#which is not the boomer idea of internet being an issue

[sounds-like-moss]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kids need more options. More freedom. Regardless of if parents tracking is a factor. Yes tracking is a part of it and being able to mess up or make choices your parents aren't happy with is also a part...but like. Even without, offline is less and less an option. At least an appealing one or one that seems real and viable. I saw it happening and I'm sure it's fucking worse now. Organizing seems like a pipe dream or at least something hard when you're a minor, don't have access, and physically are not somewhere you can see enough options to realize they DO in fact exist. So they sit there at this weird ass combo of aware and so out of touch at the same time. Like the world is a stage and they don't see the stage left exit. It's observe and be observed, performing all the time in this scripted stilted way but like what else is there? It's there. But it might as well be set design or a character archetype. Put on. Never off. It makes living seem mundane at best and alien/impossible at worst. I worry for them. Cults try hard...but the Government tries harder.

I should know, in my personal experience they're one in the fucking same. And they're at their worst when you're isolated and blind to the options

here's my hot take about my generation and people younger than me (I'm 22 years old)

The reason current teenagers and people in their really early 20s are conservative on accident and have such shitty takes on the internet is because our generation was much more sheltered than previous generations and because we were raised to be ok with orwellian servailence and that is 100% the fault of our parents, Reagan Era kidnapping panics, and the rise of technology all coming together to prevent us from doing the sketchy shit that sends parents into panic mode but which is also completely fundemental to childhood development. If your parents had even a crumb of money to their name and even a shred of free time they started tracking your phone as soon as it was possible to. I did not experience this because my parents are actively trying to live like it's the 1990s and still have not gotten cell phones of their own, and did not let me have one until I was 18 years old and it was no longer their choice, but literally over half of my friends in middle and high school had their phones tracked by their parents at some point or other, and we would occasionally find this out, not because their parents told them, but when we were trying to do the aforementioned sketchy shit and their parent's car would pull up. And I would, like a reasonable person after finding this out, encourage my friends to just leave their phones at home, and their response would be "What if I get kidnapped" or "My parents are just trying to keep me safe"

This in my estimation has lead to a combination of kids being terminally online because they do have internet access and are better at deleting search history than their parents think they are, but don't have the freedom to go out and do shit without their parents' knowledge or consent, so they have the most privacy from the people who control their lives while they're on the internet, and kids not having the real world experiences they should have, not knowing how to connect with other people irl, not feeling comfortable leaving the house because of the horror story lies their parents told them to make them ok with the surveillance they were inflicting on their kids. Kids these days are growing up in the fucking panopticon when they should be out in the woods playing with knives or stealing cigarettes from their older sibling and going out to an empty parking lot to smoke them or whatever and that shit is sticking with them into adulthood. Things that were "tee hee we could get in trouble isn't this so fun and daring" in the 1990s and 2000s have become in the 2010s and 2020s things that are "If I do that without texting my parents some sort of lie to excuse where my location is my parent's car will pull up and I will get grounded for the next two weeks."

Like even when I was 19 I had a 16 year old friend who would volunteer their time at a food shelf and that's how we knew each other. We would talk about dungeons and dragons together, and the game store was 4 blocks from the food shelf. One day we left the food shelf earlier than they had told their parents they would and they got punished for that. We were literally just going to look at dungeons and dragons miniatures and dice, which was self evident if you could see where we started and how far we walked and where too. I have to assume that this isn't uncommon. It's wrong, but it's not uncommon.

[animentality]

not to be a boomer, but I do worry about the current generation of kids being raised with iPads.

first off. some of them literally can't hold a pencil because their parents never gave them physical toys to grip and play with, developing their fine motor skills.

you might ask why do we even need to learn how to write physically anymore- well, frankly, because if you're stranded on an island somewhere and you need to write HELP, you might not have the strength to hold a pencil, but you can at least hold a stick.

but on a more general note.

writing by hand helps you remember things better. it forces you to focus in a way that typing something word for word does not. a person can transcribe what a professor says without even thinking about it.

someone writing notes has to consider what to write and what to omit. it also activates more parts of your brain, forcing you to flex the parts of your brain related to learning and communicating, while also engaging the part of your brain dedicated to muscle control and precision.

but in general, I think the issue isn't even oh technology is bad and kids are getting dumber.

you can have PowerPoints AND take physical notes. that could help you learn even better than the olden days where you just had to remember everything that was thrown at you. or read very limited, out of date books.

the problem is that the generation that raised/is raising this generation of children just doesn't understand the true impact that all this technology will have on their kids. or they just don't care.

because our generation had the internet yes, but it wasn't widely accessible for most of us, sharing our computers with the entire family in the kitchen. it was also the internet in its infancy, where it wasn't quite so predatory, when it was lawless and disturbing, yes, but it wasn't weaponized by corporations trying to sell you things and steal your data, it wasn't flooded with bots and ai and all sorts of things that the human brain can't even distinguish as real or fake, especially when you're just a little kid.

that generation still played with physical toys. we celebrated when it snowed and we could stay home.

we also came from a gen that still, vaguely, cared about some form of community and had third spaces for kids to hang out.

90s children, who still had some memories of both playing outside on a playground and playing Mario Kart on the Nintendo 64 with their friends, who both went out to the mall and had a club penguin account.

we grew up with laptops and smart boards. maybe some of us had them in high school or college, but we still physically went to class and developed relationships. learned uncomfortable things about ourselves and others, the way humans do.

met new people and were exposed to new ideas, away from our parents. but not from some fucking influencer trying to sell us Sephora products.

we had to study for things, instead of just being able to Google shit for some bullshit online test.

which is also something that really concerns me. so many kids today can so easily Google answers for every test, and while tests don't ultimately matter in the real world, they still provide some basis for things that do matter.

like I'm just imagining medical students googling how to perform an appendectomy on the day of, and just using a YouTube tutorial to guide them through, and shuddering.

there are some things that the Internet can't teach you.

there always will be.

but I don't think my generation is really helping their kids find the balance that we were given naturally growing up.

the boomers and gen xers had fist fights and we had bullying someone online until they committed suicide.

and now kids use AI to spread fake nudes of girls.

but the laws haven't caught up with a lot of this stuff yet, and certainly won't while we have dinosaurs running our government. and culture takes even longer to change than laws.

I also worry because I know how badly covid affected kids worldwide. how they struggle to read and do math, because remote learning just isn't good for kids.

and I can't even blame them!! I literally teleworked for 4 years and even I can admit that I'm not nearly as good at focusing at home as I am in the office.

it's hard for kids with social anxiety and disabilities, yes I know, I know, trust me, I have social anxiety, and as a hybrid worker ATM, I highly doubt I'd be able to handle 5 days a week in the office.

but it's also not particularly good for kids to stay home ALL the time, entertaining themselves in their room and never being challenged, and never meeting people other than their parents.

the iPad is more of a symbol of that problem than the direct problem.

if your entire... world view is limited to what you can see on your iPad... I mean what a terrible world view you'll have.

you're a 10 year old using TikTok and all you ever see is the same opinion over and over until you can scarcely comprehend people who have an opposing opinion.

you see fake videos that seem so real. that must be real, and so comforting, aren't they, those videos that seem so real?

you let 30 year old influencers who are trying to grift people shape your world view.

and it's not even your fault.

your parents aren't doing anything to help you.

you're young and you're being barraged with entertainment and fake educational videos and how to guides that accidentally create mustard gas in your toilet.

your parents should be teaching you to find a balance between these things. they should be telling you what's real and caution you about the things you see.

they should limit your fucking time on the iPad actually. take you to a fucking park and let you roll in the mud or some shit.

and then when you're a teenager and a young adult, then you can start deciding for yourself what you believe.

but a lot of these weird millennial/gen z parents, man. just let your 1 year old scroll through vids on TikTok while you don't even talk to them or look at them once.

maybe it's because they don't see the harm in it, but I don't get it.

adults can watch TikTok all day and know, ahhh this is bad for me. I'm not doing anything I actually want to be doing.

adults can see other adults doing dumb shit and say ah you're sponsored. someone paid you money to say and do that. silly.

but kids are just kids.

they don't have discipline and frankly, that's not their responsibility. that is yours.

you should be teaching them that they can't have everything in life at their finger tips at all times, actually.

the iPad doesn't solve all of your problems, nor will it think critically for you.

so I worry about if humanity can really keep up with its own technology.

our species is still in its infancy, believe it or not.

so maybe these are just growing pains, and future generations will be able to look back on this era and know the proper balance.

but as someone living in 2024.

I wonder just how much pain is left before we really mature and either make it or break it.

[blueberry-lemon]

"It's nice to be nice."

For a brief time after graduating from college, I worked at a before-school program at an elementary school.

While I don’t think I have the fortitude to work with kids in the long-term, it wasn’t so bad. At times, it was kind of relaxing. My supervisors were cool. Most of the kids were pretty chill.

Some of the kids were less chill. They would misbehave, in typical elementary school fashion. My supervisors had various different tactics for dealing with that, which worked pretty consistently. Usually it was a time-out, or a stern talking-to, or something similar.

One of my supervisors had a common refrain that she would try to teach the kids if they had done something mean to another: “It’s nice to be nice.”

She would say it loud and clear, for everyone in the room to hear. On its face, it was a bit corny and redundant. It didn’t really…convey much. It was a handy turn-of-phrase that was meant to instill a sense of compassion among the students. Be kind to each other. It’s a "good thing” to do!

Since a lot of the kids were already in 4th and 5th grade, I doubt that the phrase did much to change any behavior. It’s the exact kind of platitude that I would ignore at that age, given that it doesn’t sound like anything besides “stop breaking rules.”

For some reason, it did stick with me though.

It pops back up into my mind every so often. “It’s nice to be nice.” It lacks nuance or cleverness, which I think is maybe the best thing about it. Maybe it’s deceptively wise. Or maybe I’m overthinking things.

It’s possible that my level of social exposure is low, and that my expectations are lower, but I’m over-the-moon when a stranger is friendly to me. Even if they’re paid to be friendly, like a grocery cashier or a hotel clerk. I don’t really feel like they should feel obligated to do it, even if it is their job, so I still find it a flattering bonus when it happens. It puts a pep in my step.

The same goes online.

There’s something about a low-stakes, respectful, cordial interaction that just…[chef’s kiss]

So much on the internet is about being funny, or smart, or educational, or persuasive, or cruel.

The older I get the more I’m like…what about just being nice? Maybe it’s worth a shot.

And yes I can throw a million disclaimers here: I’m not talking about respectability politics, or pandering, or inappropriate levels of toxic positivity. I’m not talking about distracting from the real issues, or avoiding politics, or donating all of my time and energy on fixing depressed strangers. I’m not talking about being parasocial weirdos or overstepping our bounds with accounts I follow.

I just mean regular old, day-to-day, casual friendliness with peers.

It’s fun! Almost intoxicating!

There’s nothing more fun now than a quick, casual exchange with someone online where we respect each others’ boundaries and gush over a shared interest. Or reaching out to actually leave a nice comment on something instead of just scrolling by, etc. etc.

