#other peoples relationships with individuals who hurt Taylor might be different- it’s also a business

[iwatcheditbegin]

I wouldn’t support them as a brand for numerous reasons, but fans need to stop treating her friendships like it’s a cult. She’s not a dictator. It’s not a school yard. Other peoples relationships with individuals who hurt Taylor is probably different, it’s also a business.

[onisiondrama]

“Onision Interview With Attorney” April 27, 2020 Speaks

Apparently the attorney is Vincent’s sister. If that’s true, I’m guessing he didn’t have to pay for this interview because she already has a bias against Chris Hansen. (Vincent hijack Hansen’s website and publicly announced he sold it to her. They turned it into a website advertising her attorney services. She also helped Vincent filed a lawsuit against Chris Hansen, but Idk if it went anywhere. It looks like the site has since been reverted back to Hansen’s.)

Notes:

Greg / James announces they are going to talk about online culture and how people are impacted by social media.

He asks a really wordy, broad question. I’m not exactly sure what he’s asking, but I think he’s trying to ask how private people can stay safe on the internet? She says with the pandemic attorneys are using the internet more. She says cancel culture is very dangerous.

(Wait- why is there a picture of James as a teenager on screen? I just noticed this. I’ll add it to the top of the post. Sorry, that distracted me.)

She gives an example of a couple going through a divorce and one of them uses their big social media presence to damage the other. She said that makes the attorneys think if they should keep representing someone when their ex could inflict damage to them (the attorney) with things like negative reviews. (People left negative google reviews for her law firm after she got involved in Vincent’s online feud with Hansen. It looks like they are all gone now. From what I saw, it was complains of unprofessionalism with the website situation. People may have left false reviews as well, but I did not see them. I only looked very early on.) 

James says this is the opposite of the justice system where everyone has a fair chance. Public opinion controls right and wrong.

Attorney says public opinion is a myth because most people don’t know the laws or have been to law school. That’s why they have lawyers.

She talks more about how scary it is for lawyers, to risk their livelihood. People can put them out of business with negative reviews who don’t even live in the same country.

James asks what she thinks the general legal repercussions could be for trying to destroy someone’s private life on social media. She says there’s options, but they’re difficult. You could sue for defamation, but you’d have to prove the statement is false and defamatory, you’d have to locate them, you’d have to prove loss of money, and the defendant would need the ability to pay.

James asks if he’s been right when he said it’s not worth going after someone with no money or if you could claim their future assets. She says it could be a thing, like in the state she practices a judgement is good for 20 years and in some states it can be renewed for longer. You’d have to check the state. She says if they’re a minor, the parents could be held responsible.

James asks if there will be a legal shift to protect people from baseless cancel culture. He uses Taylor Swift and Johnny Depp as examples. She believes there will be a shift. She says there should be responsibility on providers that allow negative comments that enable cancel culture.

James asks if someone could be punished for unknowingly telling a lie about someone. He uses the example that he said someone was a murderer, then later finds out someone else was found guilty. Yet he doesn’t remove his initial statement and doesn’t make a public correction. She asks isn’t that why the news publishes retractions? James says people act like the news, but don’t do that. He says everyone wanted to interview him, but when they realized everything they wanted to interview him about was false, they suddenly didn’t want to interview him anymore. They publicly ignored the issue instead of publishing a retraction. He says if you pretend to be a newspaper or journalist, you have to hold yourself to the same standard. Attorney agrees and says everyone needs to be careful with what they say as facts.

She says people shouldn’t be afraid to interview someone in fear of the online effect it might have. She asks where the great interviewers like Oprah, Lisa Ling, and Barbra Walters would be. James says this is black and white mentality, if you’re not with us you’re against us. You can’t have an impartial opinion. He gives an example, if weren’t against Johnny Depp when everyone was angry with him, then you’re an abuser. He says you can’t even have a dialog or find out the full story without people trying to cancel you. He says it converted the media into pandering to their audience.

Attorney asks if now we have to not watch Woody Allen movies because of what he was accused of? James says he stopped watching Johnny Depp movies for a while and that was wrong because he let society and popular opinion control him. He says we want to be with the in-crowd, so when someone is cancelled, we want to go along with it to go with the flow. We’re afraid to admit when we’re wrong or that will be one more reason to be cancelled. He says it’s a complex social structure.

