I thought I was done with this blog, considering that I had more or less exhausted my ideas and my stash of articles.
Apparently I was wrong.
I stumbled upon this article just last night, and I feel the irresistible urge to post this one. I've reached a point where few things surprise me these days. This makes this article all the more shocking, as it has managed to shock me.
Article
Someone at this particular school thought it would be a hilarious prank to blindfold certain students, then have them make out with their opposite-sex parent. This person was clearly having a great day, because their brain said: "Hey, you know what would be EVEN funnier?". And thus these parents were NOT blindfolded. Yes, these parents willingly and knowingly made out with their child.
As the article points out, you actually do see a mother pull her son's hand down to grab her ass. You can see it at 0:28 in the video. What really gets me though, is how the video says, at the very end "Embarrassing, right?". I believe the word they were looking for was "disturbing".
On that note, I hope you enjoyed reading this blog as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Friday 16 December 2011
Thursday 15 December 2011
On the dangers of the internet and Scientology...
Here are a few articles I've found in the past few weeks.
Article 1
This first one is an article regarding the decapitation of a grocery store clerk. I find this particular article to be particularly stupid, considering that it barely makes any mention of video games, despite the fact that the title includes "...was keen online gamer". The mentions of video gaming felt more like an after-thought, as though the authors (or their superiors) decided to tack it on, either for the sake of sensationalism, or because they absolutely want to bash gaming.
Further down, they mention that the victim had played Assassin's Creed, and felt the need to mention that it included a decapitation scene, at which point they go on to mention that the police were only using the consoles to try and see who the victim had been playing with/against. Essentially, I feel that none of these comments were necessary, and simply reflect a bias against gaming.
Article 2
This next article simply demonstrates the dangers of the internet for small businesses. You need to be careful about what you put up on the internet, because you clearly never know who might be reading.
Article 3
This last one, if the story proves to be true, is by far the most disturbing of these three. Apparently, a woman was held captive aboard a Scientology cruise ship for more than a decade.
The big problem with this article, but especially with the story itself, is that we don't really know enough about the situation to be able to conclusively pick a side. On one hand, the woman's story is shocking and appalling, enough that we would want to sympathize with her, especially considering that the article focuses on her side of the story.
However, reading the statement made by the Church of Scientology, we get a completely different picture. Apparently, she was a volunteer crew member, and had even met her husband during this time. Said husband denies her allegations, and the statement argues that she took several extended trips to various countries, during which she passed through customs. Even assuming that customs would have records of her passage, we cannot be sure that she necessarily went willingly.
The big issue in this case is that it's the word of one woman versus the word of a powerful (and rich) organization, for whom keeping such things secret is in its best interests. Again, the article does not provide us with enough information to make an informed decision as to who we choose to believe.
Lastly, even if the whole story was indeed a fabrication, we need to ask ourselves: why would she make such allegations in the first place? What are her motives for doing so?
Article 1
This first one is an article regarding the decapitation of a grocery store clerk. I find this particular article to be particularly stupid, considering that it barely makes any mention of video games, despite the fact that the title includes "...was keen online gamer". The mentions of video gaming felt more like an after-thought, as though the authors (or their superiors) decided to tack it on, either for the sake of sensationalism, or because they absolutely want to bash gaming.
Further down, they mention that the victim had played Assassin's Creed, and felt the need to mention that it included a decapitation scene, at which point they go on to mention that the police were only using the consoles to try and see who the victim had been playing with/against. Essentially, I feel that none of these comments were necessary, and simply reflect a bias against gaming.
Article 2
This next article simply demonstrates the dangers of the internet for small businesses. You need to be careful about what you put up on the internet, because you clearly never know who might be reading.
Article 3
This last one, if the story proves to be true, is by far the most disturbing of these three. Apparently, a woman was held captive aboard a Scientology cruise ship for more than a decade.
The big problem with this article, but especially with the story itself, is that we don't really know enough about the situation to be able to conclusively pick a side. On one hand, the woman's story is shocking and appalling, enough that we would want to sympathize with her, especially considering that the article focuses on her side of the story.
However, reading the statement made by the Church of Scientology, we get a completely different picture. Apparently, she was a volunteer crew member, and had even met her husband during this time. Said husband denies her allegations, and the statement argues that she took several extended trips to various countries, during which she passed through customs. Even assuming that customs would have records of her passage, we cannot be sure that she necessarily went willingly.
