#yet he’s excelling when it comes to his ethical stance on most things

[yvtro]

adjacent to this post of mine and these greats tags by @bess3714 (i hope you don’t mind me putting them here!):

and these tags by @dankovskaya:

i’ve been thinking about this post by @roobylavender:

and in general about how much bruce’s kids (maybe besides tim, whose 90s robin series was a whole hannah montana esque thing with being a high schooler and robin) can’t see the divide and importance of having a functional civilian persona. this is of course, mostly a result of them becoming vigilantes as kids, and the fact that bruce failed to realise that his own system and dedication to “normal” life is not really something that was obvious to his kids.

however, i also think it’s extremely interesting to look at how differently it shaped dick and jason. as @roobylavender says, dick has a kind of survivor guilt, but vigilantism is what helps him to push forward and live. and then you have jason, who, against his best wishes and delusional claims about “reclaiming” his trauma, is stuck reliving it, and even adds to a cycle of violence.

either way, it makes sense that both dick’s and jason’s biggest grievance with bruce lies in him maintaining a “real life,” no matter if they themselves understand it or not. for them, this division is completely arbitrary.

[dontcallmecarrie]

No Hero [And Not Made Of Stone]

...I’ve got nothing. Not even sure where the idea came from, but as per usual, the moment my brain had an idea it immediately took it by both hands and ran with it so here you go. Name for this AU might change, but for now here have another song lyric [from Five Finger Death Punch’s “Wrong Side of Heaven”]

Fandom: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Warnings: mild profanity, dysfunctional families, a metric buttload of gender and identity issues, because the protagonist is a possibly agender character [their stance on gender can be summed up as “huh, those parts are new. Weird. Moving on”]. Not exactly Tony-friendly at times, but not for the reasons you’d think. 

To sum up: haven’t done a SI-OC fic before, let’s see how it goes. Under the cut, because RIP mobile users otherwise.

.

Justin Hammer’s name wasn’t always Justin Hammer.

He doesn’t really remember what it was anymore, but he knows that much.

.

Honestly? This ‘memories of another world’ thing was more a pain in the ass than anything else, at least at first.

It might’ve been cool if they remembered something useful— concrete dates, specific innovations, hell, even any tips of what stocks to invest in— but no, they had to get short end of the stick with weird dreams, identity crises, and a longing for a family they’d never had.

Oh, and another round of puberty, because of why the hell not. Like last time hadn’t been enough of a pain in the ass.

Ugh. They wanted a refund.

.

...okay, so it probably could’ve been worse. 

Justin has vague recollections of going to sleep hungry, of huddling with their younger sibling under blankets because their parents couldn’t pay the electrical bill— so really, in the great scheme of things, being born as part of the 1% this round was. Something.

Trippy as hell, is what it was, honestly.

This family was loaded, and under other circumstances, they might’ve even been able to enjoy it— if, y’know, they hadn’t had the incredibly shitty luck of being born two years before Tony Stark.

.

“Look at what he’s doing, that could be you” this, “study hard, he’s going to be your rival” that— geez, if any other kid had been in Justin’s shoes, he would not have envied them. 

If he didn’t already have a firmly established sense of self, it would have been a mindfuck of a childhood because for some reason, his father kept comparing them? And yeah, Justin could kinda see some of the parallels— they were about the same age, both firstborn sons and heirs to their parents’ respective companies— but that’s about where the similarities ended.

Look, Justin wasn’t a genius, okay? He was fairly bright for his age, but...he wasn’t a one-in-a-million prodigy. And, up until he was 6, that had been acceptable.

But then the press went wild because oh, look, Howard’s son built a circuit board at age four, and it all went downhill from there because suddenly, being normal wasn’t good enough. Not for his parents, anyway.

.

Sometimes, he wondered what would’ve happened if it had been another kid in his shoes— how they would’ve handled the small army of private tutors and the extra classes they kept being signed up for in the hopes of finding something they excelled in.

The pressure of constantly being compared to a once-in-a-generation prodigy, and always being found wanting.

Justin wasn’t afraid of hard work— but it was grating, even for him. 

Really, just about the only silver lining to this ‘second life’ thing was his adorable little sister, Stephanie.

She, at least, looked up to him: her gap-toothed smile didn’t hold any expectations for anything other than the piggyback rides he regularly offered, and this time he didn’t even have to worry about medical bills, or—

Anyway.

.

His family and the Starks run in the same social circles, because of course they do. 

Now that he’s getting older, Justin’s being dragged along to all of the fancy shindigs with his parents, and it’s only due to two lifetimes’ worth of self-control that keeps his polite smile from wavering when he’s introduced to the bane of his existence.

“Hi, my name’s Tony Stark.” The little brat said, and Justin bit back a sigh as he shook his hand.

.

...so, the Stark heir his father wanted to be his rival was a kid. Actually a kid, which just made this mess that much more pathetic because part of Justin had almost been starting to want to buy into this rivalry thing, but.

In this life, and the last one, they’d been an older sibling.

This time, despite everything, he could tell he was softer— he had never gone to bed hungry, never had to worry about the roof over his head, or being solely responsible for his younger sibling’s health and safety— but.

Old habits die hard. 

.

Of course Justin’s father hears “the Starks are sending their seven-year-old heir to boarding school” and thinks “good idea, why didn’t I think of that?” 

Of course.

Of fucking course.

Steph had cried when they’d packed their things, and for that alone, Justin would never forgive their parents.

.

The other brats at boarding school are more invested in the Hammer-Stark rivalry than they are.

...this was going to be a long 9 years, wasn’t it.

.

One of the perks to going to one of the most elite boarding schools in the world was the options. Certainly, Justin doubted other places offered skiing and fencing and over eleven languages in their electives. 

Not that he was complaining: it was definitely a way to keep busy, certainly much better than the constant attempts at one-upmanship that came part and parcel with cramming the richest heirs, heiresses, and honest-to-goodness royalty in one place. 

At the end of the day, though, they were all kids. Bratty, entitled little shits who were still at the stage where they constantly went “my father will hear about this!” and Justin had way better things to do with his time than engage in those petty little playground attempts at power plays. 

So he dove into everything the school had to offer, bouncing from elective to elective like a ping pong ball, and trying not to think too hard as to why Spanish had come so easily to him, though he’d never studied it before— or why he’d felt a pang when the instructor had congratulated him on his accent. 

.

Somewhere down the line, Justin...kinda made a name for himself? Apparently?

Ugh, they’d never understand these people. 

.

Okay, so apparently he’d kinda become an older brother figure of sorts to the brats around here? Somehow? Even though he hadn’t exactly been planning on doing anything of the sort when he saw an underclassman struggling during practice, or stopped fights before they could start in the common room because he’d just sat down and didn’t have the patience to move all his stuff somewhere else to study.

Didn’t make sense to him, but apparently it was enough for some of the professors to write ‘good leadership skills’ on his transcripts, so whatever.

As a bonus, it made his old man happy. Not that Justin gave a damn about what he thought about him personally, but the increase in his ‘allowance’ [it was in the triple digits, like hell he was calling it that] was nice.

.

Among the hobbies Justin bounced between, there were a few that raised more eyebrows than others.

Knitting, for instance, was something some of the more annoying brats liked to laugh about. They eased up when they found out he sent the scarves and hats he made to his little sister, but... eh, whatever. 

Sewing, too— apparently it was okay if it was framed as a Boy Scout-esque ‘know the basics so you can always be prepared!’ way, but the moment he did any sort of embroidery there went his respectability. 

Well, at least nobody gave him a hard time about cooking. But then, his chilaquiles had some of these guys’ eyes watering just from the smell of it, so. 

It still didn’t sit well with him sometimes— kinda like how puberty had Not Been Fun on a number on levels, but hey, if all else failed, he could just ignore it harder. 

It hadn’t failed him yet.

.

Stephanie insisted on going to boarding school with him when she got to the age he’d been shipped off at.

It was...nice, having his little sister around again. 

.

It was a good thing Justin had been okay with being designated the heir of Hammer Industries, because Steph was... exactly like he remembered her.

Cheerful, upbeat, startlingly devious and manipulative when she wanted to be, and just a tad bit spoiled.

...okay, so Justin had probably contributed a bit to that last one. In his defense, he’d been doing his best to shield his sister from the staggeringly high expectations he himself had to deal with, but look, he wanted at least one of them to have some semblance of a happy childhood, okay? 

Goodness knew he hadn’t [not this time, nor the last].

.

Stephanie wasn’t interested in the family business, was more interested in pursuing a career in the arts.

Justin, of course, encouraged her wholeheartedly.

Their parents weren’t entirely happy about it, but...wasn’t like they had much to complain about. Not when Justin was always in the top ten of his year, not when the professors practically gushed over his responsibility and work ethic. 

He was no Tony Stark, but he’d made a name for himself nonetheless.

.

“So, we’re supposed to be rivals?” The bane of his existence said once, at yet another gala. “Howard says so, anyway.”

“Seems that way,” Justin shrugged as they pilfered a flute from a nearby table, carefully not commenting on how he’d referred to his father by his first name. Talk about a strained relationship, right there.

“You’re not really acting like one.”

“Well,” Justin sipped at his flute before making a face when he discovered it was champagne and not apple cider like he’d hoped, “it’s nothing personal, just business. Healthy competition, y’know? Someone’s got to.”

Stark eyed him for a moment, before giving him a brilliant smile. “You know, I think I’d like that.” 

.

Justin would never, ever understand these people.

.

In the time Justin Hammer got his degree in business, Tony Stark got several Ph.Ds. 

Not that he envied him: the idea of being shoved into the limelight after losing his entire family? Hard pass.

.

For some reason, Tony Stark seemed to think they were friends.

Why.

Sure, Justin tried to be as cordial with him as he did with anyone else, but... how on Earth did that translate into being friends?

.

“You look at him like he’s a kid,” Steph says once, laughing, “you look at all of us that way, haven’t you noticed?”

“Well, to be fair—”

“You’re only a few years older than us, but you keep acting like you’re dad. More like a dad than our actual dad, sometimes,” her smile dropped for a moment, “don’t think I forgot that time he didn’t even call for your birthday.”

Justin made a face. “But what’s that got to do with anything?”

She sighed, then gave him a smile and a look he couldn’t decipher. “You’ll figure it out eventually.”

.

By the time Justin Hammer became the CEO of Hammer Industries, Tony Stark had held the same post in his company for over half a decade. 

Yet...well, something weird was going on.

Maybe it was because Justin’d had more time to prepare for the cutthroat world that was the defense industry, but— 

For some reason, he couldn’t help but think Tony was softer than he’d thought.

No-brainer contracts that would have been a cinch to broker, passed over simply because their distributors didn’t pass their incredibly high standards; buyers who wanted in, but whose past associations— very, very far in the past— meant SI didn’t even consider them. 

Justin couldn’t understand it. 

For someone in the industry, Stark’s morals were...unusual. Respectable, from one perspective, but remarkably naive from any self-respecting businessman who wanted to turn a profit. 

He was fairly certain the only reason Stark Industries was considered number one in the sector was because of the constant influx of new designs; they just were turning down too many contracts for him to consider otherwise. 

Sure, sometimes Hammer weapons found themselves in the wrong hands— much more often than Stark weapons, regrettably— but it was one of the hazards that came with the business. They’d both known it from the get-go; Stark weapons were considered the best for a reason, even though somewhere down the line, his company’d gotten a reputation for no-frills dependability and ruggedness to the point where unscrupulous individuals would do anything to get their hands on either. Wasn’t like there was anything they could do about it, not when money talked in ways laws didn’t.

Why Stark was so hung up over it, he just. Couldn’t wrap his head around.

.

Stark was proclaimed dead, and there was strong evidence to indicate the attackers had been using his guns.

...well, fuck.

.

“This is fine,” Justin muttered as his personal headache proceeded to come back from the dead only to say his company was going to stop doing the thing it was known for and making an ungodly mess in the stock market while at it, “it’s not like it affects me, anyway.”

.

Overnight, Hammer Industries became number one in the defense sector. 

Justin was not a happy camper about the spotlight.

Even more so, when he had to take additional measures so his sister could continue enjoy the privacy she’d had after pursuing her dreams as an artist because the press didn’t want to leave well enough alone.

.

“You know, you could’ve given me a warning.” Justin scowled when he saw Tony at the next gala.

“You handled it well enough, didn’t you?”

Ugh. 

His headache was back, and worst part was, the smile he got more than made up for it.

.

...and then I kinda ran out of steam.

tl;dr: MCU canon had Justin Hammer as a foil to Tony Stark, here their dynamic is more along the lines of Beethoven and Mozart [one really respecting the other’s genius, and working their butt off to get to that level of respectability and general acclaim].

in this AU, Stark Industries is kind of like Apple— very futuristic high-tech stuff, all the bells and whistles going on, etc, whereas Hammer Industries is the Nokia in this analogy: not fancy in the slightest but as close to indestructible as it gets. 