He asks for advise for public figures and private people trying to recover from being canceled or if their ex ran a humiliation campaign online. Attorney says she has a website because all attorneys need websites now. She was dragged into it and everybody started posting really negative reviews because the person that started this cancel culture stated what her familial relationship was. No one has any knowledge of that before they said it. (Dude... when I went to “HansenVSPredator dot com”, your face and name showed up. You have the same last name as Vincent. His last name was on every Hansen stream. Your law firm is across the river from where Vincent said he lived. Vincent tweeted your full name when he announced he sold the site. It wasn’t that hard to figure out. At the time I assumed she was either Vincent’s cousin or sister. I’m not a Hansen stan, but Jesus. Blaming him for all of the negative attention she received is a stretch. If anything I blame Vincent for even suggesting selling her a hijacked website from a high profile person to use for her business. Especially after Vincent got twitter totally pissed off at him. Terrible idea. I remember at the time thinking this poor woman doesn’t know the shit show she just walked into.)

Then her rating, which was really good, went down. She says profanities started being used and it was disturbing. She says she has her own harassment suit. (oh so it wasn’t Vincent’s) The platform got rid of the reviews and she was able to find out the identity of some of the individuals. This all caused loss of sleep, not being able to work, headaches, being afraid and worried for the people she’s working for. She wanted to protect them and was able to file a harassment charge and those are hard to get filed.

He says she’s a private citizen and when someone with a social media presence goes after you makes it difficult to work at your job and function as a human being. Online community doesn’t understand there’s the real world, then there’s the online community. The real work is mostly rational people working jobs with other people. There are consequences for their actions. Online you can be extreme you can act like there’s no law, until reality hits and they’re sitting in court. When people irl agree with you, when police agree with you, when people in court agree with you, it’s important to bring people to the real world so they can’t destroy your life more.

Attorney says people contacted the Bar Association on behalf of the person they’re following. She said it brought harm to the person who started the cancel culture. He made false statements about her. Because of her familial association, she should be banned. People going to the Bar Association inspired her charges against him.

James says we need to be held accountable when we drag people who are entirely private, people who never had a Youtube channel, for bringing negative attention to them. (Like the underage fans you insulted in your body ratings videos?) There’s no reason for us to inspire people to go after private people. His own family members were targeted. They have no association with his channels. (They were on his channels though. Not saying they deserve negative attention, just pointing it out. His mother acted in a number of his skit videos and she has her own channel. He also did a collab with one of his sisters to promote her channel.) He says they were entirely innocent.

He says he hopes the world we’re approaching is one where there is an anti virus for the virus, which is cancel culture. He says we keep acting like heroes by hurting people who are not involved.

He says, like in the attorney’s case, you can’t involve people who are not involved. Says you can’t take someone from a platform they are on and attack them on a platform that they are not on. He gives the example of someone cutting him off the highway, he can’t take out a camera and stalk them to humiliate them online. He should handle it with the police. She agrees and says the authorities are the ones that can do investigations.

James asks for a closing statement from the attorney. They promote her new channel and she says she would like to talk to Cher one day.

She says if something isn’t fair to share, don’t share it. James says you should think about if what you’re going to share will hurt a private citizen. He says he understands public figures, like himself, are different. When you involve family members and private citizens, you become legally accountable for what happens to them.

[gyrlversion]

How Trump Voters Are Giving the Right Qualms About Capitalism

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

One of the paradoxes of the American right has always been its full-throated embrace of capitalism. In some respects, of course, this embrace makes perfect sense: Capitalism is a pillar of American national identity; markets (at least in theory) promote conservative virtues such as thrift and responsibility; and the Hayekian critique of government planning, according to which economies are too complex for humans to fully understand, is a form of classical conservative skepticism regarding the limits of rational knowledge. Yet if one thinks of “conservatism” in the broad sense as a preference for continuity over change — for history and tradition over novelty and innovation — it fits uncomfortably with an economic system that tends toward a relentless abolition of the old. In Europe, conservatives have tended not only to take a more positive view of the state than Americans do but to regard capitalism as, at best, a necessary evil — something to be defended against left-wing leveling but that has the potential to dissolve the sorts of traditional social bonds that conservatism exists to protect. As the conservative Catholic journalist Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote recently in National Review, “the traditional conservative position on ‘markets’ has always been one of guarded appreciation for private property, mixed with a little suspicion for commerce and wage slavery.”