The big issue in this case is that it's the word of one woman versus the word of a powerful (and rich) organization, for whom keeping such things secret is in its best interests. Again, the article does not provide us with enough information to make an informed decision as to who we choose to believe.
Lastly, even if the whole story was indeed a fabrication, we need to ask ourselves: why would she make such allegations in the first place? What are her motives for doing so?
Wednesday 14 December 2011
From the mind of Fred
This particular post is going to be a compilation of several thoughts that came to me during the last few lectures of the semester. Though Kate has already heard them, I figured it would be nice to record them... for posterity. Most of them have to do with surveillance.
First, in class, Mel brought up the topic of washrooms. She told us how much she hates being able to hear the other women in the bathroom while they pee. When I heard this, it got me thinking. The dynamics of washrooms is completely different for men and women. Though women may be able to hear one another, at least they're separated by stalls. Most men's washrooms don't have any form of separation between urinals. Thus, there is that unwritten and unspoken code that men must avoid all eye-contact, and simply look straight ahead. This proximity also means that we can heard each other. Thus, men have the added factor of sight when conducting this particular business. A bit of extra surveillance (such as a guard) probably wouldn't hurt us nearly as much as it would the ladies. But then, am I saying that I would like to have surveillance even in washrooms? No. Never. It wouldn't be doing a favour to those with shy bladders.
The second thing that got me thinking was Jared's comment regarding God. He posited that with the disappearance of God in our societies (relatively speaking...), we have much less surveillance to put up with, since the eyes of God never leave you. As a result, the constant video surveillance we are under would constitute a downgrade of that, considering that these cameras (currently) do not cover every single location; you still have a good deal of privacy.
Though I don't quite know where Jared stands on this issue (I can guess though), I am an atheist, and I would disagree with his point. While I can agree that cameras may be a step down in terms of absolute surveillance, I do not agree that they are necessarily better, for two reasons. First, I never believed in God, even as a kid. Thus, I've never really felt the eyes of God on me, and never felt bound by that. This has never stopped me from trying to do what I think is right. Secondly, and more importantly, the footage captured by cameras is reviewed (or viewed, if live) by other humans like ourselves. God may be judging us based on our actions, but he is also omniscient, and probably doesn't care if you happen to pick your nose while you're at the mall. However, security guard #1 is probably laughing his ass off, and showing security guards #2 and 3. They may even have put it up on youtube. Thus, the problem with this type of surveillance is that although it is not absolute, the people doing the watching are just as fallible as we are, and you can be sure that they are casting hasty, uninformed judgements upon those they spy upon. Lastly, were it not for this type of surveillance, I would have even more privacy, given that I don't have God watching me, and I wouldn't have cameras recording my every move. Accepting cameras as a lesser evil to the surveillance of God would be like telling oneself that the Alberta Sterilization Act wasn't so bad, because at least we didn't kill any of the feeble-minded; we simply sterilized them.
This brings me to a point that Phil has made a few times, and that I have been mulling over. Phil claims that surveillance is only bad if you have done something wrong. I would argue that this is not the case. As I pointed out above, the people watching you through that camera are human, and prone to making fun of people. More importantly though, cameras actually RECORD what you do. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate my point: you're at a mall, in plain sight of a camera (though you probably haven't noticed it), and you sneeze without putting your hand in front of your mouth. Normally, if someone else had seen you do it, you'd have a chance to pass it off as something else, or otherwise redeem yourself in their eyes, by justifying yourself. However, that camera and its footage will not accept excuses, and won't be fooled by any of your attempts at saving face. Instead, that camera will remember what happened with completely clarity. More importantly, the person watching can access that footage. What happens if they post this footage on youtube? Next thing you know, you could be framed as a threat to public health, simply because of this, despite the fact that people everywhere are doing it all the time. Why you?
The problem with this kind of surveillance is that you are under much closer scrutiny than you otherwise would be, even surrounded by dozens of people. A camera will catch every single little thing you do, every slip up. Thus, with this kind of scrutiny, it is easy for people to become far more critical of one another, because we can more clearly see each other's flaws. We are all human, and we are all flawed (usually in much the same ways). However, we all have ways of hiding these flaws, or passing them off as something else. With cameras, these mechanisms cannot work, and so they are able to pierce this veil of perfection that we cast around ourselves. Thus, I would argue that constant surveillance can only lead to more problems, because we are being held to a much greater standard that none of us are capable of upholding.
