell, signaled that the party should make a permanent break from Trump. an increased number of rank-and-file GOP voters were dissatisfied with the outgoing president. But by the time the Senate held its trial over Trumps actions a month later, it was clear that the party was basically back in line with Trump. 

related:Why Being Anti-Media Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity Read more. »

Mcdermott: What Exactly Does Today’s Republican Party Stand For

Sep 21, 2019

Don’t want this next door? Too bad, say Missouri’s ruling Republicans.

}

Kevin McDermott

Some recent news items:

A new law by Missouri Republicans prevents local governments from regulating mega-hog-farms more stringently than the state does. So much for the Republican principle of local control.

The Republican-held U.S. Senate refuses to consider background checks on all gun purchases to ensure criminals cant buy them a no-brainer thats supported by about 90% of Americans, including most gun owners. So much for the Republican principle of law and order.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wants government regulation of the big social media companies to make their platforms more friendly to conservatives. So much for the Republican principles of deregulation and free enterprise.

The massive tax-cut-for-the-rich that Republicans passed in 2017 continues to very much not pay for itself as promised, instead driving the federal deficit over $1 trillion for the first time in six years. Yet President Donald Trump is calling for another massive tax cut. So much for the Republican principle of fiscal responsibility.

What, exactly, does todays GOP stand for?

Thats not snark. Its a real question.

They were genuinely obsessed with law and order, which is why Ronald Reagan all but banning civilian ownership of machine guns. Would todays Republican Senate pass that?

McDermott: Oblivious in the Ozarks

The Gop Now Stands For Nothing

A party that doesnt believe in anything ends up believing only in its right to rule.

About the author: Tom Nichols is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author ofthe book Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault From Within on Modern Democracy.

The Republicans in Congress are blocking a bipartisan investigation into the January 6 insurrection. Their spines crushed by years of obedience to Donald Trump, the members of the GOP have once again retreated from civic responsibility, with one more humiliation of those last few in the party who thought that the Senate Republicans might mimic something like statesmanship.

However, this effort is more than the usual cynical mendacity and crass careerism that characterize the current Republican Party. This latest insult to the rule of law and the Constitution was possible only because the Republicans have already lost confidence in their own principles. The GOP now stands for nothing. The party of Lincoln has become, in every way, a political and moral nullity.

American conservatism once meant something definite and tangible. You could fight those beliefs and policies; you could argue with them, admire them, or hate them. But they existed. Strom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, and Edward Brooke were not necessarily deep thinkers, and they didnt all agree on everything. But the GOP held clear lines of thought that stood as alternatives to liberalism.

Read: Mitch McConnells gift to progressives

Hincker: What Is Conservatism And What Do Republicans Stand For

Larry Hincker

I awoke on the morning of Jan. 6 dusting off ideas for another column. The U.S. Senate had just tipped to Democratic control in a decidedly anti-Trump vote. Should I snidely thank the president for decisively uniting the Democratic Party and its complete takeover of the federal government? Or tackle something closer to my beatthe more complex and substantial topic of the Virginia legislatures costly clean energy policies?

Then I read the paper. The conservative Wall Street Journal opined that Trump was unhinged from political reality. I thought for a moment that the modifier, from political reality, was unnecessary.

Later as I watched TV, unhinged historical figures poured over my brain. Theres Sampson pulling down columns in the temple, screaming about a stolen election amid woe-is-me fueled fury.

Or the Madness of King George, another slightly unhinged leader who suffered defeat, and wondering if our presidents minions were struggling to contain his rages.

Images of Nuremburg dance around my cranium while Trump encouraged tens of thousands at the huge Save America March outside The White House to be wild and walk down to the Capitol. Ill be there with you, he said. Apparently, his bone spurs prevented the walk or affected his courage. He watched from afar as mobs, thugs, and punks assaulted the seat and center of American democracy.

It all represents partisan voter disenfranchisement.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-republicans-stand-for-today/

[betadereader]

It’s “just” fiction.

How many of us have come across the typical phrase "it's just fiction"? Starting from a personal basis, I have always found it as a justifying sentence of an author with its content. And if the author has to get away with this defense, it is because someone has previously questioned said content. 

To begin with, I will clarify a point. Writing about a murder does not make you a murderer, just as writing a rape does not make you a rapist; role-playing a sadistic and abusive character does not make you that character, acting in your real environment just like them. 

In the world there are people who know how to separate the line of fiction and reality very well, while others do not. However, this is not the focus of this essay. I wanted to focus on the undervaluation of fiction in that very phrase "it's just fiction." I am going to articulate it with several examples that have occurred or continue to occur in reality, in addition to raising a series of questions. 

For better or for worse, the news media have configured a heritage of History. We are aware of History because there is written and / or audiovisual material, but the story offered by the media may not represent History itself. We know the version of history that they tell us. 

If I have gone to a very current example, the simple fact of creating a story in the format of an informative speech does not always reflect 100% of the object that occurred. 

With information abuse (the saturation of information) and so-called fake news, they also have the possibility of affecting the user's conscience, despite being a totally invented, fictitious story. 

Again, for better or for worse, and putting history and the media together, people tend to learn history more easily with fiction series. The fictional discourse can be educational and, at the same time, not represent History as such, trivializing some political aspects or creating a polarized world of black and white; good vs. bad. 

I also wanted to highlight a sociological experiment that was carried out on television, replicating Milgram's experiment. 

Milgram's original experiment, now cataloged by several experts as immoral, reflected very favorable results for the scientific community in its day. His main objective was to study the forms of obedience and whether they could find connection with those condemned during the Nazi era. Translated to the television world, in the documentary The Game of Death, they wanted to see to what extent a game show could become an authority, in addition to coming up with several theories. 

Like the original experiment, an agentic state (sometimes conformism too) was found in the contestant, relegating all authority to the guidelines of the program. There is an additional theory that mentions “belief perseverance”. In the contest, electric shocks are given to a subject who cannot be seen but can be heard. As the program progresses, the greater the intensity of the shock. Obviously it is an experiment and the pain is acted out, but in the participant —who did not know that they were part of the experiment— the following belief came up: "I can't really be hurting him because this is television."