In Dougherty’s sense, the American right prior to the 2016 election was profoundly nontraditional. It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that before Trump came along, most conservatives saw very little wrong with the United States that couldn’t be fixed by cutting taxes, slashing entitlements, and educating Americans in the virtues of self-reliance. Today a few prominent voices on the right are beginning to reconsider. Tucker Carlson, for instance — a former libertarian who reinvented himself as a fire-breathing populist — has attacked the Republican mainstream for its worship of markets at the expense of “normal Americans.” Journals such as American Affairs and First Things are mounting a slightly more highbrow, often religiously inflected assault on neoliberalism, which they blame for the social collapse now devastating the white working class. Some thinkers, such as the Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen, have gone so far as to claim that liberalism itself — including the American right’s “classical liberalism” — is a failure. These voices, with the partial exception of Carlson, are not totally mainstream, and conservative think tanks and magazines are still filled with defenders of the old religion. But the market triumphalism that has dominated the American right since Reagan seems, for the first time in a generation, to be on the back foot.

Tim Carney’s book Alienated America, published in February, is both an index of this transformation and a reminder of how far it is yet to go. Carney, a commentary editor at the Washington Examiner and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is about as mainstream as Republican writers come, and his book is yet another attempt the answer the million-dollar question in American politics: How did Trump get elected? Mixing a wealth of social science with his own reporting from down-at-the-heels sections of Trump country, Carney attributes the rise of Trump to a collapse of civil society — particularly marriage, religion, and family formation — in broad sections of the U.S. And his answer to this widespread “alienation” (his chosen term for the phenomenon) is to revive the bonds of faith and community that he believes have come undone.

Carney begins with the question of why certain places voted for Trump in the 2016 Republican primary. It’s easy to see why ordinary Republicans would vote for him in the general election — their only other option was a Clinton — but why would they choose Trump in a primary over more conventionally conservative options? In Carney’s telling, Republican districts that went for candidates like John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz tended to be those with strong communities and functioning civil-society institutions; those that went early and hard for Trump in the primary tended to be those with low levels of social capital, broken or nonexistent institutions, and high rates of suicide and drug overdose. A 2016 poll from PRRI, for instance, found that Republican voters who reported that they “seldom or never took part in community activities” were twice as likely to support Trump as Cruz; similarly, Trump won primaries in eight of the ten Iowa counties with the lowest scores on Senator Mike Lee’s social-capital index (which considers data on crime, marriage, trust, philanthropy, and other indicators of communal health) but lost nine out of the ten highest-scoring counties. This conclusion — that in white areas, social collapse correlates with Trump support — provides Carney with the leitmotif for the rest of his book.

In essence, Carney attempts to split the difference between those who attribute Trump’s election to cultural resentments (including racism) and those who blame it on economic anxiety. Both are true in Carney’s view, but both are symptomatic of the deeper disease of alienation. Because the book leans heavily on social science that is already fairly well publicized (Raj Chetty’s work on economic mobility, David Autor and his colleagues’ work on the China trade shock, Robert Putnam’s work on declining social capital), much of Carney’s story will be familiar. Still, the compilation of all these statistics in one place — the decline of male wages and workforce participation, the fall of marriage and rise of single-parent households, the emergence of “social-capital deserts” in poorer sections of the country, and the explosion of “deaths of despair” among American whites — paints an impressive picture of anomie. And as Carney repeatedly points out, these social pathologies are concentrated at the bottom half of the income-distribution range. While there is a popular rhetorical style on the right that blames godless elites for the decline of community and family, Carney notes that the wealthy and well-educated of both parties are far more likely to go to church, volunteer in their communities, and maintain strong social connections than are those in the working class. For Carney, this is particularly alarming because community, which gives life purpose and helps people through hard times, is all the more important for those without much material wealth.

Yet if Carney offers a convincingly bleak view of social collapse in working-class America, his explanation for this collapse — and his suggestions for what to do about it — are somewhat less satisfying. Carney channels, to a limited degree, some of the new right-wing market skepticism: He offers a soft criticism of big business for stamping out local variation in the name of standardization and efficiency; he laments the rise of “Taylorism” and its dehumanization of work; he attacks the “gig economy” for not providing workers with stability; he disapproves of suburbanization and the isolation that stems from it; he even quotes Deneen to the effect that capitalism breeds an individualistic mind-set that makes relationships contingent and easily broken. But in explaining the troubles of working-class America, Carney tends to fall back on the collapse of church and community, which he largely attributes to traditional Republican bogeymen such as the welfare state, the sexual revolution, the rise of expressive individualism, and secularization. These explanations are not wrong per se, but they are so large and fuzzily cultural that they resist solutions beyond the local and individual. Carney offers a few policy fixes he thinks might help — reforming the mortgage interest deduction, decentralizing control over public schools — but he admits in his closing chapter that the “solution is mostly: You should go to church. Also, You should start a T-ball team.”

