Thoughts on the global village, trendy minimalism, and the homogenization of culture.
|David Hoffman’s Video |
|Sargon on Article 13 |
|The Atlantic on Uniqlo |
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/uniqlo-millennials-gap/583219/
Support the Journal
Make a donation via PayPal to help zazz things up.
$1.00
Not Just Zazz…but Pizzazz
Too high class for regular Zazz? Help Pizzaz up TFJ!
$5.00
George Washington did not seem to truly belong to any particular party and cautioned about ‘party spirit’ in his farewell address. Is a democratic republic possible without robust parties? Please share your thoughts below.
Note: Federalism is the balancing act between state and federal power. It’s basically how the U.S. functions. So when I contrasted state’s rights and federalism I misspoke. I think it’s still intelligible enough.
Social Media| http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow
You can’t fix what you can’t describe…you can’t describe what you can’t see…A brief take on a problem I’ve been trying to pin down for years.
I propose that a lot of the depression, ennui, and disaffection is due to a poor descriptive capacity.
This was take five or so and I’m thinking of uploading the very first take where I give a bit more context (but also meandered a tad overlong.)
Social | http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow
I run a website called The Fractal Journal.
So I tend to see things fractally.
Everyone does. Because everyone understands that no action occurs in a vaccum and is thus inherently multifaceted.
There’s a New York attorney called Aaron Schlossberg who was recently the subject of much controversy.
He took issue with some employees at an eatery. The issue was that they spoke Spanish. He went on a bit of a rant about how he as an American pays for the welfare of these potentially illegal immigrants. That they should speak English etc.
This tirade went viral. The publicity caused Schlossberg so much professional damage that he was even at risk of being disbarred.
This little episode has so many implications that I feel it would be irresponsible for me as a writer and citizen to pass it up.
First, it is demonstrative of a great many things. The impact of social media, the by now tiresome talking point of political polarization, and the nature of modern social expectations.
Let’s unpack that.
Social media is what allowed the incident to gain traction so quickly and in such numbers that it was able to put pressure on Schlossberg’s employers. Social media is also the technology that allowed those who took issue with Schlossberg’s actions to coordinate what can only be described as harrasment.
Political polarization is the fuel that powered both Schlossberg’s ire and the reaction of those seeking the destruction of both his professional and personal life. These two sides of the same coin only reach this sort of fever pitch in the presence of heavy ideological conditioning.
Social expectations today seem to include an insistence on certain points of politesse while completely flaunting general timeworn standards of civil interaction. Schlossberg said something politically unpopular in an aggressive way. Given the overwhelming abundance of casual swearing, in your face banter, and general penchant for sarcasm that permeates American society, it’s not unreasonable to assume that Schlossberg’crucifixionon likely resulted from unpopularity rather than aggression.
All these implications raise questions that I feel are essential to make.
First, social media, is it destructive and if so what can we do about it?
Like any other tool, I don’t think that social media is inherently destructive. The nature of social media seems to tend toward being a catalyst. A catalyst can produce either a favorable or unfavorable reaction. The swelling of outrage that culminated in trolling a private citizen with live Mariachi music and fiestas around his apartment can also be quelled by voices advocating for rationality.
One subcaveat of this social media thing is privacy. Is it fair to take a private citizens outburst and post it online?
Is it fair to then use this evidence to coordinate harassment?
It is true that Mr. Schlossberg was in a public area, behaving very rudely, and that people certainly have the right to film others in public. But does this make it alright for the offended to magnify the event through social media, and in essence involve the entire world in one man losing his cool?
Mr. Schlossberg was not acting civilly but he certainly wasn’t doing anything illegal.
Should we put restrictions on social media posts about private citizens controversial behavior? Should we put restrictions on using such videos to coordinate retribution. Should losing your cool or acting uncouth be so easy to shame from the rooftops?
This technology raises a lot of policy questions which seem to only increase in both number and scope.
I think that it’s a subject that will likely warrant its own article and video.
The second question then is what can be done about political polarization? I think the answer is obvious. Those of us that favor nuanced discussions need to become more vocal and advocate for rational discourse in greater numbers. The popularity of tactics like memes and trolling while fun and not necessarily out of line with the spirit of effective discourse shouldn’t be at the forefront of discourse.
The final question is related to social expectations. Both the public and employers have social expectations. Where, how, and to what extent should such expectations impact the lives of individual citizens?
Wherein does a professional get leeway to act unprofessionally? Being rude certainly falls well within the protection of the first amendment. But, companies can and do exercise the right to fire employees for misconduct. This right is also well within the bounds of the US Constitution.