I’ll stop now before I sound like corny old internet boomer. You get the idea.

All of this is to say that when I make an effort to actually reshape the interactions I have online, it makes me feel like there was actually a point to this whole internet thing. It makes me feel slightly less alone, and less trapped in my own head.

Even though it’s easier now than ever, I really don’t want to streamline my online experience into a never-ending timeline scroll of “content.” An endless refreshing of things to make me laugh and things to make me mad. I want it to be an actual exchange of ideas, and of kindness and support. A place where I can show small kindnesses in the same way that I should try to small kindnesses to people in my real neighborhood.

That boss of mine might have been cooking. Maybe it really is nice to be nice, even just for its own sake.

[commandtower-solring-go]

The fundamental break down of the millenials vs boomer debate is this

The boomers believe that they had to work for the things they had. They developed strategies in a post-war capitalist economy which allowed them to acrue wealth more easily. They did not have a monitary background to do so.

Millenials believe that they have had to work for the things they had, and the things they've got from it are lesser than those same Boomers working just as hard. They argue that because of the strategies that Boomer's created, Millenials cannot earn the same wealth that Boomers can.

The fundamental issue is the nature of capitalism between the 70-80s to today. When Boomers were in their 20's and 30's the accessibility of the job market, housing market and small business market was significantly better. Within these markets, compared to their parents, Boomers developed and refined strategies and systems which allowed them to maximise the return on their capital. These strategies prooved so effective that we saw the 80's economic boom.

However, these strategies lacked foresight. So long as money was being made, they were happy. But the level and expectation of growth was not something they saw as ending. How can you? And so they continued to develop better and better strategies to edge out more growth. Company murged. Advertising grew and become more aggressive. The value of money dropped as prices increased.

Moreover, the nature of these markets have been permenantly changed by Boomers and Millenials. Small business were killed by a lack of income among the middle class, as well as an overwhelmed market lacking diversity generated by overly eager millenials.

But Millenials also grew up in the age of the internet and small online businesses. They were savvy in the same way their grandparents were. They developed new strategies and inked out what little was left. But there wasn't enough to sustain it.

All of this to say uhhhh i dont fucking care. You're all just as bad as each other and if Boomers hadn't have done thing another generation would have. It was the natural progression of ideas and so is this conflict.

Millenials will do what Boomers did before and it will kill capitalism. There sill be no space left to edge out and growth will be impossible. Either the house of cards will collapse or the world will transition to socialism. That's the natural progression.

[vague-humanoid]

@rapeculturerealities @hellyeahheroes @socialistexan

Convicted stalker Billy Raymond Counterman is challenging how courts determine what statements are “true threats” not protected by the First Amendment, and when someone is just supposed to suck up thousands of unsolicited, disturbing messages — even when we know more than 50% of female homicide victims reported being stalked first.

But Counterman’s taken the argument all the way to the Supreme Court, and oral arguments were this week, as reported by SCOTUSBlog.

Both sides in Wednesday’s case agree that the issue is an important one. Counterman stresses that the “notion that a person can spend years in prison for a ‘speech crime’ committed by accident is chilling.” But the state of Colorado, which prosecuted Counterman, counters that Counterman’s messages frightened their recipient and disrupted her life. “This is precisely why threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment,” the state says: to shield individuals from the fear of violence, which follows from the threats “no matter what the person making the threat intends.”

Counterman argues for a subjective test for stalking charges that looks to the speaker’s intent:

The test for determining whether speech is a “true threat” that is not protected by the First Amendment must consider the speaker’s intent, Counterman contends. A purely objective test, like the one used by the Colorado court, runs the risk of criminalizing “inevitable misunderstandings” and good-faith miscommunications – particularly when so much speech occurs on the internet, where “the evidence of criminal conduct consists of bare words on a screen.”

Professor Mary Anne Franks is a First Amendment scholar and an amici in the case, arguing for the “well-established, historical support for an objective standard in determining true threats and to highlight the costs a subjective standard would impose on free speech generally, and to individuals and communities targeted by stalking in particular.” Franks notes the oral argument revealed a take at home on Fox News — that society is too filled with snowflakes for the objective person test to be workable. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett lamented an objective person standard in a world where people are “increasingly sensitive” or “hypersensitive.” Which, okay Boomer, maybe the “objective” standard isn’t deadened empathy from lead exposure.

But remember, the objective person standard is all the hell over the legal system, but it’s only when the well-being of stalking victims is on the line that the Court starts balking at it.

But — unfortunately — that wasn’t the only moments from the oral argument to give the icks. Chief Justice Roberts read a small selection of Counterman’s statements to his victim to laughter in the Court.

Franks points out this was but a small selection of the thousands of messages Counterman sent his victim, devoid of any context. But the Chief Justice thought it was a great idea to play it for laughs.

The Court — or at least the right-wing majority — seems, from the oral argument, willing to prioritize nebulous chilling impacts (which, how chilling can it possibly be when stalking is still a problem) over the harms suffered by stalking victims. Just another sacrifice to the conservative movement’s perversion of the First Amendment.

[outsidereveries]

thank you so much for replying to my ramble and i agree with your response its almost like too much, less should always be more but groups have nearly 30 something memebrs in them or they have ine cool idea and then suddenly every other group is doing it. kpop sometimes just make me want to dig my own grave it really does take the fun out of something light and make it more toxic but theres not much else for someone my age to be a fan of without having to deal with bs basically. then theres always going to be folk who either need to overreact to things that arent an issue or

i feel bad for any newer younger idol, as they going to have to grow up on a smartphone basically subjecting themselves to online scrutiny bc groups cant exist without internet trends sadly. i think groups could still be successful without it and it would be more refreshing as well instead nothing really new anymore cause i seen a group do xyz thing some time ago or im supposed to be surprised at every bit of dating "scandal" there is.

i tend to prefer groups that i either dont care deeply about or groups that have fewer members in them so i dont need to know all their perosnal details nor do i check their social medias 24/7 cause i hate those platforms, i really do think idols would have more respite if smartphones had never been invented. like have smartphones but just for text and calls thats all i would personally need them for. yet it seem to have become a whole other thing where its so overwhelming what we have to be entertained by and yet a tthe same time it is short entertainment like in the form of reels or tiktoks

maybe am just a boomer stuck in a millenails body rofl like kids do whattever they want for online attention and its just quite sad really that idols cant even do vlives without being harassed by sasaengs calling them or ppl following them everywhere they go bc now everyone know which idols doing what and where

the main issue is related to every electronic device which irradiates us, even including smartphones. the irradiation in basically why out mind is like that and i am including the younger idols in this case. okay, there are other reasons for anyone's actions like how we are raised, our environment, but the irradiation basically influenced the newer generations (millenials to an extent, mine, z, alpha and eventually the future ones - beta, gamma..), it shrink our mind in a way or another, it restricts everything! it makes us to think for such little things that in k-pop makes it a scandal!! this includes everything you said and i agree with you, i just tried to dive from another look

we're like old people in the case we don't care in the industries we've been interested in before, that's it🥲

[bethestaryouareradio]

Mental Health and Social Media

“When your mental health becomes impacted by social media then it is time for a detox.” 

— Germany Kent

Are you indulging in social media? How do you feel? Host Keerthi, who loves social media, navigates the negatives and positives of various platforms. She advocates for embracing imperfection and showcasing authenticity as well as digital detoxes. Keerthi also encourages celebrating other's successes, big or small, and showing kindness to strangers. Keerthi then interviews high school junior, Niru Shivakumar about the connection between mental health and social media. Niru is the founder of a nonprofit organization called Offline, which has been one of her main focuses for three years. She works with 5th grade classes across the Bay Area to educate students about the dangers and repercussions of social media as well as the effects it can have on mental health before they reach middle school. She does not use social media. Reporter, Kirpa, joins the conversation to discuss the pros and cons of social media and how it can affect our mental health. Her parents do not allow her to use social media and she understands that is because they care and want to keep her safe and healthy.  If you use social media, remember, you are more than your follower count, more than your most liked post, and more than the sum of your social media presence. Make sure to proofread every word before you hit send and keep your mental health front and center. Be yourself and don’t strive for perfection as perfection doesn’t exist. And consider being OFFLINE!

Follow us: https://www.starstyleradio.com/expressyourselfteenradio

•       https://www.facebook.com/ExpressYourselfTeenRadio/

•       https://www.facebook.com/BTSYAcharity/

•       Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/expressyourselfradio/

Bio: Niru Shivakumar is a junior at Leland High School in San Jose and a rower for NorCal Crew in Redwood City. Since 2021, she has run Offline organization, a nonprofit aimed at battling phone addiction related mental health issues in young students. She began the organization because of her own personal experiences and has spoken out at several schools across the Bay Area. She loves to play sports and read books, which she believes is the better alternative than social media these days. She wants to continue Offline in the future and expand it even more to reach students in other countries as well. Offline’s program is an interactive, age-appropriate presentation for in person visits and an informative fun video for online visits that dives into the dangers of constant social media use that also describes and provides ways to stay healthier without the Internet. Offline also has its own newsletter, where they send out issues every 2 weeks about new technological advancements and new alternatives to stay happy without social media. During in person visits, the program combines fun games with the same theme to keep students engaged and help them understand the ideas better. www. offlineorganization.com Listen at Voice America Network, Empowerment Channel: https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/149452/mental-health-and-social-media

RECENTLY PUBLISHED BOOK: Family Forever: https://cynthiabrian.substack.com/p/family-forever Available at www.CynthiaBrian.com/online-store or  www.StarStyleStore.net

·       

BTSYA IS A TOP ON PROFIT!

http://greatnonprofits.org/reviews/be-the-star-you-are-inc/

BUY OUR BOOKS:  Available at www.StarStyleStore.net

Details on all books at HomeTown Reads: https://hometownreads.com/books/be-the-star-you-are-millennials-to-boomers

Read our Newsletter:Spring into Kindness: https://cynthiabrian.substack.com/p/spring-to-kindness?

Make a DONATION through PAYPAL GIVING FUND with 100% going to BTSYA with NO FEES:  https://www.paypal.com/fundraiser/charity/1504

Or you can choose to make the donation using many different payment methods which may have fees via by Givebutter at https://givebutter.com/be-the-star-you-are-charity

Be The Star You Are! offers help, hope, and healing to victims of disasters. Read how BTSYA is Making a Difference: https://www.ibpa-online.org/news/460747/IBPA-Member-Spotlight-Cynthia-Brian.htm 

BTSYA Operation Disaster Relief. Please donate. http://ow.ly/X0Ia30mF4zZ

Check our Book Reviews at our literacy partner, The Reading Tub: https://thereadingtub.org/books/be-the-star-you-are/

Shop. Earn. Give! Shop at over 2000 stores and save BIG: https://www.iGive.com/BTYSA

Discount Software, Digital content. Ebooks, Games: www.humblebundle.com/store?partner=1504&charity=1504

Express Yourself! Teen Radio is produced by Cynthia Brian of Starstyle Productions, llc as an outreach program of Be the Star You Are! charity. To make a tax-deductible donation to keep this positive youth programming broadcasting weekly to international audiences, visit http://www.bethestaryouare.org. Dare to care!