First, in class, Mel brought up the topic of washrooms. She told us how much she hates being able to hear the other women in the bathroom while they pee. When I heard this, it got me thinking. The dynamics of washrooms is completely different for men and women. Though women may be able to hear one another, at least they're separated by stalls. Most men's washrooms don't have any form of separation between urinals. Thus, there is that unwritten and unspoken code that men must avoid all eye-contact, and simply look straight ahead. This proximity also means that we can heard each other. Thus, men have the added factor of sight when conducting this particular business. A bit of extra surveillance (such as a guard) probably wouldn't hurt us nearly as much as it would the ladies. But then, am I saying that I would like to have surveillance even in washrooms? No. Never. It wouldn't be doing a favour to those with shy bladders.
The second thing that got me thinking was Jared's comment regarding God. He posited that with the disappearance of God in our societies (relatively speaking...), we have much less surveillance to put up with, since the eyes of God never leave you. As a result, the constant video surveillance we are under would constitute a downgrade of that, considering that these cameras (currently) do not cover every single location; you still have a good deal of privacy.
Though I don't quite know where Jared stands on this issue (I can guess though), I am an atheist, and I would disagree with his point. While I can agree that cameras may be a step down in terms of absolute surveillance, I do not agree that they are necessarily better, for two reasons. First, I never believed in God, even as a kid. Thus, I've never really felt the eyes of God on me, and never felt bound by that. This has never stopped me from trying to do what I think is right. Secondly, and more importantly, the footage captured by cameras is reviewed (or viewed, if live) by other humans like ourselves. God may be judging us based on our actions, but he is also omniscient, and probably doesn't care if you happen to pick your nose while you're at the mall. However, security guard #1 is probably laughing his ass off, and showing security guards #2 and 3. They may even have put it up on youtube. Thus, the problem with this type of surveillance is that although it is not absolute, the people doing the watching are just as fallible as we are, and you can be sure that they are casting hasty, uninformed judgements upon those they spy upon. Lastly, were it not for this type of surveillance, I would have even more privacy, given that I don't have God watching me, and I wouldn't have cameras recording my every move. Accepting cameras as a lesser evil to the surveillance of God would be like telling oneself that the Alberta Sterilization Act wasn't so bad, because at least we didn't kill any of the feeble-minded; we simply sterilized them.
This brings me to a point that Phil has made a few times, and that I have been mulling over. Phil claims that surveillance is only bad if you have done something wrong. I would argue that this is not the case. As I pointed out above, the people watching you through that camera are human, and prone to making fun of people. More importantly though, cameras actually RECORD what you do. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate my point: you're at a mall, in plain sight of a camera (though you probably haven't noticed it), and you sneeze without putting your hand in front of your mouth. Normally, if someone else had seen you do it, you'd have a chance to pass it off as something else, or otherwise redeem yourself in their eyes, by justifying yourself. However, that camera and its footage will not accept excuses, and won't be fooled by any of your attempts at saving face. Instead, that camera will remember what happened with completely clarity. More importantly, the person watching can access that footage. What happens if they post this footage on youtube? Next thing you know, you could be framed as a threat to public health, simply because of this, despite the fact that people everywhere are doing it all the time. Why you?
The problem with this kind of surveillance is that you are under much closer scrutiny than you otherwise would be, even surrounded by dozens of people. A camera will catch every single little thing you do, every slip up. Thus, with this kind of scrutiny, it is easy for people to become far more critical of one another, because we can more clearly see each other's flaws. We are all human, and we are all flawed (usually in much the same ways). However, we all have ways of hiding these flaws, or passing them off as something else. With cameras, these mechanisms cannot work, and so they are able to pierce this veil of perfection that we cast around ourselves. Thus, I would argue that constant surveillance can only lead to more problems, because we are being held to a much greater standard that none of us are capable of upholding.
Thursday 8 December 2011
V for Anonymous
A while back, I came across the following article while browsing an internet forum:
Article
Essentially, the Zetas, a particularly violent Mexican drug cartel, kidnapped a member of Anonymous during a street protest. Anonymous is an international group of hackers. In this case, Anonymous was threatening to reveal the identities and addresses of the cartel's associates. With such information, competing gangs would completely rip apart the Zetas.
As you can see in the video linked in the article (as well as one of the quotes in the article), Anonymous is making clever use of "V for Vendetta", not only by using V's mask to cover the speaker's identity, but also when he says "If anything happens to him, you sons of (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5". The article was posted around October 28, which happens to be quite close to November 5th.