“This is television” as a synonym for prior planning and pure spectacle; as a synonym for falsehood; just fiction.

I mentioned this example because, especially at the beginning of the documentary, it denounces a normalization of violence and physical and emotional torture on television. It denounces, also at the end, that commercial televisions, in their desire for money, "teach us that it is normal to humiliate, eliminate and be sadistic." (It’s an old documentary but if you want to see it, click here. It’s in French, I’m sorry).

Continuing with sociological experiments, how many experiments have tried to study the link between violence and video games? Or sexism and video games? Or xenophobia and video games? Or nationalism and video games? 

It should be said that the last mentioned are more common in the attitude of the player, using the video game as an expressive way to say whatever they want. However, we cannot ignore that, like historical television series, video games can also serve for nationalist discourses by demonizing the enemy and sanctifying themselves (especially when talking about video games which main topic is war).

I do not wish to dwell too much on each of the questions raised, since the emphasis is not the result of these experiments, but the undeniable interest and concern on the community of experts, as well as more and more students who are interested in these problems in order to analyze and debate them.

We are not indifferent to the images or books we consume. No matter how invented a story is, it stirs up real emotions. We grow with the media (traditional or digital media) and the content they have to offer us. There is socialization with the media at a very early age, and when we grow up we continue to learn from them.

Media acts on our emotions. And the stories that are told to us through media help to frame a collective imagination that even affects the vision of reality itself. Reality can also help build fictional worlds. And so the cycle would begin, since new ideals in fiction can act as a mirror for a future society and/or perpetuate harmful values (especially when under romantic treatments). They are two worlds that feed into each other.

For this reason the famous so-called "romantic love" has been so analyzed and criticized for promoting toxic ideas such as 1) love is the final happiness of every person and we are not complete otherwise, 2) we must to depend on someone else consider ourselves a "whole", 3) "for love everything is forgiven", "true love is eternal" and more idealizations that impacts on society and its perspective of love.

(Closely linked to romantic love, monogamy has been accused of being toxic and I wanted to make a small point that the decision of a closed relationship is as valid as an open relationship, and that an open relationship can be as toxic as a closed one. Here everything is said).

If fiction lacked that power, censorship would never have existed. The witch hunt in Hollywood or censorship that existed in the USSR for the control of the media and its content should not have happened. And many more historical contexts that I am ignoring. Governments were afraid of a content contrary to the predominant ideology, because it could break and violate their established values.

If fiction lacked power, propaganda would also lack power. Propaganda, especially in the context of dictatorships, offers a cult of personality; they idolize, endow dictators with divine values.

We just have to see the television advertising: it is all an idealized, invented version of the product. Don't give me that you've never been disappointed in buying the real product because "it wasn't like it was on TV."

We just have to see how certain groups in society (racial groups, different sexual orientation and gender identity groups, cultural ...) demand to be participants in fictional stories because fiction configures a mirror of the real world, where they are already participants.

Okay, taking a step closer to the "it's just fiction" statement ... so why do film academies exist? Depending on the film, they work with fiction to a greater or lesser degree, but it is still fiction. Why would there be jobs that are dedicated to worlds which work with fiction, if that is worthless? If "it was only fiction" nobody would pay for a movie or a book. And the same happens with television and animation series; no one would consume them. Any story that contains fiction, that is, any made-up story (depending on the needs of the script and the historical context), has no value.

By the same logic, any literary work would not have survived in memory and the writers we know as the "classics" would no longer be. By the same logic, any artistic movement (theater arts, literature, audiovisual and more), would have fallen into oblivion and its formal codes by which they acquire identity, would not be worthy of analyzing and studying. 

Because what difference does it make. It is just fiction. Nothing happens for the massive creation of very questionable content (the topics of which this blog will address later). 

Continuing with this essay, does anyone remember 50 Shades of Grey trilogy? Yes, that mess that originated (if I remember correctly) as a Twilight bad fic. How much movement was there on social networks denouncing an abusive and toxic relationship? Apart from BDSM and the criticism that it was painfully written (I started reading it by laughing and ended up wanting to tear my eyes out), there were countless posts in which the relationship of the characters was analyzed. Many voiced their complaint and amazement at how a book that focuses on and romanticizes a toxic relationship could hit the market.

I suppose that something problematic is even more when it becomes popular and it is about making money with it. And probably publishers don’t give a damn because they're going to make money anyway. Although the world of FanFiction is not destined —in principle— for commercialization, the fic that romanticizes problematic subjects is not "less important" for this reason, because it can do the same damage. There is a vast "FanFiction culture", and more than one fic has made the jump to the market. We have all seen a book with its brilliant promotion of "phenomenon on Wattpad".

Fickers —writers of FanFiction— are not film or television producers. It is good that FanFiction (and like FF we have Wattpad and AO3) is not a strictly professional universe. A fic, like a movie or a television series or a video game, can narrate very murky and dark things from life. A story can talk about drugs (or other types of addictions), the inhumanity of war, torture, sexism, rape, pedophilia and more that I’m ignoring. You can do it from the critical perspective of the characters and their actions, or from the point of view of the addict, inhuman, sadistic, sexist, rapist or pedophile respectively with the aforementioned.

Why if the producer/writer who whitewashes the image of pedophilia or terrorism (for example) or romanticizes them is considerated as a pedophile or as a terrorist but nothing is said against romanticization and the subsequent normalization of rape in the FanFiction world?

That question is one of many examples of harmful behavior by content creators, which toxicity can be seen thorugh fiction. That question is one from many others that this Tumblr account wants to develop as essays.

Because fiction is not “just” fiction. Whoever wants to rely on this phrase, is the equivalent of being a shameless person... as something to begin with.

[maskedjoker]

hey why can’t the media just be real honest and say “gender nonconformists” is code for nonbinary people.The term it seems is used directly to put aside the issue that some peoples sex and gender are not male or female, and treat nonbinary folk as some kind of political crusade against gender in society. Although SOME might feel that way, all don’t feel that way. There are biological reasons people are trans and have issues with their presentation and body. Some people with these issues are in fact neither male nor female, and choose to live as neither male nor female. Because that’s what they are. You know. A person that isn’t either of those things. Not some tired 13 year olds screamings about gender politics and feminism.