[13eyond13]

I'll try to keep it short because you're very kind but I'm becoming annoying... I actually like Soichiro. It's his morals I cannot stand. In fact, in line with his, I like Matsuda's and even Light's variations more, even with all the darkness they entail, because they're more critical. I adore L and find him relatable, but I'm not so sure if I'd like him as a person in real life, and yet I again like his morals more than Soichiro's. I still think Soichiro is generally a better person than any of the others. I still dislike his morals the most. When I say at the opposite end of Soichiro in the moral spectrum is where Near stands I'm not talking just about my personal liking, but as I interpret their views on morality. Maybe there's some detail of the manga I'm forgetting (I truly have to reread it), but Soichiro didn't seem very critical about... anything, while Near states something like "even if god came and told me this is good and this is bad and this is The Truth I'd still consider and come to my own conclusion". I like that. I care less about someone getting a moral with what I may consider a degree of grey if they do that. I myself have very strong morals that nonetheless have degrees of grey; strong doesn't mean pure. My grey and someone else's grey might be very different. But I've developed them, not accepted them blindly. Near of course, Mello, L, and even Light and Matsuda do this, but Soichiro generally doesn't. And I dislike that greatly. In fact, I think I'd find him kind in real life, and likeable, but I'd not really like him because I can't really bring myself to like someone like that even when they're kind and compassionate and good. I'm already talking more than I intended but I'll try to point out what bothers me of his attitude.

Soichiro is very very anti Kira, but he's working for a government with the death penalty and he doesn't seem to consider that even for a moment. For him, that the government does it is justifiable but monstrous if a person does it. He doesn't really have a justification, it's just like that because it's as it is. He's very against L's methods, buy L uses people who were going to die anyway at the very moment he uses them either way because of the death penalty, because of the government. From a government pov, if the government were to do what L does, it'd be something terrible. From an individual pov? Not so much. It's ugly, but it's beyond himself whether that people die or not, and his decisions are easily justifiable from an individual pov: they're going to die irrevocably, that very day at that very time, and he is using what he can to solve a very complicated case that is taking many lives, and he even might use the moral support of "I'm giving the prisoners the chance of choosing, with the potential reward of lifelong imprisonment instead of death". And again, while a government doing that is terrible, it's not as terrible for a person. L is a private detective, an individual. People can be fallible. Governments shouldn't. What L does might be justifiable, if ugly, for a person, but it would be unforgivable for the government to do. But the government lies on L and it's L who takes the slander of the rest of the Task Force. And that's what Soichiro doesn't see, and that's what bugs me. Soichiro sides with the government and the laws no matter what, no matter if they're terrible and are actually the cause if indirectly of the terrible things L is able to do (I'd have to reread to be completely comfortable affirming this, but Soichiro's attitude towards the government reminds me a bit of Mikami and Misa to some extent).

Soichiro hates Kira, and hates and criticises L's methods and his ruthlessness, but doesn't even consider for one moment the problem is not L. The problem is not the 24 yo boy/man, the problem is his government, that has the dead penalty and actually let's a private detective carry on with the investigation and do as he pleases (and I'm not even taking into consideration how L's upbringing and the lowkey if fun exploitation he was subrmited to have most probably influenced if not determined the way he acts in these cases, because while it's intriguing it'd feel like justifying L out of pity, and either way Soichiro doesn't know that; but I mention this because L's entire past at Wammy's, like the other children's, is another very terrible move from governments and adults in responsibility positions). The problem is Interpol, the governments in general, blatantly saying L is ruthless but not even setting rules when working with him. And I think it would actually have been very easy to stop L doing those things. Just change the rules of the game, tell him beforehand there are a few things he can't do. It's a game after all. Of course L would still exploit the moral and legal vacuums of the rules as he pleased, as one does when playing anything, but the government wouldn't have given him totally free way.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well. Years ago in a class I talked about the difference between personal vengeance and the death penalty. I feel this is similar. A person is fallible. A government should be able to stand over licit murder. L manipulating people to prove a point is ugly. A government doing that or letting someone free way to do whatever is terrible. L does whatever, and as an individual is not so horrible as it is that the governments internationally actually let him do whatever even knowing beforehand without setting rules. Soichiro sees this and it doesn't even cross his mind for a moment to criticise the government he's working with. Also, he considers his morals the best, which makes sense in a first person pov (why support x morals if you don't think they're the best? I'm not critisising this), but he's very... imposing about them, while as I say not being precisely the most critical thinker. That Soichiro is like this, morally (I'm not even talking about the policeman aspect though that's so often talked about in the fandom), makes a lot of sense to how Light ends up being Kira, and with how Matsuda thinks and acts. And I find that very intriguing, but I can't stand Soichiro's simplistic morals and his better-than-you attitude even though he's a generally good person. That's why I dislike his morals the most (of course you don't have to agree!). I don't stand by Near's morals either, but I like his "god could come and tell me and still I'd doubt" attitude. It's what makes gods mad in basically every mythology, but I love that kind of thought process. I'm very much like that too.

I'm so sorry this is so long. I tried to cut, but I got the impression it'd make it even less clear or more difficult to understand. Or maybe the lack of clarity lies precisely on how repetitive and long this is. I'd like to think English not being my first language has to do with this, but honestly the problem is most probably just me. I hope I made the point understandable enough, though. And thanks for your patience. I really liked that post of Near someone sent as an opinion and how you replied! Very interesting takes on both ends.

Hi again! You have some very thought-provoking points about it all, and don't worry, your English is excellent.

I loved Near's stance about these things as well, and that's something that really bothered me when growing up about some authority figures and institutions being really totalitarian and silencing of doubts or stances they deemed too negative or incorrect to voice aloud. I value having freedom of choice and the ability to think critically about everything immensely. Maybe it's because I went to a very strict and sheltering and weird little school as a child that tried very hard to indoctrinate me with a specific worldview, and always shamed and silenced anyone who disagreed or questioned them or felt like an outsider or wanted to have a different point of view. I remember relating the most to Matsuda on the task force when I first watched the show as a teen, because he was always speaking up with his devil's advocate questions or confusions. The way Soichiro and the others usually yell and scold and shame him for this bothered me a lot, because I wanted them to discuss things openly so I could see all the different sides of the arguments more clearly. Actually, I think this is a pretty culturally similar thing between Japan and Canada (where I am from). There's a strong emphasis on doing what's best for the entire group instead of just yourself, and being too controversial or outspoken or individualistic about certain things is often taboo and frowned upon as a big social faux pas. It's possibly quite a bit stronger pressure toward obedience and conformity and politeness in Japan in certain ways as well, but I don't know for sure as I haven't lived there myself.

I think Soichiro had a bit of nuance and flexibility with his morals and his stances in various instances throughout the plot, and to me he seemingly tries hard to see things from other angles during complicated moments in what must be one of the most difficult situations he could possibly face as both a police chief and a parent. But it's true he never seemed to doubt that upholding the laws already in place and the way his government punishes the convicted were the "correct" ways society should function. I think this series would be a really interesting one to discuss in a class that talks about stuff like justice and the death penalty and law and ethics and such for how many of these things it touches on in an entertaining and thought-provoking way!

[elisaenglish]

Art and the Human Spirit: Olivia Laing on What the Lives of Great Artists Reveal About Vulnerability, Love, Loneliness, Resistance, and Our Search for Meaning

“We’re so often told that art can’t really change anything. But… it shapes our ethical landscapes; it opens us to the interior lives of others. It is a training ground for possibility. It makes plain inequalities, and it offers other ways of living.”

The composite creation of a doctor, a philosopher, a poet, and a sculptor, the word empathy in the modern sense only came into use at the dawn of the twentieth century as a term for the imaginative act of projecting yourself into a work of art, into a world of feeling and experience other than your own. It vesselled in language that peculiar, ineffable way art has of bringing you closer to yourself by taking you out of yourself — its singular power to furnish, Iris Murdoch’s exquisite phrasing, “an occasion for unselfing.” And yet this notion cinches the central paradox of art: Every artist makes what they make with the whole of who they are — with the totality of experiences, beliefs, impressions, obsessions, childhood confusions, heartbreaks, inner conflicts, and contradictions that constellate a self. To be an artist is to put this combinatorial self in the service of furnishing occasions for unselfing in others.

That may be why the lives of artists have such singular allure as case studies and models of turning the confusion, complexity, and uncertainty of life into something beautiful and lasting — something that harmonises the disquietude and dissonance of living.

In Funny Weather: Art in an Emergency (public library), Olivia Laing — one of the handful of living writers whose mind and prose I enjoy commensurately with the Whitmans and the Woolfs of yore — occasions a rare gift of unselfing through the lives and worlds of painters, poets, filmmakers, novelists, and musicians who have imprinted culture in a profound way while living largely outside the standards and stabilities of society, embodying of James Baldwin’s piecing insight that “a society must assume that it is stable, but the artist must know, and he must let us know, that there is nothing stable under heaven.”

Punctuating these biographical sketches laced with larger questions about art and the human spirit are Laing’s personal essays reflecting, through the lens of her own lived experience, on existential questions of freedom, desire, loneliness, queerness, democracy, rebellion, abandonment, and the myriad vulnerable tendrils of aliveness that make life worth living.

What emerges is a case for art as a truly human endeavour, made by human beings with bodies and identities and beliefs often at odds with the collective imperative; art as “a zone of both enchantment and resistance,” art as sentinel and witness of “how truth is made, diagramming the stages of its construction, or as it may be dissolution,” art as “a direct response to the paucity and hostility of the culture at large,” art as a buoy for loneliness and a fulcrum for empathy.

Laing writes:

“Empathy is not something that happens to us when we read Dickens. It’s work. What art does is provide material with which to think: new registers, new spaces. After that, friend, it’s up to you.

I don’t think art has a duty to be beautiful or uplifting, and some of the work I’m most drawn to refuses to traffic in either of those qualities. What I care about more… are the ways in which it’s concerned with resistance and repair.”

A writer — a good writer — cannot write about art without writing about those who make it, about the lives of artists as the crucible of their creative contribution, about the delicate, triumphant art of living as a body in the world and a soul outside standard society. Olivia Laing is an excellent writer. Out of lives as varied as those of Basquiat and Agnes Martin, Derek Jarman and Georgia O’Keeffe, David Bowie and Joseph Cornell, she constructs an orrery of art as a cosmos of human connection and a sensemaking mechanism for living.

In a sentiment to which I relate in my own approach to historical lives, Laing frames her method of inquiry:

“I’m going as a scout, hunting for resources and ideas that might be liberating or sustaining now, and in the future. What drives all these essays is a long-standing interest in how a person can be free, and especially in how to find a freedom that is shareable, and not dependent upon the oppression or exclusion of other people.

[…]

We’re so often told that art can’t really change anything. But I think it can. It shapes our ethical landscapes; it opens us to the interior lives of others. It is a training ground for possibility. It makes plain inequalities, and it offers other ways of living.”

Throughout these short, scrumptiously insightful and sensitive essays, Laing draws on the lives of artists — the wildly uneven topographies of wildly diverse interior worlds — to contour new landscapes of possibility for life itself, as we each live it, around and through and with art. In the essay about Georgia O’Keeffe — who revolutionised modern art while living alone and impoverished in the middle of the desert, in the middle of the world’s first global war — Laing observes:

“How do you make the most of what’s inside you, your talents and desires, when they slam you up against a wall of prejudice, of limiting beliefs about what a woman must be and an artist can do?

[…]

From the beginning, New Mexico represented salvation, though not in the wooden sense of the hill-dominating crosses she so often painted. O’Keeffe’s salvation was earthy, even pagan, comprised of the cold-water pleasure of working unceasingly at what you love, burning anxiety away beneath the desert sun.”

In an essay about another artist — the painter Chantal Joffe, for whom Laing sat — she echoes Jackson Pollock’s’s observation that “every good artist paints what he is,” and writes:

“You can’t paint reality: you can only paint your own place in it, the view from your eyes, as manifested by your own hands.

A painting betrays fantasies and feelings, it bestows beauty or takes it away; eventually, it supplants the body in history. A painting is full of desire and love, or greed, or hate. It radiates moods, just like people.

[…]

Paint as fur, as velvet, as brocade, as hair. Paint as a way of entering and becoming someone else. Paint as a device for stopping time.”

In another essay, Laing offers an exquisite counterpoint to the barbed-wire fencing off of identities that has increasingly made the free reach of human connection — that raw material and final product of all art — dangerous and damnable in a culture bristling with ready indignations and antagonisms:

“A writer I was on a panel with said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that it is no longer desirable to write about the lives of other people or experiences one hasn’t had. I didn’t agree. I think writing about other people, making art about other people, is both dangerous and necessary. There are moral lines. There are limits to the known. But there’s a difference between respecting people’s right to tell or not tell their own stories and refusing to look at all.

[…]

It depends whether you believe that we exist primarily as categories of people, who cannot communicate across our differences, or whether you think we have a common life, an obligation to regard and learn about each other.”

In a sense, the entire book is a quiet manifesto for unselfing through the art we make and the art we cherish — a subtle and steadfast act of resistance to the attrition of human connection under the cultural forces of self-righteousness and sanctimonious othering, a stance against those fashionable and corrosive forces that so often indict as appropriation the mere act of learning beautiful things from each other.

In another essay — about Ali Smith, the subject to whom Laing feels, or at least reads, the closest — she quotes a kindred sentiment of Smith’s:

“Art is one of the prime ways we have of opening ourselves and going beyond ourselves. That’s what art is, it’s the product of the human being in the world and imagination, all coming together. The irrepressibility of the life in the works, regardless of the times, the histories, the life stories, it’s like being given the world, its darks and lights. At which point we can go about the darks and lights with our imagination energised.”