For all the latest news on what teens are talking about on Express Yourself! Teen Radio embed this code into your blogs and websites <Iframe src="http://www.voiceamerica.com/jwplayer/HostPlayer.html?showid=2014" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" width="420" height="380"></Iframe>

Listen to all broadcasts at ITUNES: https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/express-yourself!/id481894121?mt=2

Be the Star You Are!® charity. Every Season is for Giving. https://www.paypal.com/fundraiser/charity/1504

Links you can use for Be the Star You Are!®

Positive Results: https://www.bethestaryouare.org/positive-results

About Us: https://www.bethestaryouare.org/about_us

Programs: https://www.bethestaryouare.org/programs

How to Help: https://www.bethestaryouare.org/how-to-help

Blog: https://www.bethestaryouare.org/blog-1

Events: http://www.bethestaryouare.org/events

Contact us: https://www.bethestaryouare.org/contact

GREAT NON PROFITS REVIEWS: https://greatnonprofits.org/org/be-the-star-you-are-inc

GUIDESTAR: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/94-3333882

We invite you to volunteer, get involved, or make a donation. Make a DONATION through PAYPAL GIVING FUND and PAYPAL with 100% going to BTSYA with NO FEES:  https://www.paypal.com/fundraiser/charity/1504

Starstyle, Be the Star You Are, and Miracle Moments are registered trademarks of Cynthia Brian

[aemiron-main]

ahahah noo em don’t talk about the prevalence of “enlightened centrism” in the byler tag lately and the rise of it within online communities as a whole over the past few years and how enlightened centrism is awful and is defined as instead of thinking “both sides have good and bad,” enlightened centrism focuses on “both sides are bad and I am morally superior for thinking so OR taking sides is morally bad/I am morally superior for being neutral” and how the issue with enlightened centrism isn’t even the cowardice of neutrality when it comes to certain topics/when neutrality becomes too prevalent and stunts your ability to create firm arguments and cope with disagreement (which that is an issue but not the main issue), but rather, the way that enlightened centrism frames that neutrality as an inherent moral good/form of morally superior thinking.

and how THAT moral framework & the way that morality is part of enlightened centrism ties into the way that people take personal discomfort and shift it into being framed as/presented as Moral Wrongdoing/Outrage (ie how people will see something that makes them Personally Uncomfortable and try and justify turning it into a Moral Issue and try to make that thing/the existence of it out to be Morally Bad, especially when they also then try and position themselves as a Moral Good)

and how all of THAT ties into a fundamental lack of understanding of boundaries and what boundaries actually are and how that fundamental lack of understanding of what boundaries are, their purpose, and how they actually function is something that goes right back to the boomers generation & the generation raised by boomers & that generation after & how THAT is tied to the high rates of neglectful and abusive parenting amongst boomers & also genuinely tied to things like leaded gas and lead paint exposure.

and how all of that ties into why I was previously surprised that we had a huge terf in the byler tag but now am not surprised at all because even though I’m NOT saying that the majority of byers are terfs because that is inaccurate, I AM saying that centrism, especially enlightened centrism, by its very nature creates a breeding ground for fostering rightwing ideology like terfism and how it’s very much a fact that right wingers and bigots rely heavily on centrism as a shield to hide behind & how a centrist (again especially an enlightened centrist) is a rightwingers biggest unintentional (and sometimes intentional but that’s a whole other topic) ally and the whole concept of how staying neutral in times of oppression means you have automatically taken the side of the oppressor and how byler tag disagreements are far from oppression but the centrist rhetoric is the same at its core and is taking the byler tag and many other parts of the internet down a dangerous slope that unintentionally fosters terfism and rightwing bs because of how it frames all ideas as equally valid/equally supported even when not directly addressing terfism/rightwing ideology and even when the person posting that centrist stuff that fosters rightwing bs doesn’t consider themselves a terf/right winger and is in fact often the exact opposite of those but is still spouting a rhetoric that allows that shit to grow because of the fundamental flaws and moralizing involved in enlightened centrist rhetoric.

and how the “taking sides and being passionate and having a firm opinion is Bad and Hurtful and Morally or Intellectually (not always both but sometimes both) Inferior” centrist/enlightened centrist rhetoric is identical to the rhetoric that was used to demonize leftists and paint “SJWS” and marginalized people as being morally and often intellectually inferior due to them having a firm, passionate standpoint and how it promotes the removal of emotion from argument which in turn promotes the same sort of distance/emotional disconnect that allows someone to remove themselves from the concept of others’ suffering and therefore allows them to justify to themselves supporting hateful rhetoric/legislation that actively causes that suffering while STILL feeling like they are the morally superior individual. and how being marginalized yourself does not stop you from spreading rhetoric (specifically centrist/enlightened centrist rhetoric) that allows for that hateful viewpoint to fester and grow even if you yourself aren’t actively hateful/are marginalized and how it’s actually often marginalized people themselves who end up spreading that centrist/enlightened centrist rhetoric esp in online spaces and how it’s gotten worse as the state of the world has gotten worse lately & how especially with the pandemic, people feel out of control in their lives and so they seek to control others’ actions and behaviour under the guise of falsely moralizing their feelings of of personal discomfort and how that desire to control others ties into what I want to talk abt in a big post on this topic one day about what boundaries actually are and how they actually work and how boundaries do not function for you to control others but rather are about you controlling your own response, communicating what that response will be to others and allowing them to make their own choice because trying to control others by saying “you can’t do that” is basically impossible and is not effective boundary setting. (Ie me telling a client “you can’t email me on the weekends” is not setting a boundary. Me telling a client “if you email me on weekends, I will not respond” IS setting a boundary, and yes you can take other steps to prevent the person from emailing you such as blocking their address but that’s still controlling things on YOUR end rather than trying to control things on THEIR end)

ahaha nooo Em don’t let ur political science/history side and dedicated lifelong diy therapist/diy psychiatrist eldest child side jump out ahaha nooooo

(I will make my post about this one day bc I have a lot of thoughts. might even make it later today based on how much time I have today.)

But like seriously. I am Dead Serious when I say that even setting Byler Drama TM aside for a second, some of you need to think very long and hard about the type of enlightened centrist “all things are equal and thinking otherwise is Morally Bad” rhetoric you are pushing because while this is a small case of it, that rhetoric as a whole has absolutely crushing effects on the world in general and allows for bigotry and rightwing ideology to flourish- you may not be the rightwing bigot, but that rhetoric at its core is the same rhetoric that not only provides a shield for those rightwing bigots to hide behind but also actively creates a breeding ground of false moralization and neutrality and demonizing of strong beliefs that helps those bigots cultivate and grow and spread their bigotry. you (you as in people pushing enlightened centrist rhetoric) are not the farmer planting the seeds of bigotry. you are not the bigoted weed spreading its roots but you ARE the the soil in which it grows. And again, I know this sounds rather dramatic for the byler tag which is why I’ve already said that the byler tag is a small version of it/has smaller consequences but at its core is identical to that big rhetoric that has big consequences.

[unpopularly-opinionated]

I don’t play WoW but I used to play Overwatch and Diablo and this touches on just the general issues that are inside of Activision Blizzard right now regarding the major decline of World of Warcraft and how they’re losing to Final Fantasy XIV, how if the latest WoW expansion or Overwatch 2 flop as they’re projected to do then Blizzard’s most definitely going to pivot almost entirely to mobile games, and how the differences in age demographics are actually dividing the company into multiple camps.

It’s important to note two things: 1) this could be fake but also 2) the link came from Grummz, a former team lead on WoW and producer on Diablo II and Starcraft. It still could be fake despite this, but if he’s sharing it then I feel like there’s at least some measure of truth in this.

Transcription below in case this gets deleted and/or you don’t wanna click the link. Warning, it’s fairly long.

“I’m dropping this here after getting chewed out for three hours over shit the chewee did at work so fuck it. Assume larp and let me vent.”

>Shadowlands is a shitshow. Critical response, Player drop off and just about every engagement metric outside of cash shop have been catastrophic. No higher up expected this because of their “we are too big to fail, if we built it they will come” mentality. They refuse to accept their focus on the world being a begrudged mechanic to funnel players to raiding is not appealing to the player base at large because it appeals to them. They have spent the last 4 months trying to course correct but there is no solid direction and the response to 9.1 has only made things worse.

>Sylvanas is planned to replace the Arbiter despite so many people in the company and god knows how many online saying this would be a total replication of Kerrigans storyline in Starcraft 2 that killed none competitive interest in the brand entirely and you can only go “no, no they WILL like it eventually” for so many real world years before its time to change course. Thus far that has not happened.

>The elephant in the room is FFXIV. To the people in charge they are acting like this came out of nowhere and don’t even seem to understand why its drawing players away in their tens of thousands. We have all tried to highlight things it is doing that are clearly appealing to an mmo audience and not, in my opinion, focussing more on mobile game style retention traps to keep MAU users and habit forming personalities logging in. Its not that they don’t care. They just seem so pig headed and digging their heels in with their fingers in their ears thinking all the problems will go away because WoW is “too big to fail”, there will never be real competition and “they will keep coming back”. But they aren’t coming back anymore. Not in the numbers they used to.

>The people making the spending choices know this. The new model for WoW is market the hell out of a expansion pack for a huge quarter then use 6 month lock ins to pad numbers for the quarters after that. Even if corona had not happened 9.1 still would have been dropping after the initial 6 month subs expired to “keep the chain holding”.

>The mood in the company is tense but also very much “its just a rough transition period”. Activision has been pushing hard for Blizzard to release more regular product and to generate more income per user. As far as i know this is going to be a transition over the next 5 years to a much larger mobile/tablet gaming focus. By all accounts not just WoW but Overwatch was intended to be the moneymaker in the interim but once again someone had the bright idea to kill a game casual players loved on the alter of e-sports hoping for another Brood War. From what i hear the “told you so’s” were loud and a lot of people walked beyond Kaplan.

>The sentiment that was shared quietly in private but being spoken more often is simply that the leadership at Blizzard are not bad people, nor incompetent people but people who had to fill seats left when the old guard jumped ship wether they were suited for it or not. Brack is a genuinely good man out of his depth, Ion is a fantastic raid designer put in charge of designing a virtual world he has no interest or real ideas for and so on. They have been taking form the roles they excel at to be put in positions where they get to do far less of that purely because there is nobody left with the experience to do so and the trickle down is a lack of concrete direction, ambition and focus.

>2021 has seen the playerbase, media and gaming at large “turn” on WoW to a degree i don’t think the leads in their “positivity dojo” bubble considered possible. Its gone from people going “This is how Blizz needs to fix WoW!” to “WoW is no longer salvageable, time for greener pastures” and i think on some level this was never considered as a possibility so there have never been any major plans beyond the usual “try and minimise player drop off by arranging releases around competitors launching updates/products”. The official forums being filled with talk of FFXIV and worse “why do we actually pay a sub?” hasn’t helped.