This article in itself is very interesting, but it is even more so in the context of this class. After this article was linked, a discussion about the article began. One person was trying to argue that he did not believe that Anonymous actually had this kind of information beforehand, and that the whole thing had been a bluff. Others argued against him, but his bottomline message was that he did not fully accept what the article was saying.
This goes back to what we had talked about in class, when saying that we should always be careful when consuming media, because we are never getting the full story, and the full context. This is especially true of this article, considering that we have no clue why it was that the Zetas decided to kidnap this person. Could it be that they somehow knew that he was a member of Anonymous? If so, then what business would the Zetas have with/against Anonymous in the first place? This also begs the question: how did Anonymous even know about the kidnapping?
The problem with this article is that it does not give us enough information about the context in which this occurred; it merely reports this particular event without giving us an understanding of why this happened in the first place.
After all, context is very important:
A few days later, someone had posted a follow-up article on the matter:
Follow-up article
In the article, it is mentioned that the Zetas released their hostage, who was relatively unharmed. The Zetas had made a counter-threat, saying that releasing information about them would lead to retaliation against the family of the hostage, as well as the murder of 10 people for every name revealed.
Though we may have reason to doubt that Anonymous even has this information, there is no reason to believe that the Zetas wouldn't follow through with their threats. This case is a great example of the repercussions that one's actions online can have in real life. A single blog post could have resulted in the loss of untold lives.
In his article, Goldsmith talks about the impact of media technologies on policing. This case stretches that notion further, by talking about the impacts of these technologies on intelligence gathering in general, and how these technologies can empower groups like Anonymous. Conversely, it can also endanger the lives of those using them, as pointed out by the second article: "A budding domestic effort among Mexican Internet users to expose the cartels was crushed this summer when the mutilated bodies of two bloggers were found hanging from a highway overpass, and a third was found decapitated in a park".
Article
Essentially, the Zetas, a particularly violent Mexican drug cartel, kidnapped a member of Anonymous during a street protest. Anonymous is an international group of hackers. In this case, Anonymous was threatening to reveal the identities and addresses of the cartel's associates. With such information, competing gangs would completely rip apart the Zetas.
As you can see in the video linked in the article (as well as one of the quotes in the article), Anonymous is making clever use of "V for Vendetta", not only by using V's mask to cover the speaker's identity, but also when he says "If anything happens to him, you sons of (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5". The article was posted around October 28, which happens to be quite close to November 5th.
This article in itself is very interesting, but it is even more so in the context of this class. After this article was linked, a discussion about the article began. One person was trying to argue that he did not believe that Anonymous actually had this kind of information beforehand, and that the whole thing had been a bluff. Others argued against him, but his bottomline message was that he did not fully accept what the article was saying.
This goes back to what we had talked about in class, when saying that we should always be careful when consuming media, because we are never getting the full story, and the full context. This is especially true of this article, considering that we have no clue why it was that the Zetas decided to kidnap this person. Could it be that they somehow knew that he was a member of Anonymous? If so, then what business would the Zetas have with/against Anonymous in the first place? This also begs the question: how did Anonymous even know about the kidnapping?
The problem with this article is that it does not give us enough information about the context in which this occurred; it merely reports this particular event without giving us an understanding of why this happened in the first place.
After all, context is very important:
A few days later, someone had posted a follow-up article on the matter:
Follow-up article
In the article, it is mentioned that the Zetas released their hostage, who was relatively unharmed. The Zetas had made a counter-threat, saying that releasing information about them would lead to retaliation against the family of the hostage, as well as the murder of 10 people for every name revealed.
Though we may have reason to doubt that Anonymous even has this information, there is no reason to believe that the Zetas wouldn't follow through with their threats. This case is a great example of the repercussions that one's actions online can have in real life. A single blog post could have resulted in the loss of untold lives.
In his article, Goldsmith talks about the impact of media technologies on policing. This case stretches that notion further, by talking about the impacts of these technologies on intelligence gathering in general, and how these technologies can empower groups like Anonymous. Conversely, it can also endanger the lives of those using them, as pointed out by the second article: "A budding domestic effort among Mexican Internet users to expose the cartels was crushed this summer when the mutilated bodies of two bloggers were found hanging from a highway overpass, and a third was found decapitated in a park".
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Silence of the Lambs
In class, we watched the beginning of Silence of the Lambs.
After watching the clip, we discussed why we think that the psychiatrist would send Clarice instead of going there himself, or sending someone who is trained.