Among the subjects of a subset of essays Laing aptly categorises as “love letters” is John Berger, whose lovely notion of “hospitality” radiates from Laing’s own work — a notion she defines as “a capacity to enlarge and open, a corrective to the overwhelming political imperative, in ascendance once again this decade, to wall off, separate and reject.” She reflects on being stopped up short by Berger’s embodiment of such hospitality when she saw him speak at the British Library at the end of his long, intellectually generous life:

“It struck me then how rare it is to see a writer on stage actually thinking, and how glib and polished most speakers are. For Berger, thought was work, as taxing and rewarding as physical labour, a bringing of something real into the world. You have to strive and sweat; the act is urgent but might also fail.

He talked that evening about hospitality. It was such a Bergerish notion. Hospitality: the friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors or strangers, a word that shares its origin with hospital, a place to treat sick or injured people. This impetus towards kindness and care for the sick and strange, the vulnerable and dispossessed is everywhere in Berger’s work, the sprawling orchard of words he planted and tended over the decades.

[…]

Art he saw as a communal and vital possession, to be written about with sensual exactness… Capitalism, he wrote in Ways of Seeing, survives by forcing the majority to define their own interests as narrowly as possible. It was narrowness he set himself against, the toxic impulse to wall in or wall off. Be generous to the strange, be open to difference, cross-pollinate freely. He put his faith in the people, the whole host of us.”

In a superb 2015 essay titled “The Future of Loneliness” — an essay that bloomed into a book a year later, the splendid and unclassifiable book that first enchanted me with Laing’s writing and the mind from which it springs — she considers how technology is mediating our already uneasy relationship to loneliness, and how art redeems the simulacra of belonging with which social media entrap us in this Stockholm syndrome of self-regard. In a passage of chillingly intimate resonance to all of us alive in the age of screens and selfies and the vacant, addictive affirmation of people we have never dined with tapping heart- and thumb-shaped icons on cold LED screens, she writes:

“Loneliness centres around the act of being seen. When a person is lonely, they long to be witnessed, accepted, desired, at the same time as becoming intensely wary of exposure. According to research carried out over the past decade at the University of Chicago, the feeling of loneliness triggers what psychologists term hypervigilance for social threat. In this state, which is entered into unknowingly, the individual becomes hyperalert to rejection, becoming inclined to perceive their social interactions as tinged with hostility or scorn. The result of this shift in perception is a vicious circle of withdrawal, in which the lonely person becomes increasingly suspicious, intensifying their sense of isolation.

This is where online engagement seems to exercise its special charm. Hidden behind a computer screen, the lonely person has control. They can search for company without the danger of being revealed or found wanting. They can reach out or they can hide; they can lurk and they can show themselves, safe from the humiliation of face-to-face rejection. The screen acts as a kind of protective membrane, a scrim that permits invisibility and also transformation. You can filter your image, concealing unattractive elements, and you can emerge enhanced: an online avatar designed to attract likes. But now a problem arises, for the contact this produces is not quite the same thing as intimacy. Curating a perfected self might win followers or Facebook friends, but it will not necessarily cure loneliness, since the cure for loneliness is not being looked at, but being seen and accepted as a whole person: ugly, unhappy and awkward as well as radiant and selfie-ready.”

Having met with Ryan Trecartin — “a baby-faced thirty-four-year-old” of whom I had never heard (saying more about my odd nineteenth-century life than about his art) but whose early-twenty-first-century films about the lurid and discomposing thrill of digital culture prompted The New Yorker to describe him as “the most consequential artist to have emerged since the nineteen-eighties” — Laing reflects:

“My own understanding of loneliness relied on a belief in solid, separate selves that he saw as hopelessly outmoded. In his world view, everyone was perpetually slipping into each other, passing through perpetual cycles of transformation; no longer separate, but interspersed. Perhaps he was right. We aren’t as solid as we once thought. We’re embodied but we’re also networks, expanding out into empty space, living on inside machines and in other people’s heads, memories and data streams as well as flesh. We’re being watched and we do not have control. We long for contact and it makes us afraid. But as long as we’re still capable of feeling and expressing vulnerability, intimacy stands a chance.”

Vulnerability — which Laing unfussily terms “the necessary condition of love” — is indeed the bellowing undertone of these essays: vulnerability as frisson and function of art, of life itself, of the atavistic impulse for transmuting living into meaning that we call art.

Complement the thoroughly symphonic Funny Weather with Paul Klee on creativity and why an artist is like a tree, Kafka on why we make art, Egon Schiele on why visionary artists tend to come from the minority, and Virginia Woolf’s garden epiphany about what it means to be an artist — which remains, for me, the single most beautiful and penetrating thing ever written on the subject — then revisit Laing on life, loss, and the wisdom of rivers.

Source: Maria Popova, brainpickings.org (25th February 2021)

[drjackandmissjo]

firewhisky on ice, sunset and vine

you’ve ruined my life by not being mine

Chapter 5— previous chapter — next chapter

Harry Potter fics Masterlist

He looked absolutely dashing, that much he was positive of. He and his date matched and looked powerful, and Hogwarts was, once again, his oyster fully.

Melissa was very easy to convince: she was the only seventh year Ravenclaw that took Potions that hadn’t been invited to the party, due to her aunt being affiliated with Death Eaters in the past, and therefore jumped at the opportunity to show up, even as a plus one. The conversations they had had so far were interesting and polite, but he knew she favoured girls in secret and she knew he preferred boys, even if said boys happened to be dorky and lanky Gryffindor idiots.

Overall, their evening was going to be incredibly fine. Everyone would envy them and everyone should, after all.

Arriving perfectly five minutes after than the invite said, late enough to be noticed but early enough not to make a classic ‘figura ‘i mmerda’, as his Grandfather said, while people began mingling and flooding the room.

It was astonishing: only the true elite had been selected to attend, everyone bringing their escorts to this high society and granting a night of class entertainment to those less fortunate and talented; Slughorn had equipped waiters and had also decorated finely the room to grant the event even more luxury. Even the Weird Sisters were playing!

Without a shadow of a doubt, Horace Slughorn was a brilliant wizard who managed to raise up to the Slytherin House for positive reasons, without giving it a bad reputation, and Blaise was immensely grateful for it and fascinated by him.

His eyes scanned the room as he entered with his arm liked to his escort: he could see Pansy drape herself over a seventh year Hufflepuff as if she was a curtain, showing off her curves in the tight emerald dress that was scandalously cut in the back. She had always had a talent regarding clothing, was perfectly able to conjure a piece that somehow looked both classy and trashy, granting great emphasis of her abilities as a zoccola. Granger was accompanied by McLaggen, for reasons fathomless to him: despite being a Muggle-born, Granger was a rather talented witch that would’ve been perfect as a Slytherin, way more than a few of his housemates, and McLaggen was a spoiled brat who was used to people blowing his nose whenever he needed to sneeze, duller than a bezoar and far less interesting that a hoo-hoo.

Saint Potter was there as well, accompanied by Loony Lovegood, who looked positively adorable in her brightly coloured dress. Blaise made a mental note to compliment her on the choice, while pointedly ignoring Saint Potter, who was getting way too much attention for anyone’s sanity. Professor Slughorn was clinging at his arm as if his life depended on it, introducing him proudly to his guest and parading him off as a trophy.

Surely that was not the way Potter wanted his night to go, considering he had a tendency to shy away from the spotlight, yet Blaise could perfectly understand the Potions Professor tactic: he was, after all, the Saviour of the Wizarding World, a hero despite his lack of action during the first war, and Slughorn was a collector above all; while others scouted for antiquities or paintings, he assorted powerful and talented individuals to his own little society and to his own gain.

Blaise desperately wanted to be like that man.

Turning to his date, they untangled from each other and began moving towards the room, both looking for their own personal goals and opportunities with the many powerful guests that mingled in the room.

***

He was in the middle of a semi-heated conversation with the vampire Sanguini when he saw him.

They were discussing about the cultural and ethical differences of obtaining blood from willing people, offering out of their own mind, versus the toxic complex of a master with his drudge. Blaise knew he would have a hard time explaining his point and standing his ground, yet he was compelled to speak up at a particular comment the vampire had made earlier in their conversation. Previous topics were soon discarded, as Sanguini pointed out also the hypocrisy of the wizarding community, shunning vampires for their ‘loyal subjects’ while also keeping house elves and breeding them with the sole purpose of serving. Blaise agreed on the topic in particular and was about to find and fetch Granger to have her join the conversation, considering her past attempt at house elves’ freedom with her short lived and not very popular S.P.E.W., until a swift movement of a serving dish caught Blaise’s eye.

“You’ve got to be kidding me” he thought as he followed the silvery trail and saw the waiter. Astonishingly, the simple tight cut pair of black dress pants did wonders for the already pretty shaped behind, while the white jacked clung perfectly to his shoulders as if it was sown on.

How had he missed the tall and bulky figure this whole time? Blaise was petrified, his eyes blown wide as he regarded Longbottom backside with all the reverence that it deserved. His hair was slicked back and tamed, and he already itched to run his fingers throw it to ensure the suspected softness of the strands. “Someone like that must have nice hair” he thought, trying to return back into the conversation, yet failing to look away as Longbottom continued to offer little appetizers to Slughorn’s guests.

“Ah, I see” said the vampire in a thick accent, breaking him out of his stupor and bringing him back to reality. Blaise focused his attention back to him, expecting his point to have finally reached his brain and getting back an infuriating smirk from Sanguini, who know looked at Blaise as if he knew all of his secrets. “What exactly do you see?” he fired back immediately, maintaining a polite smile while planning to stab the vampire with his wand. It would probably be messy but immensely worth it.

Sanguini licked his lips, fangs glistening as his eyes scanned the room for Eldred Worple, finding the short man once again crowding Saint Potter about a biography. No matter how discomforted the Gryffindor looked, the author simply didn’t seem to understand that it was about time to let it drop. “You are in a position I am familiar with” said the vampire, looking back to Blaise with piercing dark eyes.

“I have absolutely no idea of what you’re speaking of” stated the Slytherin, trying to maintain a casual stance and looking for his date to escape the situation. “It is okay” continued Sanguini, dragging the syllables, “I won’t tell. I understand that in your society it is not something to be shared, ja?”

Blaise was speechless. He had never had actual confirmation from anyone like him, all there ever was, was speculation. Especially with dark times coming, it wasn’t safe. He himself had not told anyone, with the exception of his mother, even if he was positive about his preferences, and didn’t really plan of anyone finding out, despite trying to pursuit a dumbass Gryffindor, but clearly missing his target.

“Does that mean that you and Eldred…?” he asked timidly, not daring to finish his sentence in case someone might overheard them. He did not know the man personally, but he didn’t want to put him into a bad position. “The higher you are, the harder you fall” he reminded himself.

The vampire smiled then, “Yes. Why else would he bring me as his plus one? For my conversation skills?” he confirmed as his partner approached with an equally soft smile on his lips. “Sanguini, come with me, I want to introduce you to someone” said Eldred, taking his arm and dragging him away, practically ignoring Blaise.

He was left alone, in the middle of the room, with no one to talk to while he processed what had just happened. Without realizing it, he moved towards the loos, thankful about their emptiness as he splashed water on his face. It had been both scary as hell and extremely uplifting. While there were no wizarding laws that vetoed one’s choices, the majority of the wizarding population wasn’t exactly tolerant, when it came to homosexuality and diversity.

Professor Lupin had been a great example: despite being the second most competent teacher in Blaise’s entire school career, “They should Knight Professor McGonagall, that woman is the best thing in this universe!”, he was ostracized and casted away as soon as his condition had been publicized by Snape. The vain bastard ruined a man’s life just cause he was different and harmless, because he had personal beef with him and wanted his position, which he still wasn’t entirely qualified for, as the recent DADA lessons taught him.

Blaise also thought that Professor Lupin wasn’t exactly straight either, but had no confirmations nor any means to contact said professor to ask for advice. He would simply have to figure out on his own what to do, which was a thing he was excellent at.

Suddenly, the door opened and there was a quite concerned Longbottom, in all his black and white glory, hands wrapped in gloves and an empty trail on his hands. “Is everything alright?” he asked quietly, closing the door behind his back and walking towards Blaise, “I saw you all but run here and thought I’d check on you.” He looked sheepish and almost embarrassed, so at sort with the student who worked hard during their sessions together and the idiot that made his blood boil constantly with his witty remarks as soon as books were discarded for the day.

Blaise gave him a timid smile, quick and painless, “Thanks, but I’m actually fine” he claimed, drying up his hands and face on a nearby towel to avoid staring at Longbottom’s worried expression for too long. The Gryffindor then huffed out a laugh and said “Great, wouldn’t want my tutor to fall sick!” Blaise shook his head at that: they would both go home for the holidays, therefore he wouldn’t be tutored nor tutoring, but he was still touched by the Gryffindor’s concern and hoped he couldn’t see the blush spreading on his cheeks.

After a few moments of silence, Longbottom began to wordlessly walk back to the room, but Blaise refused to let me opportunity to hear another one of his sarcastic comebacks. “You’re going to practise during the holidays?” he blurted, cringing internally at the pace his words left his mouth, but it was already too late.

Longbottom turned around, nodding with a serious expression on: “What else am I supposed to do? Hang around my uncle that threw me out of a window to check if I had magic?” Blaise shook his head, all but understanding the older generation fear of having a squib in their family and the lengths one might have gone to instigate a magical reaction. Yet, that was an inhumane treatment that deserved to be punished.