>There have been some testing the waters lately from certain higher ups if we can remove the line “No King Rules Forever”. Read into that what you will.

>There are still arguments going on about the Kael’thas Voice actor shitshow. I don’t know much about it but i know its heated, wouldn’t be the first time a knee jerk reaction only seemed to generate bad press. We lost a noticeable amount of pvp engagement after the Swifty thing.

>The Preach interview was treated as a disaster and there was talk of more strongly vetting interviewers for “bad actors” and only engaging with a list of questions Blizzard provides. Some pointed out that could just be used to create some form of Fireside Chat akin to the FFXIV “Live letters” but that fell on deaf ears.

>The two sentiments right now among the team are either “we really need a win” or “theres a dedicated cabal of internet trolls out to kill WoW”. Right now we are crunching hard to get 9.2 ready to wrap up the jailors storyline so we can get an expansion out early 2022. If that doesn’t happen there are talks of major shakeups coming down from Activision that have been threatened for a few  years now. Its an all hands on deck feeling thats been around to some degree since the “Is this an out of season April Fools Joke” Blizzcon. A make or break deadline is coming closer and things like Diablo 4 were not planned before then. Blizzard needs a significant win not just in initial profit but consumer goodwill. Nobody likes working at what the public now seems to see as “the bad guy” of the mmo industry.

>This has also made new hires decline. Not significantly but the “you WANT Blizzard on your resume” line doesn’t seem to have the appeal it used to. This has lead to more hiring via friend of a friend, to some rumblings about nepotism, and people severely lacking in experience “because they get great twitter optics”.

>On the topic of Twitter we are not being told to “disengage” from it. Multiple employees like Nervig and Holisky publicly attacking paying customers because they got too heated and couldn’t keep quiet is bad press that could have been avoided. A email reminder has gone around more than once lately stating “if you are not customer relations you should not be representing the company to customers, especially if you cannot remain professional”.

>Lastly the biggest elephant in the room is “yo’ boy” Asmongold. The newer hires cannot stand him. They have used terms like “toxic masculinity” and “dogwhistles to dangerous males” while some of the oldest crowd still remaining have called him “based” or “telling it like it is” which has lead to friction to put it mildly. People are told not to talk about him and the recent FFXIV stuff only made it all worse. The idea that an outside element can have such an effect on the product genuinely upsets people. Like Zach is engaging in some malicious act of cyberwarfare. Many of us have point out the now famous quotes by Naoki Yoshida about understanding that players will drift and we need to make something worth coming back to because they want to but some people for lack of a better word see out customers -or “consumers” as they refer to them nowadays- as some kind of antagonistic relationship where the goal is not being an entertainer putting on a show for a crowd but some kind of game hunter trying to trap a large, profitable kill. I wish i could blame Activision but this is a sentiment from more of the younger crowd than the “tech boomers”. Which personal opinion is probably why so many folks like Metzen and Morheim left.

>Before you ask, yes the topic of “wokeness” has shown up in group talks. Its not all some grand sjw conspiracy, people really do want to feel welcome and represented. However the “we need everything veto’ed by people not working on it to see if its inoffensive and bland enough” rubs some of us the wrong way. Like anything in life you can take something too far and lose sight of the core ideals and with everything gone on since Blitzchung it feels like people are forming little factions to pull people in different directions to decide “What Blizzards identity is now” and how to appeal to new players. There has been some drop offs with “go woke go broke” as the only answer in the survey when unsubbing but honestly we are losing subs in unforseen numbers anyway and still making more money than ever through cash shop “heavy users” so it honestly doesn’t make an impact.

>All in all things are rough right now. Blizzard doesn’t have the love of the customers anymore, is no longer treated as an industry giant and while D4,D2R and Immortal aren’t going to kill Diablo even if they fail the sentiment for World of Warcraft and Overwatch 2 are a lot more tense and stressful. The phrase “it might be good to brush up on your mobile development portfolio if we get another underperformer” has been doing the rounds a lot. If Shadowlands continues its stark decline and Overwatch 2 is looking to underperform like its current projections suggest i think the Blizzard of a few years from now will be imitating King a lot more than trying to learn any lessons from Square Enix’s mmo division.

[shitsngiggles666]

I am not one to use social media, but this whole sh*t show is something I will not take sitting down. I’ve seen some messed up things on the internet, but the cyberbullying by the “Camily” is really disturbing me. Before I get to my criticisms and thoughts, I will briefly address Luke Deacon. The allegations against him are not without evidence, namely from a public social media account. One of these allegations is very serious, and can be considered “revenge p*rn which can actually lead to charges in the UK. I’m not sure if it’s the same in the UK, but in my country Luke can be legally labeled as a sex offender if convicted! This is all I know of the situation but since many of Luke’s fans are underage girls who are also fans of Queen and the Bohemian Rhapsody movie I don’t feel this issue can be totally ignored. I consider Luke “innocent until proven guilty”, as I am an inhabitant of Freedom Land. The first issue I will address is both of Cam’s parents, as I want to discuss them before the “Camily” as they’re not directly involved with the cyber bullying, at least to my knowledge. I admit that I have never met John or Veronica Deacon. I have no knowledge of the intimate details of their family life, and their parenting skills. I do have a fair amount of knowledge of John‘s time with Queen as he is my favorite surviving member of Queen. I find researching his life and trying to understand someone who seems an overlooked and complex figure in music. Yes, John is Cam’s father and to me he’s an interest, a subject I enjoy learning and trying to understand him like I do with other things I’m interested in. Meanwhile, to Cameron he is “dad”. I understand that it must be hard seeing people on the internet either make untrue statements or discuss aspects of one’s father that isn’t flattering. I get it, But Leopard (my nickname for the victim) made it clear when replying to asks that she doesn’t know things and addressed when discussions involved speculation or rumors. She also made it very clear that she didn’t like discussing John’s competence as a father and his children. These subjects made her uncomfortable but she still addressed them in a respectful way. John Deacon was a part of one of the biggest bands in the world. People are going to discuss him. Leopard didn’t do anything wrong. She admitted that John Deacon had flaws but was still sure to admit that she doesn’t know the whole story. I think her attitude is reasonable. I saw the stream the night Cam’s parents came on stream. At first I saw it quite humorous with a boomer bumbling in, ignoring his surroundings. He almost seemed senile. But as the stream went on things got uncomfortable and my attitude changed. Cam’s parents were doing the right thing as loving parents. They came over because Cam has a history of not managing his diabetes properly. His father (his mother explained) was becoming worried about his son’s glucose levels and tried to contact him. When he wouldn’t pick up his phone his father became worried and the two went over. Cameron was peeved and rude to them. I don’t think John cared about if people on the internet saw him. He was too focused on making sure his son wasn’t in danger and that his phone was charged. He only left when he knew his son’s levels weren’t too low and his phone was charging. He even mentioned off screen that he brought some treats (I have no idea what he said, and if it was a favorite sweet or what) from the store. I’m just making an observation of a stranger peeking in, but I think it’s clear John adores his son. Maybe the scant bit of interaction I observed of John Deacon as a person (instead of Queen’s bassist) was of a devoted father who was telling his adult son “I love you, I want you to be happy and I will be devastated if anything happened to you” without saying it verbally. People have different ways of showing their love. I know (per interviews with John) he experienced loss at a very young age when his father passed away. I don’t know John’s personal thoughts and relationship with Freddie Mercury and how his death affected him personally, but watching someone’s health decline due to AIDS is probably an upsetting and unforgettable experience. I bring these two examples up because this to me suggests Cam’s dad knows first hand how delicate and precious life is, wisdom that Cam seems blissfully unaware of due to his disregard of his parents’ anxiety. Cam obviously knows his father better than I can ever, but sometimes it’s good to have a different perspective. On to Mama Deacon. Yes, she was shouting at her adult son while he was live on stream. Like Cam’s father, she was completely in the right. When she said they were making sure Cam “wasn’t dead” and that Cam’s life was at stake, she was not being overly dramatic. If a diabetic’s blood sugar is too low their body can actually go into shock and than into a coma. If one doesn’t manage their diabetes this can happen and it can kill you. Diabetes is a life threatening condition. I’m not a diabetic, and I’m sure it sucks and isn’t easy to manage. Cameron is an adult at 27. His parents will not always be around to help him. If he wants to live by himself his priority should be learning to manage his diabetes without his parents’ help. His life literally depends on it. His glucose levels is far more important than his streaming career. Until he proves he can consistently manage himself to them his glucose levels are their business. Additionally, since they pay for his flat it’s technically their’s and thus can come over when ever they want. If anyone was being “inappropriate” it was Cam. His mother carried him for nine months, at age 43. For a woman her age, pregnancy can be risky and very hard on her body. She has cared for her son’s health issues, helped him through school and has loved him unconditionally. She seems to have done everything she can to protect Cam and pushed him to be the best person he can be. And this is only what I’m aware of. At her age, she should only leave her home when completely necessary to protect herself from Covid-19, for she is in the age group most at risk. Her son wouldn’t even leave his chair to greet her. Do you know how my parents would react to me if I acted the way Cam did Sunday? Most people can only dream about the privileges Cam has. Again, I don’t know everything about Cam’s life but what I saw was a mother and father trying to do what is best for their son. If Cam is so concerned about his parents’ privacy, why didn’t he turn off his stream? He could’ve even walked off to talk to his parents rather than continuing to play and yelling at them from his chair? This whole situation can be solved simply by Cam answering his phone, keeping it charged or even walking off camera to talk to his parents rather than barking orders from his screen. As I said earlier, to them their son seems more important to them rather than their privacy. Cam makes such a big deal over their privacy but I think he also has to respect his parents’ feelings and all that they do for him. Part of respecting them should include making a better effort to take care of himself. Five hours without food excepting a bowl of cereal could give me low blood sugar to the point of trembling and not being able to concentrate. Since Cam did just that, maybe his parents’ concern of his blood sugar is not without merit. Cam mentions his mental health issues and depression. One of the ways to help stabilize his mood would be stabilizing his blood sugar. The Camily should consider my words as they criticized Cam’s parents’ behavior. I have addressed the Mama and Papa elephant in the room, I will now focus mainly on Cam’s “Camily”. Due to time restraints, I will address the Camily in a later post. In the mean time, there is a difference between “haters” and critics. A hater says things simply to hurt or insult. A critic disagrees for a reason. If anyone thinks I’m a hater that needs to be “bunny blocked” go right ahead. I don’t care what strangers, many of them children think of me. I think bunnies are cute. Send me bunny emojis if you all think I’m spreading hate. This will only lend more evidence that the Camily is leading an internet harassment campaign. BTW I have been owned by pet rabbits since I was seven. Let me tell you, Mr. Bunny is unhappy to know his good name and image is being used as a symbol to bully. No, I am not jealous of Cam. I am proud of my family and wouldn’t trade them for any other. My dad has a profession I consider noble and was the one who raised me. The same goes for my mother. My extended and nuclear family includes firemen, a priest, nurses, teachers, librarians, a researcher studying cancer, a lawyer and engineers. None are famous but I don’t care. They are good people and it doesn’t matter how much the public knows about them or how much they earn. What matters to me is that they work hard and have a strong moral character. If you do wish to harass me, I ask of one thing. Show my post to Cameron Deacon and have him read my post (and any later ones I hope to soon put up) on his Livestream. If Cameron thinks I’m being a bully or am wrong about anything, please have him show this to his parents, the two people who love him more than anyone else does. If they think I’m wrong about anything or am bullying their son, have them PM me so we can discuss. Do not bully anyone who posts or likes this.