Although statistically I agree gender nonconformity is the reason for trans abuse, as it is what upsets people the most, the reason for not conforming to ones assignment or perceived gender can be a very broad amount of reasons some good and some pathetic.

But if we are going to say it’s about presentation and gender assigned at birth I wait patiently for the day people realize why we see a higher murder and abuse rate in trans feminine folk(women and dmab nb) and to a lesser extent drag queens and feminine queer men. It’s because people designated male at birth, perceived as male, or living as male are discriminated against by our society and it’s individuals to not leave their gender role on penalty of social ostracism and death. Although some of those listed above are women or nb, the reason for this is actually sexism in the form of misandry. Likewise, discrimination towards trans masculine folks(men and dfab nb), drag kings and butch queer women is despite some of them being male a form of misogyny. Because you know, they don’t think what they perceive as WOMEN should act in those ways. Just like in it’s alternate they don’t think what they perceive as MEN should at in those ways. In the case of butch passing trans feminine folk and femme passing trans masculine folk the men are receiving misandry and the women misogyny if they are hated for how they dress  and act, but it is about the oppressors PERCEPTION of the victim, not what the victim actually is that makes the hatred.

Either way though, to explain the death increase of trans feminine folk you have to accept at least one if not both of these things

1) trans feminine folk are persecuted more than other trans folk because society discriminates against feminine folk perceived to be men at a high and dangerous rate, regardless of actual gender or

2) trans masculine folks murders are not often reported as such because dfab/female perceived folk dressing in masculine ways is seen as socially acceptable in a way dmab/male perceived folk in feminine attire is not, resulting in it not being counted in percentages.

and it can’t be “well if women aren’t perfect/x thing/ etc etc etc they are KILLED because right now trans masculine folk(which most transphobic people perceive as women) are currently not being killed at the same rate according to our statistics despite being perceived as “women who are imperfect/damaged”.

It’s just not flying with me. I hate people covering these issues in the media and online. As a person who despite my protests would typically be lumped in with the trans community, I find it repugnant.

[sparklemichele]

Hi so ive been wondering something and you seem to be very willing to inform people on issue of people of colour, if this is by any means offensive you dont have to answer this nd i apologise. I would like to know if there some sort of racism amoung african-american people themselves? It might be rare but do lightskinned african-americans look down on dark skinned sometimes? Again i might sound incredibly ignorant but where i live there are very few people of colour so i have no idea.

Hi Anon. I’m going to let a really great article I read by Jaleel Campbell answer your question. I hope it helps.

Dark Skin Vs: Light Skin: The Battle of Colorism In The Black Community

In many different cultures and countries around the world, skin color plays a huge role in the concept of beauty. Lighter skin is often preferable to darker skin. The effects of the African American self-hate toward each other because of one’s skin color is rather eye opening and sad, to say the least. This is a very hot and taboo subject among the African American community. As a culture that came from years of oppression and hatred inflicted by slave owners, forced to think that because of their color, they were inferior, blacks have somehow reverted back to having this sort of mindset which is, in fact, hurting them as a whole. With no thanks to the media and its influence on what is seen as beautiful, Black America is tearing itself apart when it focuses on such a shallow aspect of a person that they can’t control. What a person makes of themselves and all of their aspirations should be what they’re judged on - not their skin color. African Americans should stop using skin color to discriminate against each other because it hinders the progression of the entire black community.

Frequent sightings of dark skinned people portrayed negatively in the media is heavily exploited, while light skinned and non-black individuals are portrayed more positively.These kind of prejudgements negatively impact the African American community and prevents the culture from moving forward. Hundreds of years after slavery, the actions of several people in the black community still show that the culture, as a whole, needs to stop and think about the negative connotations they are associating themselves with. Sometimes people make statements such as, "You're pretty for someone who's dark-skinned " or "pretty for a black girl". Phrases such as the ones above are in no shape or form, a compliment. When someone says the above statement they are implying that because of a darker persons complexion, they’re automatically supposed to be ugly. Subtle jabs like this can take their toll on the self esteem of a person.

Growing up as a child in a place where being ridiculed and made fun of because your skin is of a darker complexion is one thing that most Americans couldn’t even imagine. In an interview with Essence Magazine, actress Viola Davis discusses how, as a child, she too felt the pain of being called an assortment of derogatory terms and shares how after a while, she began to believe that she in fact, was ugly (essence.com). Imagine seeing a little girl who had all of her self confidence ripped from her before she entered the 6th grade. That was the norm for Davis back during her childhood. According to the author of “Exploring the Impact of Skin Tone on Family Dynamics and Race-Related Outcomes,” Evidence suggests that racial socialization helps foster the adjustment of children in the face of race-related adversity and serves to protect youth from negative mental health consequences (Hughes, 2006). What many people fail to realize is that children are still developing and in prepubescent kids especially, criticism such as being called ugly and being told you will amount to nothing, can have a substantial effect on the sanity of someone so young. That child is left with that idea stuck in the back of their head throughout life and this idea can be the base of all of the future problems the person has with their self image as an adult.

The Clark Doll Experiment, administered by Kenneth and Mamie Clark, was an experiment that dealt with race and how children perceive it at a young age. The results that came from it were indeed astonishing yet, heartbreaking to say the least.

In the experiment Clark showed black children between the ages of six and nine two dolls, one white and one black, and then asked these questions in this order:

“Show me the doll that you like best or that you’d like to play with,”

“Show me the doll that is the ‘nice’ doll,”

“Show me the doll that looks ‘bad’,”

“Give me the doll that looks like a white child,”

“Give me the doll that looks like a coloured child,”

“Give me the doll that looks like a Negro child,”

“Give me the doll that looks like you.”

The questionnaire concluded with 44 percent of the black children choosing the white doll as being the doll that looked like them. This study gained a lot of attention because of the fact that young black children were disassociating themselves with their true race. A question that the case leaves lingering in the air is “what made the children choose the white doll instead of the one that was more close to them?”