“What about you?” the Gryffindor asked, a sparkle in his eyes that wasn’t there a moment before. “I’m going to France with my mother, to visit her side of the family” he replied, purposefully avoiding to mention that his mother wanted to know everything about the boy standing in front of him, about the one that had managed to snatch his full attention, “Doubt I’m gonna study herbology of all things, if that’s what you’re wondering” he then added with a smirk, challenging and cocky.

“I take that as a personal offence, you know?” Longbottom declared, placing a gloved hand over his sternum and mocking indignation. Then he added, in an afterthought: “Oh, before I forget. I practiced something” he said with a proud expression of his face. Blaise raised a scrutinizing eyebrow, folding his arms and leaning against the sink. “Please don’t say kissing cause I might break any minute now.”

The Gryffindor was now slowly walking closer to Blaise, sending his heart into a frenzy and making his head spin as fast as lightning. ���Close your eyes” he whispered when they were close enough to touch, and Blaise might’ve fainted, were it not for his practiced façade keeping him together while his insides combusted. Unwillingly to appear vulnerable, yet incredibly intrigued, he did as he was told, part of him hoping and part of him dreading the course of action their conversation had taken.

He could feel Longbottom’s breath on his cheek and was about to lean in, but suddenly a bright white light exploded behind his eyelids, the warm air then disappeared and a voice whispered at him to open his eyes. The sight was disappointing to say the least: Longbottom was now several centimetres away, looking at him while nervously worrying his lip, and Blaise’s breath was taken from his lungs abruptly. “Well go on, see for yourself” said the Gryffindor, seeming more eager than ever.

He turned around, to face the mirror and examine what had supposedly happened, when he saw it: part of his perfectly groomed right eyebrow had been turned a very dark blue, almost blending into his natural colour effortlessly while still being able to be picked apart. Blaise moved to face Longbottom then, a disbelieving expression and a hundred questions on his mind.

“I practiced Crinus Muto wordlessly the entire day on Seamus, he now has ten different colours on his head!” He then laughed, a bright sound that Blaise wanted to imprint and store in his memory for when he might have needed it. “I thought this was a good way as any to let you know that I’m taking your help seriously” he added sheepishly, somehow finding fascinating the point of his shoes. Blaise had never more desperately wanted to kiss someone in his entire life.

“Well, gotta get back now. Happy holidays” he said quickly, fleeting the bathroom and leaving Blaise once alone. He dumbly stared at his own reflection in the mirror, wondering if he should fix it with a quick spell, but deciding against it. All his insides were warm, and not in a bad way.

With one last look, he then exited himself, founding immediately his date, standing alone near the loos and nervously biting her nails.

“That is an incredibly rude gesture” he told her, approaching fast and maintaining an aria of superiority.

“Where were you?” she pointedly asked, ignoring his comment, “Your idiot housemate tried to sneak in and I had totally lost you!”

He was puzzled, it wasn’t like Nott to crash a party and he knew for a fact that he had planned on getting pissed with Crabble and Goyle. “Sorry, had to powder my nose. Who was the idiot?” he hastily asked, wondering whether or not the alcohol had had its best over Theodore.

She simply waved a hand dismissively, “Malfoy, Snape dragged him away” she informed him as it was not an important news.

Blaise was going to slowly torture him and cut him into such tiny pieces that it would’ve been impossible for any magic to repair him. Then he would have sent the remains to the Dark Lord himself, with a note attached, warning him that if Slytherin lost the House Cup because of him, Blaise himself would have killed the evil wizard.

Slowly breathing in, he let himself calm down, making a mental note to later beat Draco Malfoy into a bloody pulp. “Very well, Darling. Shall we continue?” he asked, offering once more his arm to her, which she gladly took.

“What happened to your eyebrow?” she wondered loudly as they moved to the sneak table. He then smiled, trying to catch a glimpse of the Gryffindor dork that had his heartbeat as fast as if was competing in a race.

“Just a little reminder for later, nothing you should care about.”

**Headcanon that the Vampire Sanguini and the writer Eldred Worple are dating!**

GLOSSARY:

"Figura 'i mmerda" is southern Italian for "making an ass of oneself in a situation""Zoccola" is literally the female rat but is used to describe 'easy' women and such. It is also used as a term of endearment, as the usual bitch

[restlessmuseum]

nomen amen (or “paraphernalia”: back by popular demand)

                                    (where books compete for space with pottery)

We were already halfway through interminability. Away all redundancy of deficiency from the page, the tear from the past to mend us about to rampage. This far we had not said anything good but perfection required, in tone and content, inexplicable. (1) I found the crux in the posture to device, like an impostor happens in his tender, (2) a damage done like the wrapping paper of a ducked present. (3) Under the stance of unison, the shallower I read between the lines the further I'm improved from the time of my oversight, (4) the unison becomes the sound she phews down to my very being, like but the rest I forgot about... Sorry, got it wrong. Actually, I wanted to continue this something started spreads ago, but the prose screeches and cackles around its ineliminable inexactitude. I really don't feel like resuming anymore, or should I say, I'm done boggedly running after the end of my premises. Yes something happened, something to investigate in a whole other direction. So, gonna take all, this will be the first part. I wish I could express revolutionary philosophisms, I thought I could be a poet because I'm unable to be an essayist and a novelist. I'm not good at public speaking. I entered Tumblr to be found by publishers and make money: I had a system of truths and truly nothing else to say. Besides, what did this idea of klein Lebensdarbietung mean? Is the text doing its characters or are these ones setting out their own words? Text's abolition of today, which is nothing but "the sentences already written, the sentences that people say, the sentences yet to write; verses, words, spacings, texts' dissemination, whatever you want, about the purely sign-linguistic-textual" (cit.) verbatim et literatim, and here is another example of my strugglings to go on properly. In any event it is clear that we are moved when required, except the exempts. (5) It is always the most unexpected time to undergo the aha entanglement. In constant foresight I guiltily prepare to hindsee the neglect and with confambulatory prowess I succumb to the development in this underpass of construes. How much do we match with our sounds? — asking myself. In this respect I'm afraid to surprise me onstage like the surrenedered one (and here onpage, ah foolishness, as playwright). But if I leaf compulsively through hundreds of pages, that's to find my words not belonging to me, and the others to fight (me) with. As I am nearing the open conversation, I make up my mind never to read me. Tons of notes, reproaches and scratchpads. Tons of work to do. And I have to get rid of the old adjustments once and for all. (6) Electra the yet-signed. You like the simple words, the ones you recognize already written, the crystalline syllabification that enoculates the wholeness of an order babbling sibyllinity downstream. You carry on with the work of literature: how the body absconds at the risk of space and time with them. Imperfect doubling, mirror images, and repetition in her practice. Topical scratches. Interceptors sought in everyday life — like unspeakables — that she then distorts to create the straight path in reverse. Poetry will not touch her, because poetry is just the unwritten complexity going wrong side along the process of self-becoming, a recent installation, midway between marble and corporal desires in an ascending scale of hardness. (7) Listening to the closest friends, the process of self-becoming could only linger primarily in the sight of aesthetic, then morality, then religious status quo. But friends come always as a closer, blind alley, at the end of tears: a misunderstanding at first, then never read enough. (8) It is often the case that the practice of consensually agreeing to one's own mental performance and self-image by means of meddled languages and lineages may become a genuine bondage of freedom. The restrained partner can derive any drift in the set of possibilities so that we use to say the doing is more important than the outcome. (9) The doing is in uncomfortable or painful positions, for example as a punishment: then, easily it tends to be forgotten, because unforgivable. That's why the effect is the same as a verbal collage, but 1) rips are often behind schedule or on borrowed time, "out of sync with the fade" (cit.) hearth of what seems to be the Pentecostal tongues of fire; and 2) metaphors like "the rope of telephone charades" or "the coils of something wound in the form of a revolution to come is the licking of sugar injury, met since the starting point" are not allowed. "Real me is way more concerned with" (cit.) the Transcaspian line that follows the pattern of a crosswording of the desert. (10) Rather than holding on to me tight I choose to distance myself from what I'm being forced to watch daily. Dies irae dies illa desirable. Without prejudice to this last inescapable point, the first issue represents the Derridean crux of the matter, about which I will be saying something bad in the wrongest moments, since my voice is as effective as my unsuccessful rewrites. I just want, by using the instruction books, the border of this drama, accelerated and hence trespassed in time into ridiculousness, to be experienced as the comedy it is. There is a hour of the wolf and there is a hour the wolf is afraid of. When the time is right I'd like you all to be safe to be spared in my turn from this construction beyond good and better. (11) Here you shine white with noise. "Sonorous cobweb" (cit.) made of only one thread, the unbent line of homeostasis at long last kept in crisis. (12) This narration should have had a different common thread. "And yet", imprint, "it moves" (cit.) as sensible prose. Prose of proses. The dispelled thing, spilled on Tumblr, disseminated. The seedbed: descendants, everspring off, family. The planting postdisposed. All going as planned. (13)   When I know that I don't know where to start a carving, I start a list of synonyms or unyoke a fable from a series of rereadings. What excommunication if you can't subvert the strainer? (14) Once upon a time Electra, beloved only sign of her father, has a brother. Agamemnon possesses the actuality and practicality of the dead: he wants to see water circulate water in laminar rheumatology and freshness sculptures out of tempered air. [director's note: the Argolis' scene isn't even entitled to melt!]. She eats anise candies and unwarmed foods without a problem. She is so lovely when she urinates first thing in the morning, holding the head in her hands, graeaean ownership. Yes, I'm worthy of attending to the offertory on the altar of love. So many congratulations against my behalf that the opposite seems true. (15) "A woman with long hair is not a simple point of view" (cit.). She's got a prompt night's sleep and reasonable. We cling to angelic accidents. We are clung to our soundtrack. (16) Indeed love is not "the panic subsidence onto the body" (cit.) [director's note: can we let the body become finally soaked in real pornography and never mind, here?] but sheer faith for a symbolic subject who's shattered fully loyal. Intermediate sprint of a life midpoint crossroads that lead at the same destination to flee from. (17) Because, as it goes, her staple is such a volitive confidence meaning to me the wait of the powers that created us, the coincidence of both of us makes our skewness on my side of the derangement. Averted word, when addressed. I am a bad Greek at the time of Christianity and a bad Christian on such dysfunctional divertissements. Who knows how ethically important it is today? I retain it, ending up forgetting everything else, and am lookin' very bad. (18) Of course the movement is diminished in certain directions; the style more flattened upon my chosen sickness that we now have no use for, after the setting of the starting stances; I suffer from more severe erections. An acquired kurtosis distributes my monodimensional remarks as the fourth cumulants in order of precedence. Still a lot of exercise to get. Busy like the evermentioned forgettables I'm at that stage where it's difficult for me to even do difficult things. Wrongstaged, I can't compete. I only challenge. (19) Therefore coincident like the two norths of which one is sinking liminal in the perfectly unsaid of your perfect cues. In one fell swoop you pone the part and mastery. And in the next. And the apnea for the answer back. Teeth gouged by the opposite of words in formation for a smile. The winky face par excellence. Here's the real spectator of my vocalized character. I wedge the self with a puny malapropistic idioticon to spread now that I'm a simplex person. As long as I continue to improve in (furtive, it has to be) apprenticeship I'm losing abilities. Old mistakes reappear, no inspiration from mumpsimuses. (20) Where adults flutter, she, disemvowelled and free from frills, spoken by the plural to be inscribed in the Sophoclean, in the Euripidean, in the Hofmannsthalean, in the Yourcenarian script, lost in tv shows and blatant phone calls, is, for me, abused of notations but who am I to denounce such an effusive happiness? There's nothing she can't Netflix. (21) No banana peel on the slope of her singularity — reversible up to a point, interchangeable up to a point, genderbending up to a point from the same side of view. Slotting minims in the same tone as the main characters. That the same out-of-turness is imbricated. (22)

Virtuosity was painlessly flaying the secret from the kids. This is tragedy. We all know what everyone should have said, sorrows come only after. We see each other for sure and too well. Find your trace in the deep of your prompter's heart. Dimmable glow of ancient times. Under guillotine percentages, under curtain at half-mast, under the veils in the dance of the seven veils. What am I trying to say? (23)

In the floodlights' gloom, without changing the rules of the game, exit khorós. With whom would you listen to you speaking? (24) Woods of brightness wherever, it makes me want to expect your coming deaf-handed right therever, the braindomed untrodden order of phrases where roommouths around it are opening. (25) A substratum, but rather as two shadows they finally vest themselves without amendment, and just drag on this semi-detached ward where it just doesn't feel like our theater anymore. So that there may well be the laetum and lethean occurrence of a new polarization. (26) It is no coincidence that here you're always cold and pale. What a cutie! (27) But maybe that's just too much information. Now would be the time to shut up even more. Already being in the manner for that: being at one with the template versus falling back into the patient subjectivity to agency, to make war and to make love with the weapons of the unconditional surrender. The book is that inferring the timbre of each Klagesprache. (28) Like the current situation could return to equilibrium because of an indefinite vocabulary which is still fighting us pressurers. We come across the unilaterality of it every day. Its constitution. (29) But infinity alive doesn't exist. We can approximate it in the endless rummaging and musing. (30) Approximation is worth nothing. We get sick for the words that once beguiled us. The limits of infancy don't set. And now I just -ess the world in voluntary silence nonexperienced. (31) With plex I brux my certainty and centuries. Party time abounds. (32) Clause: applause. (33)

[shadow-and-quill]

Myers-Briggs: EXECUTIVE (ESTJ-A)

Executive Personality (ESTJ, -A/-T)

Executives are representatives of tradition and order, utilizing their understanding of what is right, wrong and socially acceptable to bring families and communities together. Embracing the values of honesty, dedication and dignity, people with the Executive personality type are valued for their clear advice and guidance, and they happily lead the way on difficult paths. Taking pride in bringing people together, Executives often take on roles as community organizers, working hard to bring everyone together in celebration of cherished local events, or in defense of the traditional values that hold families and communities together.