[unsafepin]

Optical Illusions: A Study of Aesthetics in Activism in Two Accounts

There’s been a particular thing bothering me about social media for a while. I should probably get a cool editing app, write it in a few bullet points and post it on Instagram. You know what I’m talking about, right? The goddamn infographics. If I have to sit through another slideshow explaining to me another military conflict, another societal issue, another existential unfairness on a baby pink background in a cheery font, I might combust. But the cognitive dissonance of aesthetics in activism has been a problem for a while, hasn’t it? So today, I want to examine the effect of focusing on aesthetics over content, or, on the flipside, not considering the optics of your activism enough, and what it does to the consumer of your content by picking apart two local activist-adjacent media projects, Tetraedras and Giljožinios.

Firstly, I want to make my own bias abundantly clear. I am personally acquainted with the teams of both projects, so obviously there will be innate personal bias involved. I highly encourage anyone reading to check both projects out themselves (@t3traedras and @giljozinios on Instagram, as well as Giljožinios’ YouTube channel) and make their own conclusions on the matter. I believe that while my familiarity breeds deeper knowledge of my subjects, it also makes me more vulnerable to assumptions about individuals involved. My insights come from the perspective of an observer, not an expert. Welcome to the circus.

The use of the word “optics” in a metaphorical political sense sprung up in the 1970s to describe the way major political decisions would not necessarily affect an average citizen, but how it would appear to them, e.g. 'U.S. President Barack Obama temporized for weeks, worrying about the optics of waging war in another Arab state after the Iraq fiasco' (Toronto Star, 19th March 2011). However, it’s become increasingly relevant in our age of social media, an age of perceptions over substance, of shortening attention spans and increased barrage of information one has to stomach daily. Social media is the great equalizer - a random person off the street can theoretically hold as much influence as a politician - thus it is becoming increasingly crucial for the average Joe posting on the countless apps owned by Facebook to be as familiar with PR terms as a firm with a six figure salary. Or at least that would be nice, seeing that more and more average Joes are becoming actively involved in politics and education, seeking to influence their newfound audience.

So, let’s see how successful average people with no media or politics degrees are at balancing their image. Both Tetraedras and Giljožinios lean into their 2010’s social media project optics: millennial pink themes, bold names, young teams. But that’s where the similarities end. Tetraedras’ brand is safety. The shades of color on the profile are calming, the illustrations are youthful and playful, their more serious posts are interspersed with more relaxing content (poetry, photoshoots, etc.). Giljožinios is confrontational. The colors electric, posts loud and to the point, they’re what it says on the box - a leftist project - and unapologetic about it. This might help to explain why audiences react as differently as they do to these two, on the surface, similar accounts. Because while you might’ve stumbled on Tetraedras organically while browsing, them having almost two thousand followers, Giljožinios crashed into the educational/political social media scene by being featured on the goddamn national news, that’s how controversial the project is. And obviously I am oversimplifying the issue, Tetraedras slowly built up to posting more opinionated content, while Giljožinios came in guns blazing accusing USA of imperialism, but you’ll have to let me explain. Tetraedras, in its essence, is a welcoming environment. They explain complicated problems in short bullet points with accompanying comforting visuals, their mascot is a inoffensive geometrical figure and their face is a beautiful girl, make-up matching the theme of the post. Giljožinios is named after a revolutionary device, their profile picture is a monarch being beheaded, their host quite infamously sat in front of Che Guevara memorabilia in their first and (as of writing) only video. It’s a lightning rod for angry comments by baby boomers, no matter what comes out of their mouth. In fact, I would argue that, if presented accordingly, the idea that the US is conducting a kind of modern imperialism is just a simple fact and personally can’t wait until Tetraedras posts that with a quirky illustration of Joe Biden to introduce the concept to the wider public.

This leads me to my next point, because despite what’s been previously suggested, I’m not here to solely sing Giljožinios’ praise. There is a cognitive dissonance in both of these flavors of social media activism, but while I can understand Tetraedras’ on a PR level, I’m kind of personally insulted by Giljožinios’. While purely personally I find aspects of Giljožinios’ radicalism distasteful, I appreciate the honesty in the youthful maximalism, of coming in strong and not backing down, but from the guys that made a communist Christmas tree once I almost expected something more stirring than “military industrial complex bad”. This leads me to ask: who is your content for? Your average breadtube-savvy twenty-something already heard this a thousand times, because they consume similar english-speaking content and I doubt any minds of the vatniks that came by to fume in the comment section are being changed. I’m obviously harking on a newborn project here, the team of which has already been bitten by authorities censoring their content, but so far there has been a lot of optical bark, but no substantial bite, especially considering the team seems to be in a safer place now. And the inverse is true for Tetraedras, while I can understand wanting to be visually interesting yet inoffensive, their visuals are sometimes laughably, morbidly light for the topics they discuss Sexily posing in Britney Spears-inspired outfits while discussing the horrors of her conservatorship springs to mind (funny how Britney’s conservatorship leads her to have next to none bodily autonomy, including her public costume choices). And, once again, your target audience is teenagers. They understand English, they’ve seen the news, they don’t need you to translate infographics filled with statistics and information that’s locally completely irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of middle ground between aesthetic cohesion and common sense, because this all signals to the viewer that the content is meant to be mindlessly consumed first and to educate second.

Which leads me to ponder what kind of consumption accounts like these encourage, which will surely lead me to an early grave as I drink away the existential dread of how social media rots all of our brains. Because yes, actually, producing funky visuals to convey an idea way too complicated for an Instagram post is fun. I myself got distracted multiple times during writing to make the first slide for my own post. Meta, I know. This is obviously more of a problem for Tetraedras, who seem to fervently resist injecting their content with a few more paragraphs and a tad more nuance, but even with Giljožinios choosing a more appropriate long-form format to educate, I still pray everyday they don’t get lost in the revolutionary reputation their group built up and forget to make a point, not just talking points.

Because what all this all inevitably leads to is misinforming the public. Again, this seems to be less of a problem for Giljožinios, as the amount of critical eyeballs they have on them leads to them being corrected on every incorrect numerical figure and grammatical mistake, I just hope all this harassment, once again, doesn’t get them all caught up in the optics of a revolution against all the Facebook boomers and forgetting to do their due diligence to the truth. As far as I know, the only factual mistake is miscalculating how much Lituania invests in NATO and there’s still a historical debate in their comment section about the existence of a CIA prison in Lithuania, if anyone’s concerned. Tetraedras, however, is safe. And safe content goes down just like a sugar-coated pill, you don’t even feel the need to fact-check it. And fact-checking is what it sorely requires, or else you’re left with implying that boxing causes men to become rapists and citing statistics of every country except the one in which, you know, me, the team and the absolute majority of their followers live in.

So what’s my goddamn point? Burn your phone and go live in the woods, always. But in the context of this essay, if you are a content creator that aims to educate, inform, incite, whatever, you need to put aesthetics on the backburner. And, more importantly, we as consumers need to stop tolerating content that puts being either pretty or inflammatory first instead of whatever message it’s trying to send, because the supply follows where the demand goes. Read books, watch long-form content made by experts, not teenagers on the internet chasing followers out of not even malicious intent, but almost a knee-jerk reaction. Because while the story of those two accounts cuts especially deep, expectations for local-, even friend-made content being much higher than that for some corporate accounts shooting their shot at activism, the problem is entrenched deep, thousands of accounts exhibiting the same problems racking up millions upon millions of followers. Having said that, my attention span is barely long enough to read the essays I write myself, so maybe do burn your phone and go live in the woods.

Also, pink is actually my brand so both of these accounts are being contacted by my lawyers and the rest of you don’t try any shit.

[thekillerssluts]

Will Butler: "I think of the record as a complex and satisfying stew"

"I'm at the crime scene," Will Butler conveys. "I don't know that I am – I didn't murder anyone," he elaborates, "but I am at a crime scene. I'm there, and the evidence is all around us. So what do I do?" This setting is the backdrop to Will Butler's new album, 'Generations'. It's a setting that seems to resonate through society as a whole. We're in the throes of a global pandemic. There's a worldwide cry of pain and of outrage in the wake of the murder of George Floyd that needs to be heard. Meanwhile, Trump is campaigning for a second term as US president. The evidence, as the musician describes, is all around us.

"The general shittiness and desperation of the last four years, three-and-a-half years, is the swamp from which a lot of these emotions took their shape," Will portrays of the record. "I was trying to show some dimensions of that." Drawing from his life, the New York neighbourhood he calls home, and their place in the world at large, these songs might not have been written in the current climate, but their dissatisfaction with the state of the world around them is an emotion that feels unshakably prevalent.

In the five years since the release of his debut album 'Policy', Will Butler has toured, released a live record, toured some more, released a record with Arcade Fire, toured again, and somehow found the time to earn a mid-career masters degree in public administration. It seems safe to say that a lot has changed since then. "The first [album] was kind of like trying to make a market fresh meal," he portrays. For this new record, he wanted to do things differently, diverting from the "fast and furious" pace of his debut to take the time to let the songs grow. "This was a bit more like, okay, what do we do if we're making a world class stew?" he poses, laughing.

Born out of a process he describes as "boiling the bones and the onions and the carrots and everything," with 'Generations' Will Butler explores the history – specifically his family history – that brought him to where he is today, and wrestles with a keenly-felt desperation for something better in the future. "There's a nostalgia, but for a different present," he portrays. "It's not 'I wish we were back here,' it's 'I wish now we had made another choice back then.' It's a nostalgia for an alternate future." It's an energy that prevails far beyond the context of this album. "Right now's like, 'I wish it was 2019, except 2019 was just utter shit, so I want it to be 2025, but only if in 2025 we've actually fixed a couple of things,'" he offers with a grim chuckle. "It's this whole mess of emotions."