In American culture, whiteness and more of a European "look" is considered the norm, and as a result, blackness is associated with lesser status. When looking at some celebrities, for instance Nicki Minaj, there has been a drastic change to her appearance since she first came on to the scene. As her popularity arose, she began to seem more increasingly "light". It is clear to the reader that she has altered her appearance. Now why is this you ask? Predictions can be made that in order for her to move up the ladder in the music world, she had to gain crossover appeal by changing her appearance to fit the pop demographic that her managers wanted her to meet. Although she may not agree with some of the ideas her team are putting together to make up her image, it has since propelled her to superstardom.

Even today,some people who are lighter-skinned consider themselves superior to (and more attractive than) darker-skinned Americans. Filmmaker, Spike Lee, commented on this problem in the movie School Daze, where he exposed the problems between light and dark skinned individuals attending a historically black college. One famous scene from the movie involves two groups of women, one group light skinned, and the other dark skinned, as they argue in a hair salon about which group has good hair. Both groups of women use many derogatory words to describe each which shows how ignorance is still apparent even within one’s own race. Because of such ignorance, the movie received a lot of criticism after its premiere. Before Lee shed light on the subject, it was a topic that was swept under the table but because of his influence, the problem was brought to national attention.

A 2006, University of Georgia study showed that employers prefer light skinned black men to dark skinned men, regardless of their qualifications. They found that a "light-skinned male could have only a Bachelor’s degree and typical work experience and still be preferred over a dark-skinned male with an MBA and past managerial positions"(Harrison 2006). On the other hand, however, in the corporate world, it is assumed that ”relative to their lighter-skinned counterparts, darker skinned Blacks have lower levels of education, income, and job status” (Turner 1995). Since this stereotype is in place, “Corporate America” can be seen as nothing more than an imagination in the eyes of a dark person, as if they know that the job wouldn’t be inviting to people such as them. So how did black culture become so infused with self hatred? Dark skinned slaves working in the field hated the light skin slaves working in the master's house because of the fact that he chose to “spoil” their lighter counterparts. According to “Brotherman: The Odyssey of Black Men in America - an Anthology,” One of the most popular methods of teaching this divisive behavior was created by Willie Lynch, a British slave owner in the West Indies, who came to United States to advise American slave owners how to keep their slaves restrained. The darker slaves were forced to work in the fields and received no privileges. This is what began the division within the black community. As history shows, although light skinned blacks were of a higher rank than their black counterparts, they still received scraps at the end of the day (Boyd). This idea is still intact to this day when lighter skinned individuals seem to feel more inferior to darker toned people, but when you ask a Caucasian, or anyone outside of the African American race, what the light skinned individuals would be listed under its always the same response. Black. After slavery, educational institutions, clubs and other activities were reserved only for light skinned black people. In some instances, only those who were lighter than a brown paper bag (paper bag test) would be considered light enough to attend a college or an exclusive club (Boyd).

Sometimes magazines will lighten the skin of black women, just as L'oreal lightened Beyonce's Skin in a controversial makeup ad that made her appear as if she were, indeed, white. The idea of a more eurocentric look comes in to play again as we dig more into America’s perception of western beauty. Characteristics of Eurocentric beauty include: white skin, a narrow nose, blonde or brown long straight hair, and thin lips. For some reason, if you don’t fulfill these beauty standards, you are considered to be less attractive. Many questions can be raised because of this; who’s the decider of what qualifies as beautiful? As cliched as it may sound, beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder, despite what some people may think.

For some, the views and the opinions of others are too much to bare and consider procedures and different cosmetic products as a way to achieve the ever popular “eurocentric” look that they aspire to have. Although this may sound fine and dandy, the procedures and products bring more risks than they do good. Skin bleaching creams have become hot commodity in the black market beauty world. In a world where the only thing that is seen as beautiful is light skin, can others be to blame for the society that they are a product of? These toxic creams strip the skin of its melanin. Although the person achieves the look they intended to reach, their skin is now weak because of the components said products are composed of. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to self happiness, but the real question is are they ready to face all of the possible repercussions of skin bleaching? That is left for the person to decide.

This is a topic that won’t ever die because people refuse to stop being ignorant, which is evident by Twitter hashtags like #teamlightskin or #teamdarkskin, where people feud and try to prove who’s better based on skin color. Even when various YouTube searches on the topic are pulled up, thousands of results of people - some who try to diffuse the topic, while others add their foolish input. The fact that this topic still remains relevant is ridiculous.

According to “The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order,” Dark-skin discrimination occurs within as well as across races (Turner). This idea is known to be true in an assortment of different cultures, most notably in the caste system set in India. The caste system is in place to form a structured society for the people of India based on one’s skin color. The lighter a person is, the more power that person holds, while the darker they are makes them more prone to living a harder life. Although life shouldn’t be that way for any human being, the darker toned Indians, often called the “untouchables,” are subject to hard labor throughout their lives.

To conclude, in many different cultures and countries around the world, skin color plays a huge role in the concept of beauty. Although light skin may be more preferable, those with darker skin still find their way in society. No matter what adversity they may have faced getting there, they eventually find solace in knowing that they’re on a road to success.The African American community must join together to show that they are more than just a skin, they are people. Although this may be a rather taboo subject, it needs to be brought to the forefront so it can finally be put to rest. The culture must move past those years of oppression and look to the future and what it has to offer. If the culture continues it current ways, then the oppression will always be there; the cycle must stop and the time has been long overdue. Even though the media has made steps in the right direction to show darker African Americans in a better light, the process must be stepped up a couple of notches to get real results. To reiterate, the color of the skin that you were born with should be just that. What a person makes of themselves and all of their aspirations should be what they’re judged on, not their skin color. It doesn’t matter where an African American falls on the spectrum of color because at the end of the day, they’re still black.

[cbholganza]

We are back!!! The NBA restarted with energy and excitement as the Utah Jazz nipped the New Orleans Pelicans 106-104, and the Los Angeles Lakers outlasted their neighborhood rivals the Los Angeles Clippers 103-101 last July 30 at the Bubble in Orlando, Florida.

Fans from all over the globe watched with bated breaths as the NBA unveiled its ambitious effort to salvage a season in the midst of a still uncontrolled pandemic and a raging social justice issue. So far, the NBA seems to be winning its campaign, as the players, the staff and the support elements have been able to keep the Bubble immaculately safe from the uncommon, invisible enemy.