Generally speaking, it probably is a good idea to start a T-ball team. And Carney’s willingness to critique aspects of American capitalism, mild as they may be, represents a marked shift from where the mainstream right was during the Obama years and where some of its leading lights still are. But at the same time, by delivering an account of a country facing full-blown social collapse and then retreating into calls for local, voluntary solutions, Carney ends up restating the basic premises of an old conservative consensus — it’s not the government’s job to fix your problems — that, as a political philosophy, has contributed to the alienation Carney so convincingly describes. It may be true, for instance, that the state is ill equipped to re-create devastated communities, but it is also true that state policy has enabled or even accelerated their devastation, and not merely in the sense that overregulation has hurt small businesses or that the welfare state has crowded out private charity.

Rising international economic competition, for instance, was always going to hurt the American working class. But as critics on both the left and the right have pointed out, globalization has been systematically tilted in favor of the mobile and highly educated. The critic Michael Lind, for instance, notes that the international harmonization of economic rules has focused on tariffs, financial liberalization, and intellectual property while avoiding areas that would benefit the Western working classes, such as wages, labor standards, and tax laws. Even some of the more diffuse cultural shifts lamented by conservatives have been midwifed by the state. As Harvard Law professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk Gersen have argued in their study of the evolution of Title IX, civil-rights laws designed to protect women’s equal access to education have created, through bureaucratic drift and activist institutional capture, a vast federal regulatory apparatus that treats socialization into “traditional” gender roles as a public-health risk and attempts, under the guise of fighting sexual assault, to inculcate among college students a progressive view of gender and sexuality.

The point here is not to chastise Carney for not adopting a more dirigiste political philosophy than the one he presumably holds. It is to say that, even on the right, intellectuals are concluding that the problems Carney identifies are so alarming that localist, laissez-faire solutions simply aren’t going to cut it. In a recent essay in American Affairs, Gladden Pappin issued a broadside against fusionist conservatives who, in his view, waste their energies calling for the resurrection of vanished civil-society traditions “that worked only as culturally embedded practices dependent on the traditions of aristocratic centuries.” Instead, Pappin demands conservatives ask themselves, “What can we do with the reins of power, that is, the state, to ensure the common good of our citizens?”

It remains to be seen whether anyone will take up Pappin’s call and, if they do, whether such a conservatism of the state would be effective or popular. But if Middle America’s condition really is as dire as people like Carney make it out to be, it’s hard to imagine that “go to church” will turn out to be a political winner. Carney ably describes the sort of malaise that led Republicans to flock to Trump, but if there’s one thing we learned from the 2016 election, it’s that desperate people want a leader who promises to try something different, however flawed his solutions might be.

Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Terms & Privacy Notice

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

The post How Trump Voters Are Giving the Right Qualms About Capitalism appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress http://www.gyrlversion.net/how-trump-voters-are-giving-the-right-qualms-about-capitalism/

[islamcketta]

Mother’s Day is nearly here and whether you’re of the group that posts adorable tributes to their mothers or the one that cringes (or openly shames those posters) because their reality doesn’t reflect yours (or you live somewhere in between), this might be a good year to read What My Mother and I Don’t Talk About. It was for me. While I especially loved that the experiences represented in the essays therein were diverse enough to reflect mine and also to challenge my thinking, I was also grateful to get new angles on my relationship with my mother and with myself as a mother.

“There is a gaping hole perhaps for all of us, where our mother does not match up with ‘mother’ as we believe it’s meant to mean and all it’s meant to give us.” – Lynn Steger Strong

Maybe “motherhood” is such a loaded concept because so much of who we are and who we believe ourselves to be is tied up in our relationship with the woman of whom we are borne. For too many of us that concept becomes something we have to work on for the rest of our lives as we grow from infants to children to adults and maybe even parents. It is for me. I think it has been for my mom, too. This complexity made me appreciate the ways in which the writers in this collection worked to understand both themselves and their mothers as separate beings in addition to examining the deeply close relationship between individuals.