This is the energy that flows through 'Generations', a record that balances between the realism of the moment and hopefulness for the future. "It's been a batshit crazy world the last four or five years," Will expresses. Speaking from his home in Brooklyn, New York, he might crack jokes about dreading a second Great Depression (if you can't laugh… etc.) but the musician is in high spirits. "There's something about hope, about being hopeful, about being oriented towards something – like being oriented towards a better future," he enthuses, "while keeping your eye out and seeing all the shit that's going to destroy you before you make it to your goal…"

"I think the head and the heart are in different places," he distils. "You've got to know those things, but you've got to point your soul in that direction." He pauses, thinking his words over. "You don't have to," he amends, "it's just hopeful to point your soul in that direction." That's exactly what 'Generations' strives to do, shining a light to illuminate the shitshow of a situation we find ourselves in while offering hope for whatever comes next. "It's a fine place to begin by acknowledging your power or lack of power and your position within the world," Will conveys, "and then move forward from there." As he sings on 'Bethlehem', "how does it feel to know the torch is in your hand?"

"Dark," he offers in response to his own question, referencing events like the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 as an explanation as to why. "It's embarrassing and shitty and terrifying, and you are probably doing something horrible." He pauses and clarifies, "the 'you' is me in this." The lyric – and song – in question is inspired by the (misquoted) poetry of William Butler Yeats. As he talks Will searches for one poem in particular – 'In Memory of Eva Gore-Booth and Con Markievicz' – and pauses to read the last stanza aloud: "The innocent and the beautiful have no enemy but time; Arise and bid me strike a match and strike another till time catch."

"There's something in that moment, this desire to burn it all down, and then this idea of striking the match and blowing it out," he expresses. "Are we going to burn this shit down? Are we going to blow out the torch?" he asks. "It's that moment now." There are no answers. No one knows what the future holds. Instead, with 'Generations' Will Butler explores where he's come from and where he hopes we'll go from here. "I keep saying, it's a weird moment we're living in right now," he conveys. "It's a powerful moment, but deeply bizarre."

When he isn't looking forwards on 'Generations' he's looking back, delving into the history that brought him to where he is today. "My great grandfather was the last son of a pioneer, a homesteader in Utah," he describes. "He made his children be in a band. They'd drive across the desert – before there were roads in the desert – and play music in churches. Those kids grew up to be musicians in a jazz vocal group. My mom grew up in that musical family, playing music and playing shows." Performing in Arcade Fire with his brother, Win, and now readying to release his second solo record, it seems that music is in Will Butler's blood.

This sense of tradition is most keenly felt on album closing track, 'Fine'. "In some ways, it's trying to be like a Kanye West folk song or something," he laughs, quickly explaining that it isn't hip-hop but rather "talking about important things in a crass way." "There's a genre of hip-hop where it's like 'I got rich selling drugs'," he describes. "I'm like, 'I got rich because my grandfather ran a small business'," he laughs. "I got rich because generations of American policy have been oriented towards providing white men with a high standard of living that would be better than the generation before them," he declares with a mock flourish. "How do you like me now?"

More than just reckoning with his family history, 'Generations' sees the musician trying to find his place in it in the now. "I'm kind of the oldest millennial," he states. "I'm born in 1982: I'm not 40, but I feel like an old man. People that are six years younger than me, I see them through a glass darkly," he laughs. "Something about being a millennial who remembers the Soviet Union," he chuckles. "It neither has the standing to be an 'OK, boomer' person, nor the standing to be like, 'I've got my shit together, I'm a youth'." Exploring the tension of bloodlines and identity – and where that goes from here – is the river that runs through 'Generations'.

"I think of [the record] as a complex and satisfying stew," Will describes, in another culinary-inspired metaphor that gets more difficult to follow the longer he continues, "based off of some old family recipe that you did every goddamn step to make it into this very nourishing, very layered, uh, goulash." He abandons that train of thought with a laugh. "My brain is so broken these days." As for where Will Butler will go from here, your guess is as good as his [we mentioned there are no answers, right? – ed].

"Even before the pandemic I was like, 'I'm putting out a record this fall, I'm going to play shows in America a month before the election, I'm going to go around the world, meet people and figure out what's going on and provide some release'," he enthuses, plans which are currently just not possible at the moment. He has hopes for being creative with ways of sharing the record ("I'm curious to see if I get better at it, living on the internet") and for making a new Arcade Fire record ("God willing, pandemic permitting"). The rest is open to possibility. "For people that care about music, music feels very important right now," he asserts. "Music is so nourishing and comforting by its nature that it feels good to be engaged in that, as weird as it is."

Taken from the October issue of Dork. Will Butler's album 'Generations' is out now.

[studiopeachz]

Task Brainstorm & Research

What am I passionate about?

Food

Cultures

Traveling

Music

tattoos/illustrations/designs

art/painting/drawing

Mental health

Self discovering/acceptance/explorations/expressions

What do you wish more people understood?

I wish people understood more about the different forms of self expression through different ways such as art, design, fashion, literature, etc. 

I wish people understood more about human rights, or general personal choices without judgement

What do you feel strongly about?

I feel strongly about self love and acceptance because the factors of accepting ourselves can be hard but can make us flourish, and gives us opportunities to express how we feel 

What makes you feel good?

Art in different forms makes me feel good has it drives my curiosity to learn and dig deeper for meaningful things

Beauty and self acceptance, embracing our imperfections

Wise words/sayings that inspire and impact me and others in a positive way

What makes me unhappy?

As an empathetic person, I feel unhappy for the one who also feels unhappy or any certain unstable emotions.

Making mistakes also make me upset as it is hard to admit our own wrong doings

Stereotypes, because it gives us an invalid label to individuals which do not define us as a whole

I don’t like when people judge you right away without knowing you

If you could fix something, what would it be?

I would want to fix the past mistakes i have done, wishing i could of done better

I would of want to fix the moments that I wish i could of done or fulfilled which leads to present regrets

What would you like to see in the future?

I would like to see everyone in the world to be kinder, and more understanding towards each other as it gives opportunities to get to know individuals truly, without having to judge them right away.

I would also like to see people normalizing natural and imperfect things and different creations of forms of self expression without any judgement, but curiosity instead. 

What would you like to shine a light on?

I would like to raise awareness about the beauty of differences and self expression, even in peculiar artistic ways

What do you see that others don’t see?

As an optimistic person, I like to see the good in everything, therefore I have this willingness to listen and to understand situations, stories, and journeys of others.

I find the most imperfect things to be beautiful. 

Things about Gen Z

https://www.livingfacts.org/en/articles/2020/meet-gen-z 

https://danschawbel.com/blog/39-of-the-most-interesting-facts-about-generation-z/ 

Demographics

Gen Zers are also the most diverse generation. Research by the Center determined that nearly half (48%) of 6- to 21-year-old Gen Zers are racial or ethnic minorities, compared with 39% of Millennials in that age bracket in 2002 and more than double the percentage of early Baby Boomers in 1968.

Attitudes

In many instances, the youngest generation’s views follow Millennials’ social attitudes, and are in stark contrast to the oldest group, the Silent Generation, with Baby Boomers and Gen Xers falling in the middle.

For example, 70% of Gen Zers say government should do more to solve societal problems, rather than leaving it to businesses and individuals. By comparison, 64% of Millennials and only 39% of Silents say government should do more. Similarly, roughly 6 in 10 Gen Zers and Millennials say increasing racial and ethnic diversity is good for society, compared with about 4 in 10 Silents.

Gen Z’s as consumers 

55% of Gen Z would rather buy clothes online and 53% would rather buy books and electronics online. [JWT]

Their favorite items to spend money on are food and drink (36%), going out with friends (32%) and clothes (18%). [Visa]

66% want to own both houses and cars in their lifetimes. [Deep Focus]

Gen Z’s most used tech devices are the smartphone (15.4 hours/week), TV (13.2 hours/week) and a laptop (10.6 hours/week). [Vision Critical]

50% would look on their phone to look for a better price while shopping at a retail store. [Gen HQ]

63% are concerned when it comes to protecting their identity when paying with a debit or credit card online or in a retail store. [Gen HQ]

Gen Z values

76% are concerned about man’s impact on the planet. [JWT]

79% of display symptoms of emotional distress when kept away from their personal electronic devices. [University of Maryland]

90% would be upset if they had to give up their Internet connection while only 51% would give up eating out and 56% would give up downloading music. [JWT]

84% multitask with an Internet-connected device while watching TV. [Forrester Research]

They have more than 10 apps on their smartphone with 10% having more than 40. [Visa]

60% of Gen Zs say “a lot of money” is a sign of success. [Deep Focus]

What are some general Gen Z issues/behaviours/values: 

Social anxiety (mental health)

Racial equality

Gender identity

Self esteem

Political and social issues

Technology/ social media content

Personal beliefs and values in comparison to older generations 

Speaking up/inner voice

Stress response

Optimistic attitude “it is what it is”

Three Campaign Ideas relatable to Gen Z demographic In Aotearoa:

(self expression)

gender identity / fashion & style / art & design / illustration / ink / skin art - tattoos

(self acceptance & confidence)

Body Image & Positivity / cultural roots / growth / well-being / 

(cultural diversity)

Culture / tradition / ethnicity / foundation / 

Research Gen z with self expression, self acceptance, and cultural diversity

WHAT DOES SELF-EXPRESSION REALLY MEAN TO GEN Z?https://www.havaspeople.com/project/what-does-self-expression-really-mean-to-gen-z/ 

We always knew that Gen Z would be distinctive. They are the first true digital natives, and grew up during times of uncertainty (the wake of the last financial crisis and Brexit in the UK). But over the last year the identity of this generation has been further shaped in a profound way as some of their most formative years are taking place against the backdrop of a global pandemic, with the significant interruptions that has wrought to school, university, and early working lives, as well as social connections. Gen Z were on the precipice of progress when COVID hit “pause” on life. And yet many Gen Zers are emerging as resilient, energized, and eager to express themselves and have their voices heard.

Rinsta (real) and Finsta (fake) social media accounts, often to keep certain aspects of their life hidden from family, potential employers, and others outside of their close social circles). Yet – on the whole – they trust the technology brands and platforms themselves.

69% of Gen Z believe that brands should make their stance on social and political issues known publicly. I believe this is what Gen Z mean by brand authenticity. 

showing us that authenticity does not just mean having a clear point of view, but also using your clout as a brand to share and amplify the causes that matter to you. 

showing your own alignment with the purpose and intent of a brand. Gen Z see the brands who they follow, ‘like’, and buy as a personal reflection of them as individuals, which is why they are prepared to pay more for brands that they believe support sustainability. If that’s how profoundly Gen Zers believe the impact of their consumer choices can affect the way they express themselves, it stands to reason that this will cut even deeper with regard to career choices, which is one of the reasons

This seems an important aspect of self-expression. Gen Z share a willingness to discuss issues in an open reflective way, and to seek out different opinions, which is one reason social channels are increasingly viewed as credible sources of news. To give another example, Gen Z are more comfortable talking about mental health issues than previous generations. While this can be attributed in part to the overall rise in awareness and acceptance of mental health issues over the last fifteen years, it is a noticeable shift from previous generations.

https://extremereach.com/blog/for-gen-z-consumption-is-about-self-expression/ “Consumption for this generation is an expression of individual identity.”

“Some people are angry and resentful because they feel like their voice isn’t heard, so clothing is a space where they can be self-governed.”