It’s been ‘all systems go’ so far, as the ‘safe and responsible’ plan set up by the NBA, with the full support and cooperation of the players’ association, has reported very encouraging results. The NBA has successfully registered zero reports of COVID infection so far. This is a clear indicator that the players have bought in to the noble purpose to salvage the season for the NBA. And more and more sports leagues are looking at the NBA’s audacious, yet laudable effort to bring some semblance of normalcy into the sports kingdom.

Over in the playing court, Rudy Gobert produced the first points to restart the season; and the last 2 points to win the game in a dramatic come-from-behind fashion for the Utah Jazz. It will be recalled that Rudy was the first player to have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, thereby stopping the NBA season dead on its tracks last March. As if trying to make amends for causing the suspension of the rest of the games, Rudy would team up with Donovan Mitchell to lead the Utah charge. The Jazz squeezed past the Pelicans only in the last 3 minutes of play.

The loss puts the Pelicans in a much more difficult situation in its grind to take the last slot in the Western Conference playoffs. With a 28-38 card now, they need to regain their scrimmage winning form to catch the Memphis Grizzlies. The Grizzlies – leading the pack of hopefuls for the coveted playoff slot – are sporting a 32-33 win-loss slate at present. Also in the wild race for the 8th slot are the Portland Trailblazers (29-37), the Sacramento Kings (28-36), the San Antonio Spurs (27-36) and the Phoenix Suns (26-39). This will be an interesting sprint to watch.

The second game to highlight the return of the NBA was the ever-escalating Battle for LA, as the 2 juggernauts from Lala-land crossed paths for the 4th time this season. Lebron James once again proved his kingship, as he barreled through to follow up his own miss to win the game 103-101. The score now stands at 2 apiece, with no one clearly ahead in their private race to win the heart of LA.

It was a game of short spurts as the Lakers led for the entire first half, with both Kawhi Leonard and Paul George suffering early foul trouble. In the 3rd canto, the Clippers took the lead with George’s consistent scoring. Anthony Davis regained the lead for the Lakers in the 4th quarter, as the 4 superstars alternated in the game highlights. Both teams came prepared with their A-games. Up until the end, no team – and no one – could show clear dominance over the other.

Watching the game however, I saw the Lakers came better prepared and playing more cohesively. Lebron’s leadership clearly showed, as well as coach Frank Vogel’s direction. It is evident that the Lakers took the scrimmage time more seriously. I believe they are now at 90% of their peak form. Expect them to cruise thru the rest of the games as they try to gain more playing time and more cohesion for their reserves, who are already minus Avery Johnson and Rajon Rondo due to varied reasons. Their objective for the rest of the regular season match-ups will be to stay fit and healthy, while trying to get more cohesion, better teamwork among their lesser endowed second crew.

Notable absentees are Avery Bradley, who opted not to join the team…

And Rajon Rondo, due to injury.

Over in the Clippers’ camp however, there is much more potential that hasn’t been seen. The team played minus 2 Sixth Man of the Year candidates, Lou Williams and Montrezl Harrell. Both will need to sit out a few games due to strict quarantine protocols. Even with the early foul trouble to both Kawhi and George, the Clippers deep bench clearly shined. This team has that luxury of resting its key players with the recent addition of veterans Marcus Morris and Joakim Noah to an already talent-laden bench. Coach Doc Rivers has the luxury of a deeper bench, with a more flexible rotation. Now, how to get the best chemistry to optimize his player rotation is a good problem every coach would love to have.

Clearly, the Battle for LA has become one of the highlights for the season. It is a rare occasion when two of the best teams in the league are practically playing in the same neighborhood. Expect sparks to fly. Expect nothing but the best. It is pride, it is bragging rights, it is the title as the neighborhood top dogs; all these are what matters now, nothing else.

But the greatest highlight of the games is no longer all about basketball now. Its meaning, its very significance has outgrown the game itself. Now more than ever, the NBA has demonstrated it is able to be bigger than basketball. The games are no longer just about the entertainment value it provides. For one, the Restart provides a venue to promote safety protocols amid this pandemic. The players themselves demonstrate that with discipline and complete adherence to stringent safety standards, we can defeat this unseen enemy. The NBA, thru the Bubble, has set a blueprint to how communities can create their own little bubbles until these tiny bubbles interlock and slowly merge. The NBA provides hope for a return to normalcy, but only if people will adhere to heightened protocols due to these uncertain times.

On top of all that, the NBA is now leading the way in pushing for social reform – not just for the US – but for all the world to see. With messages plastered on the courts, on players’ jerseys, on TV screens, on social media and everywhere, the NBA is making it clear that it is against any form of social inequality in this world.

With the NBA Restart, we hope that the world can watch and learn. And hopefully, stand together to restart to a new ideal world as well.

For a closer look, just click on the pics. Cover photo courtesy of Los Angeles Magazine. Other photos courtesy of USA Today, Associated Press, CBS Sports, Bleacher Report, the Los Angeles Times, Silver Screen and Roll, Lakers Daily and Wikipedia. 

The NBA Restarts With A Bang!!! We are back!!! The NBA restarted with energy and excitement as the Utah Jazz nipped the New Orleans Pelicans 106-104, and the Los Angeles Lakers outlasted their neighborhood rivals the Los Angeles Clippers 103-101 last July 30 at the Bubble in Orlando, Florida.

[tyrellartblog]

Globalisation, what’s it all about

From what I have gathered over the countless time I have spent researching and looking into, therefore understanding more of, I now have a better understanding of the key factors that are put into play when globalisation is put into a factor in normal day to life situation’s, as well as to why there is a great amount of controversy on the topic in modern times. Globalisation, by definition is the main integration and interaction among companies and the governments worldwide; steam locomotive, jet engine,container ships, international trade, ideas and culture are just some of the examples that globalisation has a effect on. Though the definition may be seen as straight forward in the design, the actual process is a complex entity; that from visiting and researching many varied points for and against the movement, some believe it to be capitalist expansion. Therefore implying the merging of local companies and merchandise, with the large monster conglomerates seen in more economically developed countries (MEDC). Thanks to the continuing development of transportation and communication, the economical interaction and integration that are used in social and cultural ways have greatly increased, however even with all the good that globallisation has done, there are still many factors seen as negative through it that many different groups have started, if not continued to fight back against. Which is why I plan to explore the many sides towards this thing called Globalisation.