“Our mothers are our first homes, and that’s why we’re always trying to return to them.” – Michele Filgate

Individuation is a Bitch (and So Was I)

It took a therapist to teach me the word “individuation” and it took my son to really teach me what the word means. At three and a half he’s stretching that individuality in all the ways he’s meant to. I can see how it hurts him to rip himself from me and how much he needs to know he’s welcome back. I can see how deeply he needs to have that space to become and how much he has no idea that his own actions can hurt, too. It reminds me of both the teen years to come and of my own teen years. I don’t think it’s fair to call myself a bitch (beyond even the patriarchal implications of that word) but not only was my own becoming hard on me, it was hard on my parents. I was hard on my mom. Our relationship now is not what I think either one of us wants it to be but I don’t think either one of us knows yet how to bridge the hurts.

“In their company I find myself turning mute, surly, rude. I become a different person than I know myself to be, a different person than my close ones know me to be. The burden of the unsaid turns my heart into a balled fist.” – Nayomi Munaweera

Nayomi Munaweera’s essay “Her Body / My Body” about her mother’s inability to separate her idea of herself from her daughter hit close to home for me. The conflict is neatly summed up as “she saw no difference between her body and my body,” except if you’ve been in this kind of relationship you know how much that “neat” sentence conceals. While my mom did not wipe my ass until I was 12 (thank God!), I’ve struggled at times to feel like my mom sees me as a separate being. The push-pull of individuation is so necessary and yet it can be so painful for everyone, it’s no wonder that so many relationships break down along these lines. I hope I can do better with my son. Most days I am not doing better with my son.

Mothers are Humans

News flash! The fact that our mothers are human should not be surprising and yet the idea sort of rubs. When we are infants mothers seem purpose-built to meet our needs. As we grow up we grow into meeting our own needs many of us (guilty!) never really turn around and fully look at our mothers as people too.

“I felt so much like her and I wanted to tell her how. But I have made that phone call and it has failed me too many times.” – Lynn Steger Strong

Although Leslie Jamison’s relationship with her mom is wonderfully close—so much so that she writes how her friends never want to hear about the joy of that relationship, even in closeness there are things to learn. Jamison’s essay is about connecting with her mother’s former husband so that she can be even closer to the idea of her mother. When Jamison writes “How many times has my mom picked up the phone to hear my voice cracked with tears, only letting it crack once I knew she was there?” she is realizing new depths to her mother and that even the advice her mother has to offer isn’t something she’s fully inhabited herself. Instead that “wisdom” can be “a kind of muscle memory—something she might have wanted to tell that version of herself.”

This is tricky, because if our mothers, the women who represent the pinnacle of humanity, aren’t perfect, than how can we ever hope to be?

Brandon Taylor’s essay, “All About My Mother” left me with excellent homework. The essay is filled with a gorgeous back and forth about the ways his mother loved him and the ways she hurt him. He’s clearly grappling with understanding how both could co-exist, but in the final page of the essay he writes a slew of declarative sentences to describe his mother. I’d say they’re simple but they aren’t—the ideas are complex and the sentences contradict each other, but they are free of judgment and bring us closer to seeing her as a full human. I know that I can get closer to my mother by trying to see her in the same way. Maybe I’ll discover something as remarkable as André Aciman’s observance that his deaf mother could understand his masked conversation simply by following the movement of his eyebrows.

I was once my mother’s confidante in ways that I did not want to be. In this I related to “Nothing Left Unsaid” by Julianna Baggott which gave me a new lens to view that experience through… Baggott’s own examination and growth took me from feeling victimized by TMI to seeing my mother as a woman who might not have had anyone else to talk to.

“It’s the fear that I’ve learned less from my childhood than I should have, that I am more like her than I want to be.” – Carmen Maria Machado

The Strength to Mother Ourselves

I first heard of this book during a panel at AWP entitled “Writing the Mother Wound” where a couple of these essays were read. I learned a lot from that panel, not just about writing about motherhood but also about living with my own mother wound. One of the lessons that hit home was from Vanessa Martir who said, “I may be unmothered, but I will always want my mother’s love.” I realized then that I needed to look into this experience and not run anymore from what isn’t working. Because I do love my mom and I want her to love me. I think she does, but there are still voids between the love she gives and the love I want to receive… voids I have to learn to fill myself.

“To grasp that which has hurt you, you must trust it not to hurt you when you let it inhabit you.” – Brandon Taylor

In some ways I dream of having Alexander Chee’s grown-up experience… the one where he talks to his mom about some really hard things and she helps him rewrite his narrative more fully. It’s a door that opened for me this winter when my maternal grandmother (a well of toxicity) died and I finally had a long overdue conversation with my mom. I heard some of the things I needed to hear that day, but I’m still having trouble trusting that our next conversation will build from there. And I fear that this next quote is optimistic.