Anyone Worth Their Salt Sticks Up for What They Believe Is Right…

Demand for such leadership is high in democratic societies, and forming no less than 11% of the population, it’s no wonder that many of America’s presidents have been Executives. Strong believers in the rule of law and authority that must be earned, Executive personalities lead by example, demonstrating dedication and purposeful honesty, and an utter rejection of laziness and cheating, especially in work. If anyone declares hard, manual work to be an excellent way to build character, it is Executives.

Executives are aware of their surroundings and live in a world of clear, verifiable facts – the surety of their knowledge means that even against heavy resistance, they stick to their principles and push an unclouded vision of what is and is not acceptable. Their opinions aren’t just empty talk either, as Executives are more than willing to dive into the most challenging projects, improving action plans and sorting details along the way, making even the most complicated tasks seem easy and approachable.

However, Executives don’t work alone, and they expect their reliability and work ethic to be reciprocated – people with this personality type meet their promises, and if partners or subordinates jeopardize them through incompetence or laziness, or worse still, dishonesty, they do not hesitate to show their wrath. This can earn them a reputation for inflexibility, a trait shared by all Sentinel personalities, but it’s not because Executives are arbitrarily stubborn, but because they truly believe that these values are what make society work.

…But Still Better Are Those Who Acknowledge When They Are in Error

Executives are classic images of the model citizen: they help their neighbors, uphold the law, and try to make sure that everyone participates in the communities and organizations they hold so dear.

The main challenge for Executives is to recognize that not everyone follows the same path or contributes in the same way. A true leader recognizes the strength of the individual, as well as that of the group, and helps bring those individuals’ ideas to the table. That way, Executives really do have all the facts, and are able to lead the charge in directions that work for everyone.

Executive Strengths

Dedicated – Seeing things to completion borders on an ethical obligation for Executives. Tasks aren’t simply abandoned because they’ve become difficult or boring – people with the Executive personality type take them up when they are the right thing to do, and they will be finished so long as they remain the right thing to do.

Strong-willed – A strong will makes this dedication possible, and Executives don’t give up their beliefs because of simple opposition. Executives defend their ideas and principles relentlessly, and must be proven clearly and conclusively wrong for their stance to budge.

Direct and Honest – Executives trust facts far more than abstract ideas or opinions. Straightforward statements and information are king, and Executive personalities return the honesty (whether it’s wanted or not).

Loyal, Patient and Reliable – Executives work to exemplify truthfulness and reliability, considering stability and security very important. When Executives say they’ll do something, they keep their word, making them very responsible members of their families, companies and communities.

Enjoy Creating Order – Chaos makes things unpredictable, and unpredictable things can’t be trusted when they are needed most – with this in mind, Executives strive to create order and security in their environments by establishing rules, structures and clear roles.

Excellent Organizers – This commitment to truth and clear standards makes Executives capable and confident leaders. People with this personality type have no problem distributing tasks and responsibilities to others fairly and objectively, making them excellent administrators.

Executive Weaknesses

Inflexible and Stubborn – The problem with being so fixated on what works is that Executives too often dismiss what might work better. Everything is opinion until proven, and Executive personalities are reluctant to trust an opinion long enough for it to have that chance.

Uncomfortable with Unconventional Situations – Executives are strong adherents to tradition and when suddenly forced to try unvetted solutions, they become uncomfortable and stressed. New ideas suggest that their methods weren’t good enough, and abandoning what has always worked before in favor of something that may yet fail risks their image of reliability.

Judgmental – Executives have strong convictions about what is right, wrong, and socially acceptable. Executives’ compulsion to create order often extends to all things and everyone, ignoring the possibility that there are two right ways to get things done. Executives do not hesitate to let these “deviants” know what they think, considering it their duty to set things right.

Too Focused on Social Status – Executives take pride in the respect of their friends, colleagues and community and while difficult to admit, are very concerned with public opinion. Executives (especially Turbulent ones) can get so caught up in meeting others’ expectations that they fail to address their own needs.

Difficult to Relax – This need for respect fosters a need to maintain their dignity, which can make it difficult to cut loose and relax for risk of looking the fool, even in good fun.

Difficulty Expressing Emotion – This is all evidence of Executives’ greatest weakness: expressing emotions and feeling empathy. People with the Executive personality type get so caught up in the facts and most effective methods that they forget to think of what makes others happy, or of their sensitivity. A detour can be breathtakingly beautiful, a joy for the family, but Executives may only see the consequence of arriving at their destination an hour late, hurting their loved ones by rejecting the notion too harshly.

—

(Did this a long time ago with Ritsu’s previous incarnation, seems he’s shifted a bit. Comes with his new job though. I’m somewhat amused it’s the same as X’sehya who takes this type in a whole different direction.)

{Test here!}

[theabigailthorn]

What I’m Reading, Simon Critchley, “Infinitely Demanding”

Critchley’s goal in this book is to put forward an entirely new view of meta-ethics and then apply it to both theology and politics. Easy Peasy! The meta-ethics bits are actually quite good - he has interesting ideas about how the self comes to form around ethical demands that maybe can’t even be met. He also takes an interesting stance on where moral reasons come from. I do think those sections are a bit incomplete and go too far too fast though. Unfortunately the rest of the book goes a bit off the rails. The theological bits are illuminating to an extent but left me with more questions and get quite woolly towards the end of the chapter. Critchley says that we need to apply his new meta-ethical perspective to politics, which is a fair enough line of inquiry, but he dismisses oceans of political philosophy - notably Lenin, and then later on anarchist thinking - a bit quickly for my liking. There is one excellent section where Critchley makes a stellar theoretical defence of what is these days called ‘identity politics,’ though when this book came out in 2012 it didn’t have an official name yet; he admits this bit is largely drawn from earlier work by Courtney Jung. 

The rest left me scratching my head: Critchley has a Žižekian tendency to cite not actual political activists, but other writers writing about political activists (including Žižek). He also can’t resist namedropping: large sections of the book are impenetrable if you don’t know Kant, Marx, Freud, Hegel, Levinas, Badiou, and a host of other tricky thinkers. The recommendations his final section make have already been taken up by activists who (I admit I presume) never read this book. 

Contrast this with something like Harsha Walia’s Undoing Border Imperialism, which presents a solidly grounded ethical and political program whilst remaining accessible and rooted in practically centring those who have skin in the game in concrete activist projects. It was during the final section of this book that I began to ask myself who is Infinitely Demanding for? Critchley writes that he hopes it will be the glue that can bind disparate cells of radical politics together, but then why is it largely impenetrable to all but the most highly educated of readers, and so abstracted away from examples of real struggles? That’s not to say political activists are uneducated by any stretch; just that if you make a nine-mile reading list the barrier of entry to your political movement you might miss out on a few recruits. Contrast that with a writer like Lenin, whose Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism is pretty accessible despite its complexity. Or even contrast it to fascist writers today, for whom the barrier of entry is just, “Hey - ever noticed things are a bit shit?” Why write it this way?

Because this book is for people who think about politics for a living, not people who think about politics because it’s killing them. This is a book by and for the privileged Leftist commentariat; that’s why it can end by saying that we need to start engaging ethically with politics, because to the author that’s a choice rather than something forced upon him already. That’s why the praise on the back is mainly (though not exclusively) from academics, not survivors of the very worst of contemporary politics. It’s preaching to the choir; selling Marxism at a farmers’ market so we can all go home feeling clever and a bit edgy. I fully admit this puts me smack dab in the target audience, but I was still a bit disappointed when I struggled through to the end that so many bits were kept obscure and so many questions left unanswered, chief among which was, “Why was this made?” Like LOST. I’m harping on the negatives: there are bits of it, especially early on, that really are quite good and I will be turning parts into upcoming episodes. When Critchley is summarising other famous philosophers he does a fine enough job: I understand Plato better having read this book, which is a positive. If you’d like to check it out for yourself you can get it here.

[kidsviral-blog]

The Messy Media Ethics Behind The Sony Hacks

New Post has been published on https://kidsviral.info/the-messy-media-ethics-behind-the-sony-hacks/

The Messy Media Ethics Behind The Sony Hacks

The gray area where the leaked information resides — between public and private, prurient and illuminating — might not be the exception, but the new normal.

View this image ›

Sony / Chris Ritter / BuzzFeed

In the past few days, I’ve seen the email addresses of dozens of stars. I’ve seen the Amazon order histories of executives. I’ve seen the carefully laid-out breast-feeding diet of a senior VP. I’ve seen the ebullience and joy with which a famous director and the head of Sony talk about the future of filmmaking. It’s inarguably juicy, but what fascinated me more were all the documents over which my media studies colleagues — a group of which I was, until leaving for BuzzFeed, an active member — would salivate.

I saw memos that could alter global film market research, I read interactions between stars and producers, and about stars and their value, that could challenge or substantiate the claims of my own dissertation, with its focus on the history of the gossip industry. Thousands of documents, as yet unexplored and unreported. Where others see the potential scandal, I see scholarship.

But even as I sift through the latest release of hacked information, the overarching questions remain: What differentiates the leak and publication of private documents of a privately held company from the publication of the Jennifer Lawrence nude photos? Are reporters simply working as tools in a possible North Korean cyberwar? Or are journalists fulfilling their democratic role of disseminating information that serves the public interest?

This sort of hack is wholly unprecedented. Other massive, global companies have been hacked, but none so extensively (the hackers claim to have over 100 terabytes of information) and none with the visibility — and explicit connection to our everyday lives, in the form of television, movies, and music — of Sony. The entire business world is fueled by secrecy, but the sort of secrecy kept behind Hollywood’s closed doors, notorious for its power plays, publicist machinations, and bloated egos — that’s sexy.

These leaks are fascinating to academics, certainly, who must balance the hunger for an inside understanding of an industry which, over the last 50 years, has become increasingly unwilling to share any information, historical or otherwise, with ethical debates about the provenance of those materials. But the leaks are also incredibly juicy for journalists, who have also been working their way through the massive piles of internal documents, emails, and marketing department PowerPoints made available through a massive data breach of Sony’s internal server.

Which is part of why it’s so difficult to parse the ethics of reading, interpreting, and ultimately reporting on these documents: Whose agenda does their publication further? But what is the role of journalists if not to take that which is “new” and present it for readers, asking them to make their own judgments?

The answers to these questions, and the way these documents are handled and discussed in the weeks and years to come, aren’t limited to the journalism ethics classroom. These documents are neither the JLaw nude photos nor are they Snowden’s cache of national security documents. They’re not the product of angry teenage boys nor are they the work of a politically driven whistleblower. Yet when it comes to future handling of such information, the gray area in which they reside — between public and private, between prurient and illuminating — might not be the exception, but the new normal. The stance that journalists and academics take on these documents has the potential to guide our nation’s understanding of how we treat the compromise of the 21st century’s most valuable commodity, for both individuals and corporations: privacy.

I’m looking at these documents with the same eyes with which I pored over the collections of David O. Selznick, the greatest independent producer of classic Hollywood, or silent star Gloria Swanson, who preserved all correspondence, negotiations, contracts, letters to lawyers, and so much more from her 60-year career. Those collections, like those of United Artists and early Warner Bros., are housed at archives, where scholars travel to sift through them with white gloves, transforming stacks of musty telegraphs into works that function as our dominant understanding of the way the industry functioned, failed, and excelled.

But those archives, like most archives, were donated. Some are stripped of incriminating materials, but archives are generally given to institutions with the understanding that they will be used to illuminate history. In that, they are the inverse of the Sony hack, in which a group of hackers used illegal means to indiscriminately release the contents of Sony’s internal server. Selznick never had his correspondence leaked while he was filming Gone With the Wind; it was only decades later, when Selznick himself had been gone for years, that scholars began to use his archives to make sense of the operation of Hollywood. That sort of archival work is considered “history” and, as such, deemed legitimate, ethical, safe — even if the findings did suggest that most Hollywood executives were megalomaniacal assholes.

View this image ›

As the sheer breadth and depth of the hack started to come into focus last week, the first concern was for privacy, especially over the release of Social Security numbers of past and present Sony employees. Journalists here at BuzzFeed News and elsewhere reported the few pertinent specifics and character of the data released, while obscuring the most invasive information; some of the findings were banal (celebrity aliases, horrible HR PowerPoints, the script for a recruiting video); others were more incendiary (a potential gender pay gap). The experience of sorting through the labyrinth of internal data wasn’t unlike trying to look through the matrix of folders from an old, discarded computer: lots of chaff, very little wheat.

But there was enough reason to report. The legal position was straightforward: These documents were obtained through illegal means, but accessing them is not, in fact, illegal; reporting on documents made available through the hack, and even excerpting from them, are covered under both the First Amendment and Fair Use, which protects the reproduction of copyrighted content under the aegis of “enriching” or educating the general public.

The journalistic position was also fairly straightforward: As Fusion’s Kevin Roose explained on MSNBC, he and his editors employed a “civic good balancing test,” opting not “to publish things that are damaging to people unnecessarily,” such as Social Security or phone numbers, and focus on the potential to serve “a civic good.” “What you have in the Sony hack is an enormous data set of what people in one of the largest studios in Hollywood are paid,” Roose told host Chris Hayes, “and when you break that data down and use it as the basis for analysis, you end up with some really interesting … valuable, and important to democracy and industry.”