While starting my exploration of the vast amount of opinions that many articles and reports had throughout the world, I did stumble upon a few key correlating links that the majority of continents and countries had in common. A study by Peer Fis and Paul Hirsch in 2005 discovered that there was a dramatically large increase in articles negatively commenting about globalisation as a whole prior to 2005. other years also say the outnumber of positive articles compared to the negative one, to the point that the number of negative reviews and articles on globalisation doubled through the 20th century. From this small study alone I could find a pattern starting to emerge from the vast amount of opinions on this, but I also saw that the majority of western views on globalisation compared to other continents of the world are very varied. With a international polls, it showed residents in Africa and Asia see globalisation as a positive process that they welcome to the point that over 50% believed it was happening to quickly! It was also seen that the status of class and race also shifted the tide on opinions towards globalisation, where in more western cultures, its seen that educators and salesmen would be more likely to support the movement, whereas less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developed countries would be against globalisation. From this brief start into the controversy that is globalisation, it links back to what I recently just said, how factors like you status and race in society also effect your opinion, it is seen that many people residing in MEDC’s see this movement as a positive factor on there lives to secure safety for their daily lives, whereas those who go against globalisation tend to do so in order to help environmental and nationalist causes, but now I want to further explore the variety of opinions globalisation has caused.

From looking at a article from economicsonline, It gave me a clear and understandable facts on the pros and cons of globalisation as well as linking them to real social aspects in society. For example large MEDC’s like the UK can avoid certain high secure regulations by locating production in less economically developed countries (LEDC), by this, hopefully in the future, increased trade is likely to lead to the creation of more jobs in the workforce with all the countries that are involved. Because of this, the social affect from this is that UK growth is likely to increase, due to the aggregate demand through increased exports. Also with the increased competition in the exporting, it may reduce the price level for consumers, for UK firms can source from around the world. But there are a large amount of negatives that have risen due to globalisation, such as over-standardlisation of products through global branding is one of the most know factors people see in globalisation, such as McDonald’s as a fast food company or Microsoft being part of the majority of people’s computers, which causes a large impact of product diversity and makes it little to impossible for small, local producers to enter to competition. It also creates inequality, as richer MEDC’s benefit more then LEDC’s and not to mention the increase of pollution due to the transportation used to export the goods, causing the social effect to be a increase of unemployment and the structural change of society, widening the gap between rich and poor more, all due to globalisation.

Another example I got from the website the guardian, was a article about globalisation from a man called Jim O’Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and former commercial secretary to the UK Treasury, is honorary professor of economics at Manchester University. From reading what he believe about globalisation, it is shown that he truly believes that it is a good thing in today’s modern society. The example he used through the article was a country know as Chile and how despite a large of problems the country have; such as having a low growth rate, economical challenges, and experiencing tsunami's and earthquakes through its past, they are known as the richest in Latin America. Reason why could be contributed by Chile’s mass copper production; which has powerful antibacterial properties and is ideal for use in healthcare where bacteria spreads most, and experience on natural disasters, because of this the social aspects for Chile are being apart of improving global health, increases exports and declining the economic inequality among countries, which has dropped thanks to Chile’s rise. Not only that but due to their experience of knowing how to manage earthquakes and tsunamis, they have valuable resources for other countries threatened by natural disasters.

Overall I believe that Globalisation, such as many big changes around the glob, will alway have a good and bad through the era. Through there has been a sudden increase in cultural awareness, the main factors that exist in our society, race, status wealth will always play in to whether globalisation is used for good or evil.

En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Globalization. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization [Accessed 22 Apr. 2019].

Economicsonline.co.uk. (2019). Globalisation - what are the key characteristics of globalisation? | Economics Online. [online] Available at: https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Globalisation_introduction.html [Accessed 22 Apr. 2019].

O'Neill, J. (2019). Globalisation has made the world a better place | Jim O'Neill. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/18/globalisation-world-trade-asia-global-poverty [Accessed 22 Apr. 2019].

Anon, (2019). [online] Available at: https://sagg.info/art-and-globalisation/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2019].

The Economist. (2019). The steam has gone out of globalisation. [online] Available at: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/01/24/the-steam-has-gone-out-of-globalisation [Accessed 22 Apr. 2019].

[understandingvisuality]