People gave a number of interesting responses. Some looked at it from the angle of feminism. Clarice is a woman in a man's world, and one that is particularly unforgiving. She is ambitious and determined, qualities that are better suited to a man than a woman (in this world, anyway). Therefore Clarice must constantly try to prove herself and best those around her. It was also mentioned that she was sent simply because she is a woman, and Hannibal hadn't seen one in ages.
There were other angles, but I can't quite remember what they were. Anyway, when I first saw the movie, I saw it from a completely different angle. Instead, I saw it from a more psychological perspective. I assumed that Clarice was sent because the training that the usual agents get makes them too predictable. We see this when Hannibal says something along the lines of : "Oh no, you were doing so well. Do you truly believe you can dissect me with such a blunt tool?". Hannibal is a genius, or close enough; he's also a trained psychiatrist. It would make sense that he would possibly already be aware of the questionnaire Clarice was given. Even if he doesn't know of it, with his training, he'd see right through it.
My interpretation also relies on an idea that the RSA Animate video (the one we watched in class) brought up. The video mentioned that our education system essentially crushes lateral thinking; it makes us all think in the same ways, and respond alike. I assumed that it was because of this notion that Clarice was chosen; because she hadn't finished her training, and was still thinking laterally (compared to trained agents), she could "attack" Hannibal from new angles, or at least provide some degree of novelty to Hannibal. In short, Hannibal took a liking to Clarice because she wasn't repeating the same crap the other agents did.
Of course, her lady parts probably helped.
After watching the clip, we discussed why we think that the psychiatrist would send Clarice instead of going there himself, or sending someone who is trained.
People gave a number of interesting responses. Some looked at it from the angle of feminism. Clarice is a woman in a man's world, and one that is particularly unforgiving. She is ambitious and determined, qualities that are better suited to a man than a woman (in this world, anyway). Therefore Clarice must constantly try to prove herself and best those around her. It was also mentioned that she was sent simply because she is a woman, and Hannibal hadn't seen one in ages.
There were other angles, but I can't quite remember what they were. Anyway, when I first saw the movie, I saw it from a completely different angle. Instead, I saw it from a more psychological perspective. I assumed that Clarice was sent because the training that the usual agents get makes them too predictable. We see this when Hannibal says something along the lines of : "Oh no, you were doing so well. Do you truly believe you can dissect me with such a blunt tool?". Hannibal is a genius, or close enough; he's also a trained psychiatrist. It would make sense that he would possibly already be aware of the questionnaire Clarice was given. Even if he doesn't know of it, with his training, he'd see right through it.
My interpretation also relies on an idea that the RSA Animate video (the one we watched in class) brought up. The video mentioned that our education system essentially crushes lateral thinking; it makes us all think in the same ways, and respond alike. I assumed that it was because of this notion that Clarice was chosen; because she hadn't finished her training, and was still thinking laterally (compared to trained agents), she could "attack" Hannibal from new angles, or at least provide some degree of novelty to Hannibal. In short, Hannibal took a liking to Clarice because she wasn't repeating the same crap the other agents did.
Of course, her lady parts probably helped.
Sunday 30 October 2011
Social Media
I would never expect to see an article in which negative things were said about him (which is to say, BEFORE his death). What irked me about this wave of articles is that in these, Steve Jobs is instantly elevated to the rank of Folk Hero. To be fair, most celebrities who die end up in the same boat. However, Steve Jobs rose higher than most, and according to some articles, he took his place alongside the likes of Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison.
Article
I'm willing to concede that the iPhone had an enormous impact on the market, and played an important part in shaping the market into what it currently is. To say that it rivals an achievement as incredible as "inventing" (for lack of a better term) electricity (nevermind the other inventions Edison was responsible for) is a bit much. Moreover, these articles ignore the fact that there are plenty of other companies who could fill Jobs' shoes. Had he not invented the iPhone, another company would have come up with something similar, that could have been just as influential on the market. On the other hand, few are those who could ever match Albert Einstein. It's only recently that we've seen the emergence of research that might disprove his theories.
The terminology used by the article reminds me of a sketch that I came across several years ago. In this context, I find it almost frightening how accurate this particular one is:
The iPhone
The hype surrounding Jobs' death could also be attributed to something we discussed in class. Kate brought up the notion that we constantly need to "emote" because we no longer know how to express our emotions properly. Or, rather, we no longer have faith in our traditional methods of expressing emotions. Therefore, instead of looking at facial expressions and body language, we feel this need to over-emphasize our emotions, to ensure that those we are addressing are getting the right message.