“There is a difference between the fear of upsetting someone who loves you and the danger of losing them.” – Melissa Febos

Other Things I Loved in This Book

There were so many moments in these essays I related to in ways that were not about my mother. From Jamison’s description of writers as vampires to Machado’s love/fear of toddlers and how children destroy writing to Kiese Laymon’s observations that “the folks I’ve been most harmful to in this country are people I thought I loved.” The stark patterns in “Fifteen” by Bernice L. McFadden broke my heart hard and I felt deeply for the woman Dylan Landis’s mom could have been (even if only romantically so) in “16 Minetta Lane.” I recognized the woman Cathi Hanauer’s mother is in “My Mother’s (Gate) Keeper” and am still learning from the idea of living with the itch of a mosquito bite. The way Melissa Febos inhabits her mother’s lexicon in “Thesmophoria” is pure magic and Michele Filgate’s reminder that sometimes the deepest hurt is betrayal was illuminating in ways I won’t go into now. The book is rich and the experiences varied. I think readers of all kinds of backgrounds will find something in it to relate to.

What I Really Want for Mother’s Day

Since becoming a mother I haven’t been the best celebrant of Mother’s Day in regards to my own mom. I’ve wanted to soak up the time and love of my son and husband. I’ve wanted to enjoy the cupcakes and flowers and uninterrupted baths. This year I’ve asked them for a trip to the garden store and a planting-a-thon in our gorgeous back yard—my safe haven from the world. But this year I also want to talk to my mom. I don’t know what I want to say and I don’t know what I want her to say, but I do know that the cord between us is not completely cut, nor do I want it to be. So I’m going to sacrifice some of my guaranteed bliss for a shot at the bliss of mending fences. Wish me luck!

I don’t recommend you send your mom What My Mother and I Don’t Talk About for Mother’s Day, but I do recommend you send it. Start a conversation about something you’ve never said or about something you’ve never asked. Talk to her like a human you love, one who you may not have fully recognized as a separate human. I’ll bet money hearing from you is what she really wants on any given day.

Your homework is to pick up a copy or two of What My Mother and I Don’t Talk About from Powell’s Books. Your purchase keeps indie booksellers in business and I receive a commission.

The post What My Mother and I Don’t Talk About appeared first on A Geography of Reading.

[shrinenose50-blog]

"Orbiting" Is the New Breakup Habit That's Worse Than Ghosting

There are a lot of coded words we use to talk about dating today. We say hanging out, hooking up, benching, swiping, and, of course, ghosting. These words all mean different things to different people, but ghosting might not be the right term for the modern phenomenon we all seem to know. Yes, someone might disappear from your life in a ghost-like fashion, but ghosts are known for haunting, for sticking around past their welcome. When someone ghosts you, they are gone — but ghosting might be more accurately used for a situation in which someone is no longer physically present, but their presence is still felt. In the social media age, it's much harder to shake someone's image after a breakup, whether it's their face popping up on your Instagram feed, or their eyes on your stories. Apparently, there is a word for when your ex keeps tabs on your social media after you've broken up, and while ghosting does seem the best fit here, that's not it. According to the New York Times, this very specific occurrence is called "orbiting."

According to the Times, orbiting in its current definition was coined by Anna Iovine in an article for Man Repeller. She defined it as the situation in which your ex still visibly watches your social media — you know it's happened to you when your ex's name shows up as one of the watchers of your Instagram Story. You may have unfriended and unfollowed them on every platform, but they will still like your tweets.

"I dubbed it 'orbiting' during a conversation with my colleague Kara, when she poetically described this phenomenon as a former suitor 'keeping you in their orbit' — close enough to see each other; far enough to never talk," Anna wrote in her April 2018 article.

Wanting to keep tabs on your ex is understandable. Breakups are hard, and it's painful to not have someone in your life the way you used to. Seeing their image on screen might seem like a way to get a small dose of what you once had. But for the person on the other side, seeing that your ex is watching you can be jarring. And according to an expert, it's not healthy for either party.

"The short answer is probably not," Rachel O’Neill, Ph.D., and Ohio licensed professional clinical counselor and Talkspace provider, told Teen Vogue when asked if orbiting is healthy. For the person doing the orbiting, O'Neill said it has the potential to keep alive the pain you felt after a breakup.

"What’s the best case scenario? That you’ll see a series of posts and photos about how miserable they are? If that does happen, will it really make the breakup any easier? What about the potential of seeing your ex with someone new? Consider what impact it might have on your well-being to see your ex having fun, especially if they are having fun with someone new?" she said.