Slides from my presentation. I wanted to represent my visual understanding of Steyerl’s essay In Defence of the Poor Image. The transcript/notes is as follows:  I’m going to be presenting Hito Steyerl’s essay, ‘In Defense of the Poor Image’, published on e-flux in 2009.  Who is Hito Steyerl? Born in 1966 in Munich, Hito Steyerl is an artist working with research and narrative driven filmmaking, installation works (image 2), and writer of prominent art essay texts/critiques. Steyerl also lectures New Media Art at University of the Arts, Berlin. (image 3) Last year, Steyerl became the first female to take number one position in ArtReview’s Power 100 list. Steyerl is a female artist with major influence who centers her work towards politics of computers and hypermodern technology in society, which brings us to ‘In Defense of the Poor Image’. (image 4) This is a still of television glitches from Shutterstock, representing a poor image at its most basic form. Published in online media, ‘In Defense’ is a commentary on the idolisation and use of images, which has arisen in the 21st century. Its critique is highly relevant as we view our online consumption in new perspectives.Steyerl leads the essay with an extended description of the term ‘poor image’. (image 5) A poor image is “a ghost of an image… distributed for free… compressed, reproduced, ripped, remixed, as well as copied and pasted”. Such as one of Thomas Ruffs jpeg series, where he deliberately is ruining already poor imagery. These images circulate and populate our visual experiences onlines, puncturing the sublime Instagram experience and festering in any Google Image search. Steyerl places them rock-bottom in the “class society of appearances, ranked and valued according to its resolution.” Post its introduction, ‘In Defense of the Poor Image’ breaks into 6 chapters, categorising poor images, their functions, applications, and societal impacts and reasonings for their existence. The first chapter, “Low Resolutions”, offers that images which are in focus, perfectly sharp and legible, are superior to those fuzzy and incomprehensible. Steyerl draws links from the ideal of the cinematic view - (image 6) utter perfection, “more mimetic and magic, more scary and seductive” than an experience of poor images. (This hyperreal Avengers poster is a representation of the cinematic view which dominated over poor images.) The following chapter, “Resurrection (as Poor Images)”, discusses the commercialisation of quality imagery and the subsequent exclusion of poor images. This exclusion applied to images that were “deemed too marginal to be broadcast on television”. In conjunction with experimental films and video essays, which were solely seen in special broadcastings at metropolitan film clubs, these images slipped away after a single screening, buried in a world of lesser than standard work. Steyerl then places reasons for a birth of “culture as a commodity”; the consumption of media was being impacted by monopolies and monetary drive towards the cinema, including control over “audiovisual in certain countries or territories.” (image 7) As a result - excluded imagery and its makers began to find various publicly accessible channels to position themselves on, even where they may not be curated or relevant to their intention. Sarah Jane Parton’s work can be seen on the online NZ archive Circuit - where it would have been otherwise unavailable for public consumption. Restriction of viewing has resulted in ‘leaked footage’, illegal recordings, and ‘rips’ of certain media, placing avant-garde and non-commercial cinema in the public sphere of the Internet - circulating now as poor images. Steyerl moves to “Privatization and Privacy”. She attests that poor images are being enabled to circulate with a larger frequency due to the “neoliberal restructuring of media production” and the demand for free, easily accessible media that is otherwise restricted by certain state laws and online rights. Disorganized privatisation, attributable to regional turmoil, leads to copies of precious materials being leaked, and transitioning through the world now as poor images. (image/video 9) Because “production of culture was considered a task of the state” but has since been vacuumed into a trillion dollar enterprise, poor images encourage piracy and media thievery. It’s too expensive for the average consumer to consider heading to the movies - why not pirate instead, in the comfort of your own home? Chapter #4, “Imperfect Cinema”. Steyerl begins this chapter by referencing a 1960s manifesto by Julio García Espinosa, For an Imperfect Cinema. She paraphrases that an ‘imperfect cinema’ “merges art with life and science, blurring the distinction between consumer and producer, audience and author.” Thus, an image or moving image that offers an alternative to the idealized ‘perfect image’, offers “an art of the people”. In regards to its visuality, it shares likeness with the poor image - often hurried, blurry, made by a dilettante or admirer of the arts. (image 10 neistat) While this opportunity is certainly appreciated and operated within, by being part of the world of poor images it opens itself up to a multitude of negative operations - “hate speech, spam, and other rubbish make their way through digital connections”. Steyerl iterates further by claiming that poor images are therefore the most desired images, on trend, fashionable, and enjoyed. (This is an image from Casey Neistats vlog protesting inhibited bike lanes in NYC) If we are to look at poor images as a whole, they make up a representation of the condition of the population who consumes them - and they certainly are being consumed through editing, remixing, reformatting, and simply spreading them into virality. We move to chapter #5, “Comrade, what is your visual bond today?”. (image/video 111) Unquestionably there is strong visual and cultural bonding in online consumption; the colloquial term for it is a “meme”, a poor image circulated which “reconnects dispersed worldwide audiences.” Steyerl positions meme culture as an opening for cross-cultural debate, utilizing globalisation and the power of the internet. (This video shot to worldwide memedom from 2007 when it was used in place of intended images or videos, pranking the receiver, garnering the term being “Rick-rolled”) Steyerl references “visual bonds”, a term from Soviet film director Dziga Vertov. Vertov imagined that popular imagery could create a type of community which could “not only inform or entertain, but also organize its viewers.” (image 12) We can recognize this statement when applied to multitudes of social media and its events, gatherings and so-called ‘organisations’ for a subculture of visual bonds AKA memes (These are real life events organised on Facebook where people can share interests together) (image 13) In her concluding section, “Now!”, Steyerl finalizes the text with ambiguous comments regarding the life of poor images. Poor images can easily be seen as an everyday encounter in the world of online consumption. They extend beyond our Internet interactions, reaching into personal relationships, resurfacing for that birthday post to your friends. Steyerl positions them as an important creation within a world filled with images, stating that the poor image is “about defiance and appropriation just as it is about conformism and exploitation. In short: it is about reality”. Biblio https://rcpp.lensbased.net/meta/http://www.e-flux.com/program/65176/hito-steyerl/Images(2)https://www.artforum.com/video/hito-steyerl-how-not-to-be-seen-a-fucking-didactic-educational-mov-file-2013-51651(3) http://artviewer.org/hito-steyerl-at-kunsthal-charlottenborg/(4)https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-22028014-stock-footage-interference-glitches-poor-quality-reception-of-digital-channels-on-the-lcd-display.html?src=rel/8910844:8/gg(5) https://www.metalocus.es/en/news/thomas-ruff-mars(6) http://www.4usky.com/movie-wallpapers.html(7) https://www.circuit.org.nz/film/slowdance-92(8)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS_Z2kSFadU (10)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ (11)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ (12)https://www.facebook.com/events/763691600489706/ https://www.facebook.com/events/1627065397343772/?active_tab=about https://www.facebook.com/events/398897497228159/(13) http://www.kesselskramer.com/exhibitions/24-hrs-of-photos

[kimbapress]

Bringing Peace to 'Culture Wars'- A 7 Step Guide

You’ve probably heard of catch phrases like trigger warnings and safe spaces. These are just a couple of the many terms that are championed by socially conscious folks, who are responding to centuries of oppression and ongoing marginalization in American society. Those most marginalized in the American landscape include LGBTQ, Black, Brown, Muslim, disabled, poor and undocumented. They take the form of cultural critics, who see an increasingly unjust society as undemocratic, and often seeks governmental, institutional and societal efforts to redress or confront these realities. 

Then there are cultural conservatives. They often form the lot of people who don’t like to feel censored by having an opinion or using terms that are deemed inappropriate or offensive. They are often very protective of frre speech.  Many on the right feel deeply frustrated by the protestations of minority groups via social media and news outlets that they say propagate enduring narratives of disconnection, oppression and culture wars among various groups. This leads to a feeling of isolation and loss of freedom as a result political correctness. This sentiment, has entered the political sphere, the University and even the tech world. 