They’re experiencing brands in every corner of their online life and so these same “brands need to beware this generation’s discernment because they have a bloodhound-like nose for inauthenticity.”

We’ve been more empowered than ever, so why are Gen-Z the least confident generation yet? https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/gen-z-least-confident-generation 

Indeed, statistics show that, instead of a defining feeling of hope among Gen Z, there is a groaning sense of pessimism - of hopelessness. Long running research from University College London, revealed earlier this year that depression levels are two-thirds higher than millennials. The study found 14.8 per cent of 14-year-olds in 2015 said they were depressed, compared to 9 per cent in 2005. While 14.4 per cent of young people said they had self-harmed, compared to 11.8 per cent a decade ago.

“I feel like Gen Z and millennials occupy a really interesting place in politics,” says Nogia, 20 “- we’ve only known austerity, we’ve only know casual work, we’ve only know life long sentences of debt for getting an education and we’re living in an age of populism and hatred in politics.”

So, is this having a detrimental effect on a generation’s mental health and personal confidence? Pretty much.

Youth Engagement Officer at YoungMinds, “Young people today have to navigate a huge range of pressures, from school or university stress, to worries over their career and housing prospects, to the rise of social media, which can make problems like bullying or body image issues more intense than they were in the past.”

Social media is - predictably - a major cause of generational anxiety. Not only is it connecting us to the world’s most depressing news stories, it is also connecting us to a plethora of airbrushed, Facetuned accounts making us feel terrible about ourselves. No wonder confidence is low.

Gen Z demands more diversity and inclusion from brands https://www.campaignlive.com/article/gen-z-demands-diversity-inclusion-brands/1705491 

Gen Zers made clear throughout the study that they want brands to step up their efforts around representation. For example, 76% of Gen Zers said they feel diversity and inclusion is an important topic for brands to address, compared to 72% of millennials, 63% of Gen Xers and 46% of Baby Boomers who felt the same.

“Consumers don't want to see brands making an effort to be inclusive just for means of publicity,” said Jenna Stearns, researcher at quantilope and lead on the report. “They want to see something that's authentic and consistent.”

But brands that resonate most with Gen Z consumers are consistent in their support of social justice. Target, for example, has been vocal around LGBTQIA awareness and Pride month for years, said Steph Rand, senior research consultant at quantilope. 

“These brands are rising to the top because they are sustaining and consistently making [these issues] a priority, either in their communications or around the content they produce,” Rand said.

Responses regarding representation also varied by race, gender and sexual orientation. Individuals responded they feel their gender is more represented in mainstream media (70% male; 66% female) and brand advertising (71% male; 68% female) than their sexual orientation or ethnicity.

In 2021, consumers hope to see more individuals with disabilities represented in advertising and media, as well as more authentic PR backed up by action.

Integrated Awareness Campaign Examples:

Self Expression Campaign example: https://www.lsnglobal.com/youth/article/24865/a-kombucha-campaign-that-celebrates-self-expression 

Los Angeles – Health-Ade Kombucha’s latest campaign targets a new generation of health-conscious drinkers.

The campaign, You Brew You, introduces the brand’s new flavour and packaging concepts, as well celebrating the popularisation of kombucha. Diverging from traditional drinks advertising, it features a series of young models in bright clothing with colourful, neon-lit backdrops.

While kombucha brands tend to communicate in a way that focuses on health, wellness and fitness activities such as yoga, Health-Ade Kombucha is on a mission to change the image of the beverage and target a new generation of digitally-native consumers.

As the younger generation look to the future and consider how drinking impacts their health, they are turning towards soft drinks with additional health benefits. For more, explore the insight section of our macrotrend Anxiety Rebellion.

Self love/acceptance Campaign Example: https://fredandfar.com/blogs/ff-blog/banksy-made-me-do-it-transforming-everyday-ads-into-self-love-campaigns 

This stunt can have multiple meanings, as Banksy often uses his art to comment on such structures as capitalism, power imbalances, and corruption. 

Wrapped up in the Banksy frenzy ourselves, we started questioning art and its subjective worth. What makes art valuable? What qualifies as art? In what way can art be used or manipulated to impact our everyday lives? We live in a world saturated by advertisements, media and marketing targeting and manipulating us to be passive consumers. Thinking about what we are subjected to daily by multimillion dollar companies is eye opening, as is Banksy’s take on copyright laws and advertising.

Banksy urges, “any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.”

So let’s take back the power. We got the ball rolling by taking some campaigns and slogans you might recognize, and turning them into campaigns for self love and acceptance.

Join us by creating your own better slogan and use the hashtag #banksymademedoit. What we need is more self love in the world. Let’s saturate the world with our mission.

Cultural Diversity Campaign Example: https://www.refuelagency.com/blog/examples-of-brands-who-got-multicultural-marketing-right/ 

Rihanna’s brand, Fenty, is all but synonymous with authentic inclusive marketing, created on the foundation that everyone woman is beautiful and should feel included. In 2017, Fenty Beauty launched 40 shades of foundation, and that has since grown to 50. Chaédria LaBouvier wrote in Allure that Fenty Beauty’s sheer number of foundation colors is “a statement that women of color deserve complex options”. 

Rihanna shared that, “It’s important to me that every woman feel included in this brand.” Once this campaign launched, it had a ripple effect called “The Fenty Effect”, a movement calling for brands to challenge the status quo in advertising.

[commandtower-solring-go]

I've tried to stay off of tumblr the last few months, in part because it is a hot bed for low-stakes dramatic nonsense about high profile celebrities. And in part, I just hate the idea of arguing about people I don't personally know. What's more, this is such a complex issue that any meaningful conversation about it would just result in walls of text no one is reading shouting at each other. But I’m a slut for sharing my thoughts. 

For the uninitiated, Finn (or F1NN5TER) is an English Twitch streamer. Early in 2020, he started cross dressing as the e-girl Rose, as part of a promotional campaign he ran called 'girl week'. Rose would be used to bait other straight men into fawning over him, before Finn would reveal he’s a man. As a subscriber goal, Finn would continue girl week if a certain number of money was raised each week. This has continued ever since.

As the months went on, it became clear that Finn enjoyed large elements of it, and his streams served as a documentation of his gender journey, as he came to make peace with the complex relationship to gender he had developed. However, what underpinned all of it, was a general apathy to gender. Finn did it, but did not care.

This has drawn complex and varied opinions about whether Finn was trans, whether they were taking advantage of trans folks, or women as a whole.

The culmination of the last 4 years of streaming has seen Finn come out as genderfluid earlier this year. However, he still prefers he/him pronouns

To be clear, I don't watch Finn. Its very 15 year old boys fucking with his mates by tricking them into doing something vaguely homoerotic. I did that humour back in the day. I was a normal, social teenage boy in the mid 10’s internet. You can see the extension of this in the femboy phenomenon. Swarths of young men dressing up and tricking men on video chat rooms. 

What people have taken away from this is a group of men taking advantage of the tools and phenoms of women (both trans and cis) and using them as the punchline of a joke. But life is never that simple. These boys aren’t playing with your gender. They’re playing with their gender. And the ability for someone to play with their identity and come to terms with it in their own way, is huge. What these men represent is a generation of young amab folk given the freedom to make their gender the butt of the joke. To be able to cross dress and still come home after. 

What I believe happens is one generation spends their teens and 20’s fighting for validity from the older generations. And they spend their lives at the forefront of that conflict. They have to, there are no new 20 something year olds being born and people rarely just change their minds. But what they create in their wake is a growing wave of acceptance which begins with those younger than them. 

Young people are now born into a world where transness and gender nonconformity is a more widely accepted phenomenon. These days, everyone knows a trans person or two. I work with 4. And so they can’t understand what we fought for, because the fight follows us, not them. As a result, they don’t carry with them that same fear you or I do. There is curiosity. 

We did the exact same thing. Following Boomers and Gen X, who fought for of homosexual acceptance, my generation was heavily criticised for the way we novelised queerness. We made too many flags, too many identities. We played with the formula because, for us, we were safe to. We trivialised it, not for the sake of trivialising it, but for the sake of exploring how we fit into it. This is that same phenomenon. 

So all of this to say, when I talk about F1NN5TER, I’m not actually talking about him or anything he believes. He’s a wealthy Twitch Streamer from England. Of course he’s conservative. I don’t know the man, or anything about him. For all I know he isn’t on HRT, his name is actually Adam, and he’s South African. I don’t know. But I don’t care. The point is what he represents. A general social acceptance for gender nonconformity. 

Okay so i've come to recognise where i land on F1NNSTER or however you spell his name.

I understand the insistence that he is an uncrackes egg. And i understand folk's frustration with a cis man who dresses as a woman for fun. But sincerely, i think ragging on his shit will do more to shame people for their exploration of gender than anything else.

Femboys, mascgirls. All of it is a valid NGC expression of gender and sex and the arguement that it hurts trans people is no different than the arguement that trans women hurt cis women.

He uses he/him pronouns and has been explicit about that. and until he comes forward with a statement saying that he identifies otherwise, then i'll continue to keep refering to him as such because that's how he chooses to identify. Doing otherwise would be no different that misgendering any other GNC person.

[ts1989fanatic]

Taylor Swift is the millennial Bruce Springsteen.

If there were any doubts about this, they should have been dispelled by her latest release: the haunting Folklore, which filters the exact kinds of story-songs Springsteen excels at through Swift’s modern, orchestral-pop aesthetic. The album has been one of the best-received of her career, but then, the response to essentially everything she’s produced since her 2010 album Speak Now has involved critics grudgingly being dragged toward having respect for her skills.

The overlaps between millennial Swift (30 and born in 1989) and baby boomer Springsteen (70 and born in 1949) — both of whom are among the best songwriters alive right now — are considerable beyond their songwriting prowess. But comparisons, by necessity, must start there.

Both musicians love songs about a kind of white Americana that’s never really existed but that the central characters of which feel compelled to chase anyway. They use those songs to tell stories about those people and the places they live. They’re terrifically good at wordplay. Both are fascinated by the ways that adolescence and memories of adolescence continue to have incredible power for adults. Both are amazing at crafting bridges that take already good songs to another level. And both write songs featuring fictional people whose lives are sketched in via tiny, intimate details that stand in for their whole selves.

For example: The opening lines to Springsteen’s “Thunder Road” (“The screen door slams / Mary’s dress waves / Like a vision she dances across the porch / as the radio plays”) tell you everything about that woman and the man observing her.

Similarly, the opening lines of Swift’s “All Too Well” (“I walked through the door with you, the air was cold / but something ‘bout it felt like home somehow and I / left my scarf there at your sister’s house / and you still got it in your drawer even now”) tell you everything about this doomed relationship and the nostalgia both people involved in it still feel, compressed into a tiny little stanza.

Springsteen released “Thunder Road” when he was 25; Swift released “All Too Well” when she was 22. Both songs continue to stand as touchstones for who the artists were at that point in their lives.