Here, Roose articulates the philosophy under which most journalists were exploring the hacked documents. Granted, releasing the amount Beyoncé and Jay Z were paid for a cameo in The Interview, as Roose did on Dec. 4, may toe that line of “civic good,” but few were objecting to the reportage of the leak on an ethical level.

That changed on Tuesday, when Defamer published an incendiary email exchange between Sony Pictures Co-Chairman Amy Pascal and producer Scott Rudin. Rudin is known throughout Hollywood for his abrasive attitude and management style. That said, the emails went viral not because Scott Rudin is a dick, but because he was a dick about one of the biggest stars in the world, calling her a “minimally spoiled brat” and “a camp event.”

Reading this exchange feels like pulling back the glossy veneer of the constant publicity that guides all Hollywood interactions; the exchange feels real, raw, and revelatory in the same way that the leaked elevator surveillance footage of Solange Knowles does: People are their realest selves when they don’t think the world is watching.

The schadenfreude directed toward Pascal and Rudin, however, has been met with resistance. On Twitter, film journalist and historian Mark Harris told “everyone who’s gloating over stolen emails” that “you must all feel very, very secure about your own correspondence.” Harris’ tweet articulated the strain of unease in the aftermath of the Defamer post, and coincided with increased calls to treat these leaks in the same way that journalists called others to treat the September hack of celebrity nudes: as an unethical and distasteful invasion of privacy.

Releasing private Sony e mails to hurt people is the same as releasing nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence. Why are they ok to print?

— JuddApatow (@Judd Apatow)

The difference, of course, is that one hack is aimed to exploit and humiliate young women (and is a sex crime), and the other is aimed at a multibillion-dollar international media conglomerate. One targeted individuals’ private iCloud servers; the other was directed at servers at a place of employment. The women whose photos were hacked might have been celebrities, but they were vulnerable in a way that Sony, for all of its current woes, simply is not.

As for claims about violating the privacy of Amy Pascal, whose inbox was leaked in its entirety: Thus far, all published email exchanges relate not to Pascal, the individual, but to her capacity as co-chair of Sony Pictures (with the exception of a personal exchange between Pascal and her husband about his friendship with Nikki Finke, who had just viciously gone after her). These leaks thus focus on Pascal’s role as a controlling force behind the release of a high percentage of the entertainment available across the world today, whose comments and viewpoints have impact on the way we see our world reproduced for us on the screen — her role, in other words, as a public figure.

The same goes for Scott Rudin, who, while not directly affiliated with Sony, is behind many of the most successful and prestigious movies of the last decade. To say that his racist thoughts on the types of movies that Obama would like is not important is tantamount to denying an author’s political views have an impact on the books he writes. Rudin has the power to make the movies with the biggest budgets and the highest profiles; his attitudes toward race — and the way he treats others — isn’t the only reason that the logic of mainstream Hollywood remains insidiously and enduringly racist, but it cannot be discounted.

Calling Sony comments”racially insensitive remarks” instead of “racist”? U can put a cherry on a pile of sh*t but it don’t make it a sundae.

— shondarhimes (@shonda rhimes)

These conversations were private, but the art they produced has very public, if often sublimated, ramifications. The Lawrence hacks don’t contribute to any understanding save what Lawrence’s breasts look like. The Sony hacks speak loudly, and at length, about contemporary film industry and its generation of popular culture.

Illuminating Rudin’s assumptions about Obama’s film preferences is one thing, but does that legitimize publishing correspondence about the making of Cleopatra? “I believe people have the right to conduct business correspondence privately; it’s not as if criminality is being exposed,” Harris explained to me in an email. Ultimately, publicizing their correspondence just “makes it LESS likely that people who make movies will speak candidly to each other, let alone to journalists and scholars.”

Indeed, in the wake of these leaks, one can imagine just how frantically other Hollywood studios are scrambling to bolster their security measures. The question remains, then, as to how journalists and scholars make use of the existing material in a way that doesn’t simply carry out or validate the aims of these or any hackers.

For Gawker Editor-in-Chief Max Read, who’s overseen much of that publication’s handling of the documents, items like the emails are “newsworthy documents that were publicly available,” and “the idea that a journalist should refrain from publishing them because it might ‘validate the hackers’ actions/aims’ is genuinely incomprehensible.” Thomas Schatz, author of Genius of the System and one of the academics most familiar with the challenges of doing industrial history both with and without the benefit of the archive, told me that “I guess my bottom line is that we should welcome the opportunity to look behind the curtain.”

The information is out there; it’s not disappearing. It’s a question, then, of the avenue it takes from here.

View this image ›

When an academic goes to the archive, she spends days, even years, squinting at illegible handwriting and sifting through correspondence, combining her macro knowledge of the industry with the micro revelations of accumulated documents. A reporter doesn’t have the privilege of that sort of lengthy contemplation, but nor does she have the necessity to sort by hand: The Sony documents arrived in digital form, and fully searchable. To find a potential scandal, all you need to know are the right keywords, and a cascade of controversy appears onscreen.

This ease of accessibility — and the sheer amount of information conveyed via digital correspondence — points to the larger issues undergirding these ethical discussions. They’re variations on the same discussions we’ve had about WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden, “The Fappening,” and the rise of “vigilante journalism” and its exposure of private (but not always guilty) individuals, all hinging on the way to handle the sheer amount of private data each of us produces on a daily basis.

The new reality is that journalists simply do not own the news cycle: Even if Gawker, BuzzFeed News, and Fusion decided to stop covering it, others would take up the mantle. The new role of journalists, for better or for worse, isn’t as gatekeepers, but interpreters: If they don’t parse it, others without the experience, credentials, or mindfulness toward protecting personal information certainly will.

As Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, told me, “These aren’t new challenges — some of the greatest revelations in American history have come from sources with dubious or outright destructive motives. What’s more, we don’t imagine that our jobs are, or could imaginably be, to shield our readers from information that is widely available online, but rather to interpret it, explain it, and find insight into a powerful corporation and industry. We’ve been focused on reporting on information that offers that insight.”

It’s telling that so many involved in the dissemination of this knowledge, including myself, have found themselves conflicted. That hesitance, however, is at least in part responsible for the quality, and character, of much of the reporting thus far, which aligns with the central projects of both journalism and media studies in their most essential forms: making sense of how structures of power work and showing how, and why, the way they wield their power matters.

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/complicated-sony-ethics

[profgandalf]

Can Humor Be Holy?

A few years ago I was disturbed by an idea presented in Milan Kundera’s Book of Laughter and Forgetting. "Laughter” he writes “belongs to the devil because laughter happens when the meaning of things is subverted."  Now I, as a Christian, want to believe--in contrast to this--that laughter is firmly in the domain of Heaven because “all good things come from Him” (James 1: 17).  (Also I love to laugh although my enjoyment of something is hardly a measure of its healthfulness. I love coffee but doubt it will be in Heaven.) Still. if you’ve read my article about “Hallowing Halloween,” you know that my central argument is that Halloween should be used by Christian to mock the claims of supernatural power claimed by Satan and his followers.

Kundera has a Point:

That all being said, I must admit Kundera’s point.  Humor functions to undermine, to tear down, to prick someone’s bubble, to reveal the weakness of a position or stance.  That’s what it does: it points to the absurd and holds it up for ridicule. “All comedy,” according to John Cleese, “is critical.”  (For an excellent exposition on this see this short video in which he is featured.) This, however, may make many of us uncomfortable. First off we know that humor has been used to destroy or at least devalue what many of us thought of as being sacrosanct.  Sexual purity, love of country, the role of the father within the family are all concepts which have been held up for ridicule in contemporary comic media.  It should be noted that these ideas do not lose support because they are intrinsically weak but because there are so many who espoused them who were less than successful.  Their foolishness gave the humor a recognition of truth. Ralph Kramden, Fred Flintstone or Peter Griffin when bellowing that he is the head of the house is all the more absurd since each represents a class of men who may claim that without fulfilling it. Furthermore in argument the rhetorical tool of mockery is recognized as profoundly effective even when there reason provides little to advance a cause.  

”Senator, Your No Jack Kennedy”

Witness the famous line “"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."   This put-down was a remark made during the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to Republican vice-presidential candidate Sen. Dan Quayle.  It was devastating and yet in no way met the actual observations Quayle was making.  

Still as noted by Wikipedia “Bentsen's comment was played and replayed by the Democrats in their subsequent television ads as an announcer intoned: "Quayle: just a heartbeat away." It proved sure-laugh fodder for comedians, and more and more editorial cartoons depicted Quayle as a child (Saturday Night Live actually used a child actor to portray Quayle in several sketches.” (”Senator, Your No Jack Kennedy”)

Isn’t it Just Mean?

Many people of faith also wonder if tearing things down fits into the life-style consecrated to holiness a life-style supposedly epitomized by love, a goal that all serious believers are supposed to be aspiring towards.  Isn’t laughter, they wonder “by its very critical nature mean?” The reader may recall Buzz Lightyear’s suspicious confusion in Toystory, when facing Woody’s laughter over him not realizing he’s not a Space Ranger, not living in a world where aliens exist. “Your mocking me aren’t you?”  He doesn’t lie it and I for one felt a little bad for him.

(Side Note: My family finds this scene especially hysterical, pointing at me since apparently I periodically miss the ludicrousness I am revealing in my own behavior.) 

“Clueless Buzz” as the creators of the Toystory series call him does have his world crash down upon him and it is traumatic.  But the fact is that the befuddlement depicted is that of anyone who does not realize that he or she is being absurd. He is guilt of affectation not from hypocrisy but from ignorance.

Henry Fielding says that humor should be used to mock individuals out of affectation so that they will be better people.  But that means that the motivation of the comic must be wholesome.  What may be of some concern Buzz’s case is that the humor is not being used to improve him, but is instead being used by Woody to bring him down.  Oh sure he’s delusional and one can argue that having a true understanding of one’s self is vital for effective living (“You ARE a toy!”) But what is the real final intent of the mockery?  To put him in his place.

Keep in mind that in this scene Woody is using humor as a weapon against the toy who has replaced him in his high post in Andy’s affections as well as his room.  So does Buzz deserves this treatment because of his arrogance and self delusion?  It is interesting to note that in the film Woody finds himself cast out of Andy’s room because his own dark agenda is revealed.  And this “weaponization” is perhaps the point. 

Humor is a Weapon

Weapons are not always evil.  As a gun owner I affirm this. But they are always weapons. If gun can be used to stop evil perhaps wholesome humor, exists because some ideas deserve to be shown to be the absurdities they are. As I said in my article of Halloween, Satan’s Rebellion is a doomed farce and he knows it. But the struggle against evil requires weapons.  So, like it or not, humor is a weapon and perhaps a necessary one.

But when or how does one use a weapon?  Potentially a consciousness comedian might be like a consciousness objector.  The later asks “Can one use deadly force to do good?”  The first should wonder “Is it suitable to hold up others or things up for scorn?” Humor, it must be remembered, is a kind of force, a potentially dangerous one. It has recognized as such since ancient times.  However I affirm that it can be used in this way and still be Holy. Others may feel differently just as good people disagree with me about guns.

Weapons Must Be Used with Care

In the Stanford online Encyclopedia of Philosophy  John Morreall in his article on the “Philosophy of Humor” reminds readers that while “Aristotle considered wit a valuable part of conversation (Nicomachean Ethics 4, 8), he [also] agreed with Plato that laughter expresses scorn. 

Wit, he says in the Rhetoric (2, 12), is educated insolence. In the Nicomachean Ethics (4, 8) he warns that ‘Most people enjoy amusement and jesting more than they should … a jest is a kind of mockery, and lawgivers forbid some kinds of mockery—perhaps they ought to have forbidden some kinds of jesting.’  Morreall goes on to say “These objections to laughter and humor influenced early Christian thinkers, and through them later European culture” (”The Philosophy of Humor--Humor’s Bad Reputation.) 

This may explain why a blogger when posting an analysis of the concept of the laughing Jesus completely admits that the whole concept of a laughing Jesus is actually a “newish” concept (Check out Happy Jesus, Part 1:  ) He even goes on to quote  G.K. Chesterton

“There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.”  -G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1908)

Did Jesus laugh as the above opening painting suggest?  But at what?  Would he find anyone falling on a banana peel funny or would his empathy always make him go “aww” when a disciple missteped on the rocky Roman roads of the Holy Land? Did he think that watching Peter bubbling in the water as he sank under his own doubt hysterical?  I do, but did He? What about the look of incredulity of his disciples’ faces when he revealed himself as alive after stopping from the road to Emmaus?  And do you find the images of a teethy Christ which I found when looking for this article’s main painting, a bit creepy?  I confess I did.

This brings up another aspect of humor separate from the recognition of it as a powerful weapon.  

Humor is Often at Odds with Cultural Norms and Culture Shapes How We See It

Part of our discomfort of Holy Humor (and Jesus finding us funny) is that laughter has very little to do with how we traditionally view Christ.  Cultural expectations are powerful.   And understanding culture is a vital when talking about humor.

The aforementioned Kundera, for example, started life under the repressive regime of Communist Czechoslovakia, a nation at the time ruled by a system in which the authorities claimed to be good but crushed any who apposed it.  Any humorous criticism of the state would be branded as evil, a stance he personally embraced.  Thus, he is by inclination wanting to side with the rebellious.