But beyond that, it's also harmful to the person being orbited. It can keep that same pain alive for them, even if they are actively taking steps to cope with those feelings and move on. Basically, it's dragging you both into a potentially bad place, which certainly isn't fair to your former partner if they're working on moving forward.

"If nothing else, keeping tabs on someone from afar — orbiting them — deprives an individual of the present moment," O'Neill told Teen Vogue. "It brings up questions and thoughts of the past and it can lock people into a cycle of grief and loss that can be difficult to resolve."

O'Neill compared it to showing up at an ex's house every so often to check in. While you might not be physically present when orbiting, she said your social image is still taking up space in that person's life.

"Think of it this way — if you broke up with someone, would you want them to show up at your house every so often and ask you for an overview of your day, as well any pictures you have from your most recent night out? Of course not," she said. "So, why should you give that person space in your virtual life? For your ex, the privilege of knowing about your life ends when the relationship ends."

As Iovine wrote for Man Repeller, orbiting may be a way of exerting control over someone. Taylor Lorenz, social media reporter at The Daily Beast, told Iovine that orbiting is a way of keeping options open — of not closing the door completely to a potential or past relationship, but also not committing to it.

“You want to keep someone on the table or don’t want to totally write someone off,” she said.

Rather than not giving yourself or your former partner space to grieve what's lost — or to just plain old move on with their life without the ghosts of their past constantly watching — O'Neill said it's generally a good idea to have somewhat of a clean break from your ex.

"It’s probably best to at least carve out a bit of space from a person after the relationship ends. There are certainly exceptions and if it is a relatively amicable separation, then perhaps maintaining communication is possible. But, in general, most breakups involve at least some hurt feelings," she told Teen Vogue. "The ability to orbit a person after a breakup can result in individuals feeling stuck in a cycle of painful feelings. Individuals who orbit an ex may feel experience an increase in feelings of anger and sadness, which can interfere with the ability of the grieving process."

To facilitate that, she said you can unfriend, unfollow, and even block an ex if you need or want to.

"The relationship has ended," she said, "and you don’t owe them any space in your life."

Related: Noah Centineo Apparently Ghosted Busy Phillips's Friend

Let us slide into your DMs. Sign up for the Teen Vogue daily email.

Get the Teen Vogue Take. Sign up for the Teen Vogue weekly email.

Source: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/orbiting-is-the-new-breakup-habit-thats-worse-than-ghosting

[tortuga-aak]

This company lets you book small events with NFL Hall of Famers, Oscar-winning directors, and famous chefs — and it’s changing the face of client entertainment

The Insider Picks team writes about stuff we think you'll like. Business Insider has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

Thuzio is a company that will give you (and your guests) access to intimate events with legends from the entertainment and business world. 

Tickets range from $150 to $300. Seats are typically limited to 100 people at most.

Members have found it to be a great tool in client development, thanks to exclusivity, A-list talent, and impactful storytelling.

Coupling client events with Thuzio creates "unique, must-do (and often, once-in-a-lifetime) experiences that help build stronger client relationships and, ultimately, generate business."

Ever wondered what it might be like to smoke cigars with NFL Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor, or cook with legendary chefs? Or, if you’re like the rest of the country, watched "O.J.: Made in America" and racked up at least a few questions you'd like to ask Ezra Edelman, the Oscar-winning director, in person?

Well, now you actually can (and for a lower price than what you would think). Thanks to Thuzio, you can buy tickets to intimate events centered around legends of the entertainment and business world.

As some members have reported, Thuzio has given them a noticeable edge when it comes to client development. 

During the Thuzio Game Watch event, my client’s friend asked me to manage his investments. Undoubtedly, the event provided me an opportunity to impress my client and his guests, and now I have new business. Thuzio Executive Club is a very different way of interacting and entertaining clients and I am so impressed. — Robert O'Hara, CFP, Merrill Lynch

Thuzio has taken my client development efforts to another level. Coupling my client events with Thuzio’s A-level talent creates unique, must-do (and often, once-in-a-lifetime) experiences that help build stronger client relationships and, ultimately, generate business. — Mike Rupe, Partner, King & Spalding

You can treat prospective clients to something actually memorable that they might not be able to get elsewhere. And from a logistical standpoint, it allows you not only ample, inspirational topics to speak with them about but also takes the pressure of performing off of you, at least for a good amount of the time. You orchestrate a wonderful experience for guests, but the legwork falls on Thuzio.