But leave this comparison aside for a moment. What’s most interesting about drawing this connection are the ways in which the overlap between Springsteen and Swift’s styles can tell us about how our culture treats art made by men versus art made by women — and art made by baby boomers versus art made by millennials.

Springsteen and Swift each entered the music industry as young wunderkinds with lots to prove. Springsteen’s first album — the loose and rambling Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J. — was released when he was just 23. He had been playing in bands all around New Jersey for most of his teens, and signed a record deal with Columbia Records at 22.

He was expected to become an acoustic folk singer in the vein of Bob Dylan, at a time when the music industry was uniquely preoccupied with finding the ��next” Bob Dylan. Springsteen quickly flaunted those expectations, assembling a group of musicians who would go on to be known as the E Street Band, in the name of creating a sound that captured a massive, orchestral blast of rock. Springsteen would finally perfect this sound on his third album, 1975’s Born to Run, and he’s been a global superstar ever since, even decades after reaching his pinnacle with 1984’s Born in the USA.

Swift’s rise was slightly more meteoric. She released her debut album, Taylor Swift, when she was just 16, and it featured songs that she had written as a freshman in high school. Swift broke into the industry via country music, and her country-ish second album, 2008’s Fearless, won her the Grammy for Album of the Year.

Just as Springsteen shirked folk in the name of rock, Swift’s sound quickly shifted away from the girl-with-a-guitar country archetype and more toward pop. By her fourth album, 2012’s Red, she had largely left country music behind.

(A fun game: If you line up Swift and Springsteen’s album releases roughly by how old they were when they recorded them, you’ll find surprisingly similar career trajectories. For instance, Born to Run and Swift’s 2014 album 1989 were released when their respective artists were 25. Both broke the artists through to even wider acclaim than they had before.)

Yet the two artists’ backgrounds are quite different, which may explain the different ways in which they’ve understood American political divides. Springsteen grew up in a blue-collar family in New Jersey, while Swift is the daughter of a former Merrill Lynch stockbroker who could afford to move the entire family to Nashville, Tennessee, when his daughter showed a talent for songwriting.

Springsteen’s songs have always reflected growing up in a world where poverty is just a lost paycheck away, even as he’s become incredibly rich. Swift has no such perspective. Her songs take place largely in a wistful world where money is rarely an object. And the artists came of age in very different political climates, too.

But the political divide has narrowed in recent years. Swift has taken a recent turn toward more political topics — particularly social justice issues involving the mistreatment of women and LGBTQ rights. That turn stems from her struggles to differentiate herself as an artist in an industry that routinely turns young, beautiful women into disposable products, wringing out of them a few years of hit singles and then tossing them aside. Her embrace of the ways her growing sense of (extremely white) feminism helped her attain more artistic control over her image has slowly but surely led to a greater understanding of the yawning disparities inherent to the US. She is more tapped into the ways that power is unequally distributed throughout American society and increasingly speaks out to that effect. (She’s still pretty lousy at confronting class issues, though.)

But even with all of their similarities as songwriters and increasing similarities as explicitly political artists — and even with all of the awards they have won and records they have sold — there’s still a knee-jerk insistence that Swift is either too self-obsessed or too much a creation of the music industry, while Springsteen went from being rock’s heir apparent to an elder statesman with only a few bumps along the way. And the reasons for that disparity go well beyond any artistic differences or similarities they might possess.

The most obvious difference between the reception of Springsteen and Swift is also the most obvious difference between the two of them as people: He is a man, and she is a woman.

Swift didn’t exactly discourage listeners from constantly parsing her lyrics to figure out which of her famous exes she was singing about early in her career; she even hid hints in her liner notes to help fans decode her clues. But the degree to which she was written off, for years, as a fundamentally unserious and self-involved artist reflects the ways in which domestic and romantic concerns are written off as unimportant when women talk about them.

By comparison, Springsteen has so many songs about teenage boys crushing on teenage girls, but few people try to figure out who he’s talking about when he mentions the almost mythical “Mary” in songs throughout his career. Perhaps it’s because he wasn’t dating famous people as a teenager, and perhaps because it’s sadly still too common to think a man singing about an adolescent crush has more artistic merit than a woman doing the same thing.

Even in the wake of Folklore’s release, many corners of the music-discussing internet insist upon talking about the album more in terms of Swift’s male collaborators — namely Aaron Dessner of The National and Justin Vernon (a.k.a. Bon Iver), both indie-rock royalty — than in terms of her own talents, even when, say, Dessner does a whole interview with Pitchfork talking extensively about Swift’s preternatural songwriting talents. The idea that Taylor Swift has somehow been “created” by someone is one that seems to persist, regardless of how much control she has over her own image.

But the ways in which people doubt Swift’s talent, or her control over her image, reflect larger questions about how baby boomers remade pop culture in their image versus how millennials continue to do.

Baby boomers were born into the era of radio’s dominance over American airwaves, and television entered their lives during their childhoods. The presence of these mass media influenced how much pop culture boomers could be exposed to, pushing into hyperdrive the artistic loop of influence becoming creation. American popular art exploded and proliferated as a result.

Whether that explosion led to the rise of rock and pop music or the invention of the cinematic blockbuster, baby boomers took the popular forms their parents adored and accelerated them toward something more raucous and purely entertaining.

The dominant new medium of millennials’ lives was the internet, which arrived when we were still very young. And a major element of internet culture is remix culture. From the earliest days of the “information superhighway,” jokes that mashed up disparate elements of pop culture — now we’d call them memes — were incredibly common, because the central idea of the internet has always been many people iterating on an idea rather than one person releasing that idea into the world.

Inherent to this kind of remixing is the idea of transforming something, often something disreputable, into something else. Thus, many of the greatest millennial artists work in forms that have previously been written off as unworthy — like, say, pop music — because the gatekeepers in those areas weren’t as likely to be aging baby boomers whose taste was ossifying. (This progression is not all that dissimilar from what the boomers did to the popular culture they were born into.)

Millennial artists grew up amid the splintering of the monoculture and, therefore, feel less of an obligation toward it than older generations might. When all you’ve known are niches, it’s better to try to find a niche that appeals to you and explore it as much as possible, then hope enough people come along for the ride.

Swift’s eagerness to collaborate with other artists who really excite her isn’t a uniquely millennial trait: Artists have been doing this since artists have existed. That she is only too happy to spread that credit around (even as her increasingly well-known “voice memos” that show her coming up with the central ideas behind her songs center her authorship first and foremost) is a testament to how millennial artists feel comfortable with both celebrating their influences and revealing how their art gets built, brick by brick, often thanks to the work of other people.

This is not to say that all baby boomer or millennial artists operate exactly the same way as Springsteen or Swift. Both artists write music that is equal parts heartbreaking and fun, evocative, and ephemeral. They’re constantly searching for their version of an America that does not exist, while not forgetting to make sure that we all have some fun in the one that does.

The impulse they share to tell stories about average Americans searching for meaning amid a crumbling world is a natural one for artists in the US. Yet Springsteen has so often been celebrated for doing just that, his rugged vision of a fading nation and talent for making national crises deeply personal treated as authentic and brilliant.

By comparison, Swift is often derided for how she digs into the ways personal apocalypses visit themselves onto the rest of reality, making her something like Springsteen’s inverse. The struggles she faces are deeply rooted in biases against women, the genre of music she operates in, and her generation. It’s worth reexamining the notions that drive this disparity in the two artists’ reception, if nothing else.

Perhaps we take Springsteen more seriously than Swift because he’s a man, or because all the great rockers of his generation have been venerated by time and nostalgia, or because his influences were men like Chuck Berry and Woody Guthrie instead of Shania Twain, Patsy Cline, and a litany of contemporary collaborators. But one of art’s great pleasures is finding the ways in which artists of different generations talk about the same topics across the span of years.

Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift craft their impeccable story-songs utilizing the tropes of very different musical genres. But they’re equally good at crafting songs built to both sing loudly on the freeway and accompany a flood of tears in the wake of some new heartache. Different as they might be, Springsteen and Swift are always talking about the same thing — all of the ways that every new day, no matter how promising, carries within it the potential to bring about the end of the world all over again. Until then, though, let’s sing about it.

ts1989fanatic all of that just to Tell us something swifties have known for years, the music industry is sexist and misogynistic DUH!!!

[turquoisemagpie]

Here's a radical solution to the COPPA situation: Children should be banned from using the Internet. All they do is make it worse for the rest of us by encouraging these fucking committees to water it down and make it 'kid-friendly'.

It’s not the children that are the main issue, it’s parents. It’s cruel to ban children their right to be entertained, even if that is the internet. The issue comes when today’s parenting method of dealing with a publicly fussy child is to shove a phone or iPad into their face. At risk of being thrown an ‘ok, boomer’ meme, but honestly I don’t care, when I was a child I’d come home from school and interact with my parents. When I was little mobile phones had only just had a technological break through with email; there were no smart phones or iPads, so when my parents needed to keep me entertained, they put the TV on, or put a film on, while they made dinner. As soon as dinner was ready, the TV was turned off and we all sat around the table and ate and talked to one another. That of course was at home; in public if I started getting fussy, my parents would go out of their way to take my mind off being upset. They’d walk me to a shop window that was colourful that had lots of toys, they’d talk to me about it. And if I ever went too far and got unreasonably stroppy, my parents would pull me aside and tell me that I was being foolish and needed to stop. And that was enough for me. There are some things they could have dealt with better, looking back on it now, but over all my parents were good parents. They let me learn my mistakes by letting me make them, and my unsupervised entertainment was just filler between more supervised activities.  Nowadays, screen-time entertainment is the default for most parents. I’ve come across young families where the children are on a screen even at dinner time. The amount of young parents I’ve seen pushing a pram with a child drooling over a large bright iPad screen is scary. I’ve seen parents were ALL family members are glued to screens; the child is on an iPad while the parents are looking at their phones. I understand there are exceptions were screens are a good idea; for autistic children or children who have special needs having an iPad to distract and entertain them in an otherwise overwhelming environment is very good... so why is a child without those exceptions given the same thing? Why isn’t this child looking around the world as they go? Why isn’t the parent talking to their child? Is your phone and non-family social activity really more important that your child? This child needs to develop social skills, they need to talk and interact with their parents. Watching a video won’t do that.  This is obviously the base level of children, meaning toddlers. But this will effect older children too. If they grow up without being told what is suitable and unsuitable they will have no social filters, they will think they can anything at anytime to anyone, which will get them into so much trouble. But is it their fault they didn’t know any better, or the parents fault for not stepping in when they could see danger signs? There’s confusion for many parents as to how to raise a child to be a good person later on in life. You can’t be too protective and assertive over the child, but you also can’t let them do whatever and get themselves in danger. There is a middle ground to it. Know what is a good thing for your child to enjoy freely, but know when to step in when the situation seems to get a bit dark: and more importantly, when it does get darker, EXPLAIN WHY! Tell them why it’s bad or risky! TEACH YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT LIFE! They aren’t born with this! They have to learn it! The whole point of all of this is basically: YOUR children are YOUR responsibility, not a corporation’s or a government’s.