Orthodoxy maintenance never has a sense of humor. (In another novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Kundera presents a character named  Sabina who admits to her distaste for parades, explains her feelings as being because in her Communist past children were forced to parade.  This stands in contrast to her all her western friends who love parades both official and for causes.) In The Book of Laughter and Forgetting Kundera sees the forces of Heaven as not being specifically always supporting the good but as powers which are concerned with maintaining God’s creation.  Thus, they are always by nature preserving never tearing down. Heaven keeps rules, Hell breaks them.  The trouble for us here on Earth is that we know that there are some rules which need to be broken.This is not an especially new idea

Kundera, in some ways, is articulating the ideas of the 17th century British poet William Blake who saw the active, dynamic poet organically as being rebellious in contrast to those in culture who are submissive and sedative as being Godly.  Specifically he was trying to explain why for many readers Milton in Paradise Lost is so compelling but somehow is less so in Paradise Regained:

The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it. (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell ca. 1790–93)

The trouble then comes down to the basic assumption that goodness is supposed to be non-aggressiveness, submissive, and un-confrontational, but does any of that actually describe Christ?  The answer is a resounding no. 

Humor a Weapon in A Holy War

I will concede that humor, like any weapon, can be misused.  I have seen it done so.  I will also admit that humor has been an effective tool to make me laugh at what I should not.  Sexual promiscuity is destructive and making jokes about the break down of a family’s moral structure should not be funny.  However none of that takes away from the profoundly healthful and important role holy humor has in our world.  It is a weapon against darkness.

Henry Fielding began his ground-breaking work (today called “a novel”) on a belief in the moral value of humor.  In his Preface to Joseph Andrews, part of his first great comic novel, Fielding argues for the moral importance of humor--tying it in to what he as a neo-Augustine would have considered the height of art, the classics,  He describes his work as  the “Comic Epic in Prose.”  He makes it clear that for him there is only one worthy target for humor, that of human folly in affectation:

The only source of the true Ridiculous (as it appears to me) is affectation. But tho’ it arises from one spring only, when we consider the infinite streams into which this one branches, we shall presently cease to admire at the copious field it affords to an observer. Now affectation proceeds from one of these two causes; vanity, or hypocrisy: for as vanity puts us on affecting false characters, in order to purchase applause; so hypocrisy sets us on an endeavour to avoid censure by concealing our vices under an appearance of their opposite virtues. and tho’ these two causes are often confounded, (for they require some distinguishing;) yet, as they proceed from very different motives, so they are as clearly distinct in their operations: for indeed, the affectation which arises from vanity is nearer to truth than the other; as it hath not that violent repugnancy of nature to struggle with, which that of the hypocrite hath.

And so Fielding perhaps best calls the best of what Holy Humor is.  It is a weapon that should be aimed at the folly we all carry within us.  Cleese in the above cited video mentions what he calls the most inclusive of jokes; “How Does one make God laugh?  Answer: Tell him your iron clad plans.”  CS Lewis in his epistolary novel The Screwtape Letters (which Cleese actually performed in the audio book version of) indented his “book as a fairly humorous work, Lewis's goals included both reflections on the nature of evil and an effort to create a different portrayal of the Devil than the sort normally seen in pop culture. Screwtape has practically No Sense of Humor himself, and comes across as a sort of cranky cosmic killjoy” (TV Tropes “Screwtape letters”)  Humor is a great weapon which is especially dramatized as Screwtape in a rage at being a source of entertainment to the patient’s love interest (the kind of woman who would find ME funny) turns himself into a worm.. In Christ’s hands and in ours humor should be used to laugh us out of our own folly and the diabolical forces who attempt to use it.

[theinquisitivej]

‘Dunkirk’ - A Movie Review

Doing something slightly different this time round. I wanted to do a full review for Christopher Nolan's latest film, but looking back on the brief review I posted a while back to capture my initial thoughts on 'Dunkirk', I think that more or less captures my stance on the film. There have been other people in the intervening time who have given their full thoughts on the movie, and I think I won't be able to put out a review that does anything more than go over what I've already said, or that other people haven't said better. So, I figured I'd repost my brief review, and then talk about five things about the movie that interest me or I feel are worth talking about. This will likely be a one-off thing, so I hope you don't mind a minor change in structure!

A Short Review

          Go see this film, and DEFINITELY go see it on the big screen, with a loud sound system, and make your viewing experience as big as you can make it. It's visceral, has an astounding soundtrack, and keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the entire experience, even if it lacks complex characters or heart. There are some of the Nolan drawbacks, but this is his best film since 'Inception'.

#1: Nolan and Dialogue

          I know everyone’s already mentioned how little dialogue there is in a film, but that really is surprising for a Nolan movie! Think about how important the conversations are to ‘The Dark Knight’, where discussions about characters and their ethics is what gets to the meat of that story, or in ‘Inception’, where the experience was made by a cast of actors that made you buy the mechanics and stakes of diving into the multiple levels of a person’s subconscious. Both ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ and ‘Interstellar’ suffered for its dialogue, which veered into hamfisted and unfocused territories at times. The strengths and weaknesses of Nolan’s style of directing can be observed within his dialogue, so for him to come out with a film that relies very little on the spoken word is genuinely startling. The less charitable would say this is an overcorrection in response to the criticisms he’s received. However, I would only call it an overcorrection if ‘Dunkirk’ suffered as a result of this creative choice, but I don’t think it does. The events are easy to understand without explicit explanation, and the measured conversation means that far more focus is placed on the characters’ actions. Hoyte Van Hoytema did the cinematography (his previous work includes ‘Interstellar’, ‘Spectre’, and ‘Her’, to name a few), and he not only manages to effectively convey the haunting nature of the landscapes and stark visuals of the beach, but also directs our attention to objects of significance, allowing us to discern what choices our characters are presented with, and question what the consequences of those choices might be. I’m a fan of Nolan’s dialogue when he’s on point, but here he has shown that he’s just as capable at directing a film that mainly speaks through visual storytelling.

#2: Timelines

          I like the fact that we had three equally compelling stories that depicted different perspectives of Dunkirk, and I appreciate the way the film blends them together so that the sense of scale is heightened and we get to experience tension as different conflicts and climaxes overlap one another. But I’m honestly not sure whether directing our attention to the varying timescales of each storyline was necessary. On the one hand, it lessened the confusion once we start seeing an event that happened in one story revisited later in the film in another storyline. On the other hand, the varying timescales aren’t so vital to the overall narrative that you need a thorough understanding of how Nolan is playing with time, as you might when watching ‘Memento’ or ‘Inception’. As such, it’s unconventional enough for the audience to take notice, but it doesn’t add much to the experience beyond being a slightly different way to structure the movie. It��s not much of a fault, and I wouldn’t say it detracts from the film, but it is one of ‘Dunkirk’s superfluous elements.

#3: Did this film need to be R-Rated?

          The review for ‘Dunkirk’ on YourMovieSucks (check out this Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/YourMovieSucksDOTorg/videos for some very astute criticisms that look at the fine details of a film) was insightful and very enjoyable, but I found myself disagreeing with one point in the video about the film’s minimal depiction of gore in its efforts to be PG-13. The reviewer mentions that this was the film that made him realise Nolan hasn’t directed an 18 / R-Rated movie since ‘Insomnia’, and that at times you feel the film is being disingenuous by showing bombs dropping and the only effect we see is earth and sand falling on the prone soldiers rather than body parts and gore. This is a reasonable observation, but I feel the music and cinematography throughout the film sells the intensity of the situation well enough without the need for gore. That’s not to say that realistic depictions are the wrong way to go, as ‘Saving Private Ryan’ uses gore to masterful effect in its presentation of the horrors of war. I just think that there are multiple ways to convey a particular effect or theme, and sometimes sticking with one or two methods rather than trying to use all of them at once results in a streamlined creative work that distinguishes itself from other films by going about it in a different way. ‘Dunkirk’ and ‘Saving Private Ryan’ are two very different war movies, both in what themes they choose to focus on and how they deliver their stories, and I’m glad we have multiple unique war movies, each one with their own unique style. Like I said, this review is very well written, and it acknowledges most of this stuff I’ve mentioned within the video. All I mean to say is that the lack of gore and the limitations of the age rating system never bothered me while I was watching the film.

#4: The French at Dunkirk

          This movie fixates on what the battle meant for the British. The main cast of characters is mainly British with one exception, the film occasionally celebrates the efforts of both British soldiers and civilians during this event, and one of the film’s final images is an icon of British military strength in ruins that somehow seems glorious for being so. There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of pride, especially because ‘Dunkirk’ makes sure to concede that its Brits aren’t all perfect soldiers, as some make terrible mistakes as they look out for their own survival. And yet when there is so little focused on the French perspective and their involvement during this battle, this pride comes across as somewhat exclusive. ‘Dunkirk’ is about the experience of soldiers waiting to be rescued and the efforts being made by other people to evacuate them, and that’s an engaging aspect of the battle to focus on. But it does mean that the many French giving their lives on the front line are only briefly depicted. I don’t think Nolan or anyone involved in making ‘Dunkirk’ directly intended to exclude the French from this story, but that doesn’t mean that some audience members won’t find this element of the film to be problematic. It’s still a high-quality experience, but it’s worth mentioning the characteristics that might rub some the wrong way.

#5: Deeper Characterisation vs. Creating a Visceral Experience

          The one thing most people agree is missing from ‘Dunkirk’ is deeper characterisation to inject some heart into the film. The lack of dialogue establishes an intense tone as everyone onscreen silently keeps to themselves. It’s as if the film is actively refusing to establish a sense of comradery between these characters, as many of them are intent on just making it through the day. I enjoyed the atmosphere this creates considerably, but it’s undeniable that, without those moments where characters open up and offer something about themselves, ‘Dunkirk’s characters are often only skin-deep. There are many times where the sea of interchangeable white soldiers with dark hair makes me wonder which one is which. But I ultimately agree with the sentiment expressed in Chris Stuckmann’s review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SglFUPQVnM ) when he mentions his friend who suggested that if you were in this situation, it’s quite likely that you wouldn’t be in a talkative, sharing mood. It makes sense enough thematically to me, and if this concession is necessary to create a film that puts you on the edge of your seat as you soak in the tense beach scenes that manage to balance between uneasy shots of exposed soldiers in vast landscapes and uncomfortable claustrophobic scenarios, then I think it’s worth it. Add to that some of the best spitfire dogfighting action you’ll ever see in film, as well as the anxiety you feel watching the storyline unfold on the civilian boat, and ‘Dunkirk’ succeeds at creating a memorable and thrilling experience, even without a rich cast of characters.

9/10.

While faults can be found in ‘Dunkirk’ which will be more problematic depending on the viewer, its technical accomplishments, atmosphere, and excellent soundtrack make it one of the most intense films to watch this year.

[erinannflood]

Start With Who

Start with Who Simon Sinek is by far one of the greatest thought leaders of our time. Almost religiously and on numerous occasions, I’ve implemented his “start with why” model and received positive results in doing so. When introduced, it challenged new and existing businesses to think differently, and pull on the emotions of consumers rather than their purse strings. It offered us the challenge of inventing a new way of thinking; outside of the box and with creative tact. Since the release of his now viral TED talk, we continue to see praise for the Sinek model, and it has been a for certain positive addition to education curriculums far and wide. While I believe myself to be a dedicated ambassador to the start with why model, I’d like to propose the addition of an extra layer: The Who. 

The “Who”, is not lost on the Sinek model when we seek to capture our intended audiences attention, but let’s talk about the who behind the whole operation and dig a level deeper to better understand the motives & values of any leader/creator.

 Finding the Wizard of Oz

Let’s talk politics. The political sphere today has been exposed as ripe for disruption (in near every single way).  We’re witnessing a change in voter narratives, where expectations have become centered around charisma and likability scores and away from party platform commitments and promises. The successful political leaders today pose the greatest knack for resonating with the people.

 Trump, “spoke to the people”, making people feel “like it’s my best friend talking to me”, and with this won the votes by virtually saying nothing at all. Trudeau has excellent hair, can pull off one hell of a “plank” and as of recently has gotten some serious points for his impeccable derrière. We have seemingly strayed away from reading the fine lines of policy, and cuddled up closely to the candidate that serves us with the simplest reflection of ourselves.  We are given an unlimited range of choice in our everyday lives, and Trump’s win speaks volumes of how this unlimited choice might actually be the opposite of what people want. We want a person that speaks to our values and follows a story narrative that we can envision ourselves starring as the hero. We want human.

 When thinking of the products that we buy, or the people and places that we invest our time and money, how often are we able to recall the characteristics or story of the human that sits behind the curtains, at the very foundation?  More and more today, we do see younger generations paying attention to this, and that is important for the world. However, we still have plenty of room to grow. In the same way that we emotionally invest in our politicians, we need not to sit complacent when it comes to understanding the human values of brands, organizations or networks we choose to buy into. We must better educate ourselves on the “Who”.

 There is the ability for massive impact on the world when we choose to rationally frame our decisions around the values of the creators and all too often we turn a blind eye on this opportunity. By focusing on the people behind the curtains, we understand how their personal stories align into the “Why”.