For example, many people believe that the firing of a Google Executive who circulated controversial views at his office, was tantamount to freedom of speech violations. Furthermore, many people have called the relatively new culture emphasizing safety from harmful views inhibits the development of people’s ability to engage and grow. Michael Bloomberg addressed a graduating class in 2016 on topics including safe spaces and micro aggressions, arguing against them because they allegedly impeded healthy and vigorous debate.

Opposing Worlds

For many people, there are real concerns that span language, policy and politics that have consequences for certain demographics. At the same time, one can understand the protestations of those who cringe at the thought of being silenced: no one wants to be called racist for a seemingly harmless racial joke, bigoted for wearing a dress from a different culture or called homophobic because of religiously conservative views.

Worse, there are those who exacerbate the concerns on both sides of the battle: On one side there are folls who invoke a false debate of Free Speech, which often is used as carte blanche by some to say hateful and hurtful things with impunity. On the other side, there lies a call out culture (hellbent on exposing priviliged violators) and social justice elitism, which adds fuel to a burning cauldron of acrimony and political and social fragmentation in the era of Trump vs. the Anti Trump. 

7 Steps to Scaling Back the War

I have some suggestions for both cultural conservatives and cultural critics alike in navigating the touchy social and political landscape in 2018. My hope is that these steps will also provide some refuge for those in need of a respite from battle fatigue.

#1 Seek first to understand, then to be understood

Stephen Covey used this adage in his book, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. It can also be found in Proverbs 4:7 (NASB): The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, get understanding. Cultural conservatives can take time to understand why language is so damaging and apply that understanding to the nuances of the language they so covet to protect. Similarly, those who are passionate about reforming language will need to first understand the experiential lens of those who are unaware of resistant. Both parties stand a far better chance using this strategy than deriding one another for their beliefs or perspectives..

#2 Have compassion for another person’s experience (the subjective)

Recently, I read a blog on Medium Titled Tyranny of the Subjective. It pointed to the shift in media and learning toward subjective lenses as opposed to traditional, more rigorously debated circles. There was definitely truth to an important point - we must be careful to not immediately shut out controversial opinions/voices (particularly in academia) because of the potential harm it may do to minority voices. Except, in daily engagement and understanding compassion for the suffering of marginalized voices is an integral part of healing on the part of oppressed groups. 

Also, we mustn’t fool ourselves: the very idea that there is a truly objective sphere of knowing and believing is inherently flawed - we all employ subjective and often biased understanding in our approach and engagement on critical issues. Furthermore, academia tends to suffer from a tyranny of the Objective far more. Going back to the issue of compassion - it cannot be a one-sided affair. Cultural critics can engage traditionally conservative voices by also creating a space for understanding. This may not result in agreement but it can result in awareness, this must be emphasized.

#3 Recognize that there may be multiple (and often competing) priorities or values that you are bringing to the conversation.

We are not a monolithic society. This is no more true of race, religion, sexuality or economic status. To this end, it’s important to recognize the rich diversity of identity, and allow people to manifest that in their own experience and engagement with us. It’s true that this does impact policy and political consequences - we’ve seen this very clearly as a result of the 2016 election. However, we are all still human beings. As Ekhart Tolle emphasizes in his book, The Power of Now, we have to embrace our being nature more, and emphasize less (perhaps) the human/ego nature. 

#4 Seek dialogue, not closure

Dialogue is a dynamic and lesser employed form of communication when engaging with others. The principles of dialogue is one of creating space for different viewpoints to be heard. To do this successfully people must be aware of the elements of healthy dialogue - they include first be willing to listen, creating space for other to talk, sharing experiences, asking and answering questions for greater understanding and monitoring airtime among other strategies. The goal is mutual understanding but the outcome may, and often does, mean leaving without changing your mind. Save that for debates! (Which often don’t leave people willing to change anything, except maybe their tolerance for different ideas.)

#5 Accept that your perspective isn’t objective reality - but it’s real, at least for you...and the same is true for others.

It’s possible that a thing is real, but not entirely objective. For example, my skin has been caught on fire and is burning. This is objective reality. However, if I told you that your views are oppressive. This is my perspective, and it’s real for me. However, it may not be real for you. This may be because you don’t see the harm or you don’t believe that it can be harmful. One employs sensory and other identifiable characteristics, the other, employs ideas and perspectives. One can find objective aspects to proving oppression - however, it must be noted that the lived experiences of oppression plays a role in the understanding of it. The take away - it’s okay for you to have an understanding that is completely different from mine. 

#6 Take a difficult situation as an opportunity to grow and learn, not to shirk and dig your heals.

This is an variant approach to the seek first to understand approach. If someone told you they were mad because you stepped on their foot. Provided you weren’t a jerk, you’d probably say “I’m sorry, I didn’t notice that.” However, if someone told you that you were a bigot, you might say “How could you say that,” or “you took that the wrong way!” In the second scenario you may be inclined to be more defensive because, you’ve been called a strongly worded term. However, if you treat is an opportunity to grow, it will enhance your ability to be mindful moving forward and show that you are fallible. 

If you are someone who finds someone to be a bigot, you might simply ask them, why did they say or do something to gain perspective? You might also take a moment to reflect on the context or other factors, provide some understanding of your viewpoint and avoid calling them a bigot, but rather describing ways that the language or behavior is perceived. This might bring both of you closer to understanding one another.

#7 Reflect, Reflect, Reflect

Growth requires a lot of reflection. If you are not willing or able to reflect on how you have to believe what you believe, you will have little empathy for other people who share different beliefs. What the world needs is more compassion. This can only start with self work. Liberals, conservatives, cultural critics and cultural defenders all must reflect on who and how they came to be. Then, be willing to listen to how that thinking impacts the world around them.

It’s hard work

Bringing various views together in an effort to understand one another is tough. However the very divisive language used in everyday language to address issues is often not helpful to meaningful growth. We must all be committed to understanding the way that our biases and perspectives shape the way we view others. We must call into question when and how they shape our understanding. And we must be willing to listen to others when they share their truth. This will help bring peace to the culture wars.