Therefore, when a person dies, and people erect shrines for them online, people need to over-emphasize their grief, and make sure that everyone knows and understand that they are mourning. Often, this can also become a "cheap" way of earning sympathy and attention from others, by exaggerating one's grief, to the point where we seem to be unable to shoulder this grief on our own.
Every society and culture has a socio-culturally acceptable mask that one dons when confronted with death, even if it does not necessarily impact us directly. Emoting has become that mask; it is the internet's version of a black veil.
Thursday 22 September 2011
Thoughts on Facebook, 9/11 and other assorted topics
This post is the first in (hopefully) a long line. I'm going to include some of the videos, articles, and ideas that I got over the past few weeks during the lectures. Hopefully, from here, I'll be making one post per week. I expect that most posts probably won't be nearly as lengthy as this one.
The first thing I found interesting was the discussion with regards to Facebook and other forms of electronic media. There's no denying that Facebook occupies an extremely important place, a niche in people's lives. I came across the following article not too long ago:
Their comments worry me, because they are fully aware of their misery, and they even know the source of the problem. They see a solution, yet they cannot see how they could possibly implement it. For them, quitting Facebook would be the equivalent of a social suicide. Yet, to do so could potentially spark a movement. The easiest solution to their problem is to simply stop Facebook, and to stop looking to others for their self-esteem. Sadly, they probably can't imagine a future (or life) without Facebook, the current dominant social network.
“I feel sad, depressed, jealous, or whatever when I don’t get a lot of “Likes” on my photo or when someone else gets way more Likes than me. Honestly, I’m not sure that parents realize how drastically it affects our self-image and confidence. If I see a picture of a really pretty girl, it’s like ‘Goodbye self-esteem.’ It forces me to compete and do stuff that I don’t want to do, so my confidence will get a boost.”
The above quote is the embodiment of everything that I find wrong with Facebook. I can see the benefits of using Facebook to keep in touch with people that I don't see in my daily life, and to organize events and get-togethers. With cases like these, however, Facebook has become a valid excuse to spend all of one's time online and still (be considered to) have a life.
A somewhat unrelated thought also crossed my mind while we were having this discussion. These days, individuality and non-conformity have, to some extent, become trendy. Paradoxically, in trying to set one's self apart from everyone else, we all end up being exactly alike. If I truly wanted to stick out, I would probably have a better chance by wearing a suit. It's strange that we all seem to have almost the exact same notion of what is non-conformist and despite the fact that many people conform to this ideal (emos, metalheads, etc), we continue to perceive it as non-conformist.
Finally, today's society has given us such terrifying things as:
- 9/11
While talking about 9/11, someone had said that it was amazing that we were still talking about 9/11, and fearing yet another terrorist attack. The only explanation is that we, as a society, are programmed to expect sequels. The bad guys NEVER die the first time.
Talking about the hierarchy of credibility brought to mind two things: first, a video in which a news station raves about Charlie Sheen and his shocking (and apparently novel/original) theories regarding what really happened on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roU_80YtmBE
They act as though Charlie Sheen is the first person to ever posit this idea that perhaps 9/11 was an inside job. Plenty of people have been saying so for years, and in fact, Sheen uses their words almost verbatim.
Kate mentioned Britney Spears, which immediately made me think of this South Park episode: http://xepisodes.com/south-park/season-12/episode-2-britneys-new-look/
At around the 16:20 mark (in the episode), there is a scene in which Britney Spears is sacrificed for the harvest. Afterward, they present another scene in which the people of South Park discover their next victim via the news, Miley Cyrus. It says a great deal about the way we worship celebrities, and how quickly we tear down our idols.
Celebrities are the gods of the 21st century.
- Rap music and gang violence
A few days ago, I found the following video, which exemplifies much of what the article said with regards to violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET-BYx_V5EI
We must ask ourselves why it is that "higher culture" continues to be considered superior. After all, popular culture appeals to the vast majority of the population. Why then do we still place "higher culture" on a pedestal? The answer might lie in what I like to call "trickle-down ideology", which is similar in concept to trickle-down economics. Following the "dominant ideology" approach, we continue to feed off the dregs of ideology that trickle down from the elite through various cracks; each of these a different medium.
Lastly, I'd like to link a wikipedia article I ran across: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs. It's interesting to notice (if you aren't planning on reading much of it) that one theory states that these boys were contacted from outside the country by the (wealthy) owner of a website, and offered money to provide several snuff films.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)