 Human Centric values and the importance of a shifted education system

 Why the “start with who” model is of the utmost importance today: We’re living through a time that movie directors never dreamed would actually become reality.  Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning are leading the forefront of innovation today. The potential is pretty well limitless, and it will be up to human interference to dictate the results and how this will impact the world.  Currently, the AI environment poses many questions that have yet to be answered, and we are actively investing R & D to find these answers for further exploration. Presumably, if we continue to keep the AI environment controlled as it is today, the positives should continue to outweigh the potential negatives. This is precisely why we need to think of how this changing landscape impacts every area of our lives and the lives of future generations.

 We’ve been through this before, and we’ve witnessed a generation blanketed in fear when the first computer was introduced, and John F. Kennedy only perpetuated the fear by citing the biggest domestic barrier of the 1960’s would be to “maintain full employment at a time when machine automation is…replacing men”-the Economist Guess what? We survived. And we survived because as Darwin once suggested, we learn to adapt to our rapidly changing landscapes: as it becomes a matter of survival.

   Back in 2013, economists at Oxford University’s Martin School estimated that in the next 20 years, more than half of all jobs would be substituted by intelligent technology.

 …And that’s okay. If executed correctly, we stand to receive massive benefits from this technological revolution in that it may afford us with much more flexibility to be both progressive and creative in our daily jobs.

 We live in a world where it has become almost ubiquitous that children own a smart device of some type.  It’s rare, at least largely in the Western world, to see a child out in public without their device.  It’s fascinating the pace in which children today adopt technology, and develop dependency at an early age. While this is productive and progressive in preparing our children to being skilled in the jobs that the current tech-centric market demands, it’s equally as important to find the balance of educating them with basic human skills. This brings about the often-overlooked importance of integrating philosophy and ethics into the classroom more regularly, and early on.

 We must invest in educating a population of people that can think differently, think for themselves and allow these skills to be the differentiating factors between AI capabilities & human capabilities.

 "The teaching of philosophy,” he said in November, “is one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal to empower children into acting as free and responsible subjects in an ever more complex, interconnected, and uncertain world.” Philosophy in the classroom, he emphasized, offers a “path to a humanistic and vibrant democratic culture"

 We need to begin shifting our focus to the soft skills, alongside the hard skills because the soft skills are the ones not so easily replaced. And we need not only to depend on these skills, we need to invest in educating people on how they’re to be applied in the everyday world. 

    "Real because even if you’ve got the vocational skills, you’re no help to us without these human skills, the things that we can’t write down, or program a computer to do. Real skills can’t replace vocational skills, of course not. What they can do is amplify the things you’ve already been measuring.”-Seth Godin

 While it may seem so, the purpose of this piece is not to paint a picture of impending doom for the world of AI, but rather to encourage a generation made up of responsibility for the future, and not anxiety. In order to do this, we need to ensure the soft skills category includes the emotional teachings of such things as human compassion, empathy and a genuine regard for human existence and ability. When we invest in organizations and networks, often time we don’t place any consideration into acquiring a deeper understanding of the humans who built the foundations and what values upon. How many times have you been introduced in a room, as your name, and your title at the organization you work with? We forget to forge strong relationships with people, because somewhere along the way that importance was lost in a world of content overload and instant gratification. Upon a recent visit to Morocco, it became very clear to me that when you remove the constant bombards of technology, you witness a rosier picture of humans. A picture painted with humans respecting other humans, regardless of their upbringings, religion, sexuality, political stance etc. My new friend, Abdullah, put it simply. Upon passing 4 young school children walking down the long stretching highway to school; “In our world, this is regarded as completely normal, because at the end of the day, their children are our children and we inherently know to look out for them”, he further stated his confusion when learning of children in the western world and the current bubble wrap generation we bring them into. Focus on people, not things and that's something really beautiful that I think we've lost pieces of along the way.

 Arguably, all that many of us have afforded ourselves are "things". Where many people in the world have much less financially speaking, ultimately they possess much more wealth in the things that matter: people and relationships. Starting with “Who” allows you to expand your network of people and become the richest person on earth in the correct sense of the word. It’s up for debate on what nations will thrive in coming years, but surely there will be something to be said about the “tech laggard” countries and how they might just emerge on top by way of their consistent focus on human relationships and the soft skills to support that.

 "It is theorized that intelligence of humans can be described and intelligent machines or software can simulate it. These machines or software can reason, plan, learn, perceive and process information like human mind and thus facilitate human life.”

 Now, pair this with the activities outside of work that make us unique in the world, and you begin to see why humans aren’t all that easily replaceable. For example, an experience climbing Mount Kilimanjaro and the emotions that are evoked from that type of experience are extremely personable, and not soon to be duplicated. Because our jobs aren’t actually what define us; our passions, our values and our everyday pursuits do.

 "Yet humanists argue that mindless automation will continue to get more powerful, and more pervasive, but fundamentally the world remains ours to create.” The Atlantic

 And create, we will. We may actually be afforded the greater challenge of thinking more ingeniously than ever before, and as AI advances, it may allow us to excel in these pursuits.

 “The jobs that are least vulnerable to automation tend to be held by women” –The Atlantic

Reason behind this primarily being that the jobs women dominate are the ones that require high EQ’s, something that is unique to the individual and challenged to respond to unstructured, chaotic environments (ones that cannot be easily programmed). So while a robot is highly intelligent, you stand to do yourself a favor by expanding your skill set, both soft and hard, giving yourself indispensable status.

 "What they hold in common is a firm belief that “artificial intelligence” is a misnomer—real intelligence comes from human minds—and a conviction that a fascination with computer intelligence tends to diminish and even imperil human intelligence.”- The Atlantic

  With technology production moving at speeds in which none of us could have predicted, we also see a shift in how once highly sought after jobs like developers, become a commodity, and placed amongst the blue collar ranks. “Automation is now “blind to the colour of your collar”, declares Jerry Kaplan.

 This is one opinion, that falls under the coined “lump of labour” fallacy, whereby the assumption is made that if automation and AI dominates the working class, then the need for these people may be deemed inadequate. “The assumption that the quantity of labor required in an overall economy is fixed. This assumption in often regarded as fallacious, as the consensus view amongst economists today is that the quantity of labor demanded varies with respect to many factors. Foremost, these economists argue, employment of labor can expand the overall size of the economy, leading to further job creation. Reducing the amount of labor employed would decrease overall economic activity and thus further decrease the demand for labor.”Investopedia

 It is to our greatest benefit to find common ground between those believing in human existence and their impending doom and those who believe this to be fallacious. A marriage between the perspectives held by humanists, and the creators of AI, means the creation of newly defined roles that support the technological advancements while continuing to nurture human ability and the skills that are inherently engrained. We may then begin to envision the realm of possibility for working alongside Siri and the like. “rather than destroying jobs, automation redefines them, and in ways that reduce costs and boost demand”— automation sped up one aspect of a job, enabling workers to do the other parts better. ”-The Economist Through focusing more of our efforts on finding the healthy balance in how we educate ourselves, and generation to come, we adapt- we’ve continually adapted to disruptive technology, and we’ll continue to do so, as long as we remember the importance of human intelligence.

 So while I value the great ingenuity that comes with AI & Machine Learning, I value human empathy and the beautiful complexity of emotions that cannot be replaced. I value a world that focuses on human relationships, with and without technology to facilitate. And, I welcome this new wave of innovation with an open-mind, and a readiness to educate myself on how it can be leveraged to build a better world.

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________

 “Like winds and sunsets, wild things were taken for granted until progress began to do away with them. Now we face the question whether a still higher 'standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild and free. For us of the minority, the opportunity to see geese is more important than television.”  ― Aldo Leopold

[cover32-yahoopartner-blog]

Top Ten Defensive Linemen the Seattle Seahawks Could Draft

The Seattle Seahawks’s front defensive four could use some quality depth and the interior portion of the defensive line is the area with the biggest need. The Seahawks got just two-and-a-half sacks from players listed as defensive tackles last season. (The team overall had 42 sacks.) Granted, interior rush has never been an important part of the Seahawks’ scheme but Seattle needs to do a better job than last year. Seattle has a real chance to acquire a difference maker in this year’s National Football League draft. Here are ten defensive line prospects who could wind up in a Seahawks uniform.

1. DT Malik McDowell, Michigan State

An ideal hybrid lineman, McDowell can excel either on the outside or the interior. Seattle has certainly showed love for players of this type, including Pro Bowl defensive end Michael Bennett and Quinton Jefferson. Standing six-foot-six and weighing 276 pounds, size is not an issue. McDowell plays with great tenacity and always plays through the whistle. Very strong, able to bull over would-be blockers to blow up plays. He has variety of finesse moves as well to always keep opponents guessing. McDowell has immense potential, and would fit the Seahawks system beautifully.

2. DT Caleb Brantley, Florida

Sporting outstanding initial quickness and power, Brantley’s size maybe should be less of a concern than it is. As good at crushing the pocket around opposing quarterbacks as anybody, he could be a real nightmare. Bringing elite physicality and work ethic to the field, he looks like a perfect for Seattle’s interior. Any pass rush that Brantley could muster would reap great benefits. He has great use of hands to keep blockers off despite average arm length. At just six-foot-two, scouts seem to be knocking him almost purely on his frame.

3. DE Vidauntae Charlton, Michigan

A potential every down-player, Charlton would be hard to pass up. NFL scouts are searching more and more for players that don’t have to come off the field multiple times per drive. Very sizable in frame, and elite in toughness and endurance; Charlton has all the tools to be a legit National Football League player. He had 9.5 sacks in 2016. Obviously his pass rush ability is there, but does need some tuning. However, playing under the likes of Bennett and Cliff Avril a season or two could help refine that very quickly. Charlton’s strength was nearly unmatched at the college level but he must continue putting on muscle in the pros. Charlton also has the ability to play multiple positions along the line.

4. DT Carlos Watkins, Clemson

One of the vital pieces to Clemson’s championship defense in 2016, Watkins could be equally important in Seattle. A 312-pound mammoth of a man, he clogs up the middle as well as anyone else in this draft. Watkins possesses all the physical attributes to be an excellent player, but his technique could certainly use some work. Watkins is extremely effective at holding his position and simply being immovable in the run game. To put things plainly, he would fit in well with his would-be teammates in the Emerald City.

5. DE DeMarcus Walker, Florida State

A prospect that could bring a real pass rush to Seattle, Walker is thought to be one of the better front-line rushers in this draft. The big plus for Seattle comes in his versatility. He has showed a knack for getting pressure from both the interior and on the edge. His size should translate well to the N.F.L. His balance and quickness off the ball allows both to be his natural positions. Penetrating the backfield is no issue for Walker, but doing it on a regular basis in the N.F.L. will likely be necessary if he hopes to really make an impact.

AROUND COVER32

Daily Dime: What happens when Brady turns 40?

Predictions:: Way too early 2017 NFL predictions

NFL Draft:: The five most polarizing prospects in this year’s draft class

6. DT Dalvin Tomlinson, Alabama

Potentially joining his former teammate Jarran Reed, Tomlinson would fit in just as well on Seattle’s roster. Tomlinson and Reed are almost perfect mirrors of each other on paper – both six-foot-three, Tomlinson weighs ONE more pound. Tomlinson almost resembles a linebacker, and could certainly play the edge in the N.F.L. He does have an injury background (two torn ACLs), however. He can clog up gaps and get into the backfield, both from the outside or the interior. He has great use of hands, arm length and overall physical attributes. Tomlinson lacks finesse at the point of attack, often relying on ineffective bull-rushes against bigger offensive lineman. He has room to grow, but his ceiling is very very high.

7. DT Elijah Qualls, Washington

The obvious plus involving Qualls: he played college in Seattle. The Seahawks could certainly benefit from this as the 321-pound Qualls is little known outside of the west coast. This might make drafting the pure run-stuffing Qualls a bit easier. He has not lost his balance as often as some may expect at the next level which has allowed him to be effective so long as he has kept his pad level low. All that weight is packed into a six-foot-one frame that Seahawks fans would love to see in the interior. Athleticism is there, but Qualls’ consistency is still his biggest area for improvement.

8. DT Chris Wormley, Michigan

You guessed it. Wormley fits the description for yet another possible versatile option up front. His true position is very much in question, though. He seems to sit right in the middle of the margin for determining either a primary tackle or end. Busting through the point of attack on both running and passing plays has been a true strength for Wormley. He had 14.5 tackles for loss and 6.5 sacks last season. Consistency and some small technical tweaks must get better, but overall Wormley’s N.F.L. future is very bright.

9. DE Tarell Basham, Ohio

Basham’s biggest and maybe only knock comes from the conference in which he spent his college career. Playing in the MAC, it is tough to translate the numbers he compiles to the competition of the more top-tier college football conferences. However, no matter the opposition ten sacks and 14.5 tackles for loss in a season will always turn heads. Lacking versatility inside Basham could easily play end in the N.F.L. or stand in a two-point stance and rush from the backer spot. His initial quickness is unmatched, and he has infinite amounts of finesse moves to work around the opposing blocker and blow up plays. He always keeps his balance and his pad level stays low. Basham could be an outstanding prospect to experiment for the Seahawks.

10. DT Montravius Adams, Auburn

A big and stocky but sturdy interior prospect, Adams could be a serious under-the-radar gem. He carries his size well, coming off the ball quick and beating blockers at the point of attack. He is great at stopping the run, but shows great ability to penetrate. Adams looks as though he has room to grow in muscular build, however. Adams needs to zero in on a few technical miscues but looks great in technique.

The post Top Ten Defensive Linemen the Seattle Seahawks Could Draft appeared first on Cover32.