According to members, the 2-3 hour events are pretty much the sweet spot when it comes to entertaining clients. It doesn't hurt, either, that the experience is unusual enough to garner good engagement and inimitable enough to stand out after the fact. If you're looking for a way to stand out from piles of dinner invitations, this might be it.

Thuzio is also a pretty valuable tool for smaller companies that are looking to wow on a scale that matches larger players. While you might not be able to find it in your budget to lock your startup into a membership with them for the year, individual tickets might be more attainable at about $200 a ticket, and certainly more "bang for your buck" than other options. While big names like J.P. Morgan, UBS, Wall Street Journal, Fidelity, and BlackRock have memberships with Thuzio, single-purchase tickets open the door for smaller companies to play on a larger field.

If you're looking for a way to separate yourself from the pack or want to deliver something more unforgettable than the typical dinner meeting, Thuzio is here to help. And it's certainly cheaper than paying Lawrence Taylor to come to your home for a game of pick-up.  

Here's how Thuzio events work and how you can get tickets to them:

What's an event like, and how do you buy tickets?

Thuzio

You can grab tickets here, which typically range between $150 to $300 (though most land at $199).

You're not limited to how many you can buy, but the site technically lists it at 8. If an event features a particularly desirable speaker, they might end up restricting the number to give everyone a chance to buy and reserve. 

To keep the intimacy element that clients find so valuable, Thuzio typically keeps it to about 100 seats. The venues, likewise, are picked to cultivate a small-group setting. The venues change, but they're all the sort of spots you might head to on your own — the sort of high-end spots that might warrant name recognition and also won't feel like a conference room. 

With your ticket, you'll have access to the event, which typically lasts about 2-3 hours (though the culinary ones can go a bit longer), an open bar, food, and signed memorabilia from the speaker. Minor details may vary by event, so you'll want to check to be sure. 

Events usually comprise a cocktail reception to begin, a moderated Q&A (followed by guest Q&A), and then more drinks and mingling. If you opt for culinary, though, there's typically a chef demo and sometimes an interactive component.

If you're interested in scheduling ahead of time, Thuzio posts events for the upcoming quarter and the schedule gets updated on a rolling basis.

Where can you find Thuzio?

Thuzio

The particularly nice thing about Thuzio is that you can provide the same unique experience no matter where you are. If you're traveling and don't know the area well, you can spend 30 seconds to book spots to a Thuzio event and get all the benefits of an evening you couldn't have put together even after hours of cross-referencing Yelp reviews.

Even if your guests are natives to the city, they most likely haven't done this before, so you can still provide a memorable evening regardless of being an outsider. 

Upcoming events you can buy tickets to:

Chicago:

An evening with Mr. Peter Jacobsen (November 1)

An evening with Mr. Craig Duchossois (November 14)

An evening with Mr. Denis Savard (December 5)

An evening with Mr. Mark Grace (January 23)

An evening with Brent Sopel (February 13)

An evening with Mr. Rick Ankiel (February 28)

Check out all the Chicago events here.

Los Angeles:

An evening with Mr. Melvin Gordon (October 24)

An evening with Mr. Steve Garvey (November 30)

An evening with Mr. Ed O'Bannon (February 13)

Check out all the Los Angeles events here.

New York:

An evening with Mr. Tiki Barber (October 25)

An evening with Mr. Jeff Raider (December 12)

An evening with Mr. Mark Bavaro (January 9, January 10)

Check out all the New York events here.

Philadelphia:

An evening with Mr. Alshon Jeffery (November 6)

An evening with Chef Jason Cichonski (November 16)

An evening with Mr. Mick Foley (March 7)

Check out all the Philadelphia events here.

San Francisco:

An evening with Mr. Roger Craig (November 13)

An evening with Dr. Bennett Omalu (December 14)

An evening with Mr. Phil Hellmuth (January 24)

An evening with Rollie Fingers (February 21)

Check out all the San Francisco events here. 

Coming soon: Boston.

Who is the typical Thuzio member?

Thuzio

It's only been a few months since Thuzio began allowing single-purchase tickets, so most of the data on who attends is taken from their members.

The average age is 42, most hold C-Suite or leadership positions. They entertain clients multiple times a week and hail from over 30 industries, including law, real estate, finance, tech, media, and construction. 

While the main event is obviously the unique opportunity to spend time with legends, it certainly lends itself to valuable networking as well.

Sign up for an event here.

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2yx3X8H