However, an interesting subcategory emerges here. Namely, should a company be allowed to fire an employee for unprofessional behavior outside of work? If Mr. Schlossberg is good at his job, and reasonably civil in the confines thereof, should his social and political views and faux-pas be cause for termination? If so, then on what legal grounds can he contest the termination?
There do seem to be precedents for firing folks for extracurricular activities. In 2004, Ellen Simonetti was fired for taking pictures of herself in her Delta uniform as she lounged across the backs of airplane seats. The photograph which she posted to a blog about stewardessing, that she’d started in order to cope with the loss of her mother, wasn’t racy even by 1950’s standards. But nonetheless, Delta considered it unprofessional and sacked her.
My position is that Simonetti should not have been fired. Schlossberg has even less reason to be fired/evicted/disbarred etc. than she does. This is because he was not on company property, representing his company, or wearing company paraphernalia when he had his outburst.
His history of outbursts, including one where he ran into a radnomer with his bag and called him a ‘dirty foreigner’ might be a minor case of harassment or perhaps assault. Which I could see as being unsavory for an employer. But, again where should the line be drawn? There wasn’t really any battery, and the harassment was brief, akin to a middle finger on a busy street.
Should a line be drawn at all? Or should employers/landlords continue to wield carte blanche to terminate otherwise competent employees on grounds of unsavory conduct?
When looking at this case I ran across the notion that Schlossberg’s career was destroyed by the people he’d offended. This, to me, is where it gets a tad murky. Schlossberg initiated the aggression, in a public space, he is aware of cell phones, and he is aware of social media. While I 100% sympathize with the notion that the possibility of backlash shouldn’t intimidate Schlossberg or anyone into silence or even politesse, I can’t really view him as a victim. Even if I did, the link between those who posted the video and coordinated the harassment and his termination remains tenuous. Because it was still up to his employer to make the decision, and more importantly, it was up to him to avoid being confrontational.
Running up to randomers to call them dirty foreigners, haranguing Spanish speaking employees, and similar hijinks aren’t really public discourse. They’re outbursts and while they are protected under freedom of speech, that freedom doesn’t necessarily shield you form things like social ostracization, or job loss.
I don’t think either of those things should be the result of making an ass of yourself. However, if you work in a sector that requires a great deal of civic responsibility, being consistently combative, is likely a poor career choice. Whether that’s done on your own time or not.
As you can see, this is a really multifaceted issue that raises many questions. I encourage everyone to comment below, whether you agree or disagree with this analysis.
Sources
http://excelle.monster.com/news/articles/1348-delta-flight-attendant-fired-for-blogging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Simonetti
Social: http://www.minds.com/Weirmellow
Help a Hipster: http://www.patreon.com/TheFractalJournal
Class is content of character not the contents of a wallet.
Social Media
https://www.minds.com/Weirmellow
Help a Hipster
Hey, I bought into the myth myself…. for a long time. The idea that sleep is for the weak, that I was somehow special, needing less sleep than your average schmuck. This was part of my modus operandi for a good decade.
I eventually let go of this notion when I realized that I couldn’t focus on anything substantive for longer than a few hours and some days a few minutes.
My transformation into a person who demands that love, family, money, bosses, friends, and even Jesus Christ himself bugger off for at least eight hours a day came with a few interesting realizations.
Like the only sober guy in a group of giggling stoners – I began to see, with laser-like clarity that my fellow dudes and dudettes weren’t being profound, they were being idiots.
It’s an epiphany that has allowed me to be paradoxically sympathetic and impatient.
A few months ago I was at a job interview and couldn’t help but let my eyes glaze over when the interviewer described their drive (“I love the grind!”) in glowing detail. I don’t mind boasting. I think when done properly it can be a valid assertion of one’s accomplishments in a world that loves to pick apart your every weakness. But I can no longer stomach heaping praise on maladaptive behavior.
Part of this man’s pride seemed to come from his capacity for privation. He explained in exquisite detail how on many nights for a good long while he was only getting two hours of sleep. Well..no wonder he was balding before thirty. Sure genetics may play a role…but, supposing this tale of robbing the Sandman blind were true…I wouldn’t doubt it was a contributing factor.
Generally, things that are high quality require a lot of effort. I think that’s how the myth really digs its way into the psyche. Going without sleep is difficult, it gives you more hours in a day that never seems to have enough, ergo going without sleep is a feat of self-sacrifice on par with the very Cross.
Sleep is for the lazy and the weak. The strong drink an espresso and soldier on. Towards what exactly…I don’t know. But I’ll wager that it looks a lot like early mortality and an increasingly burdened medical system.
The United States has a serious issue with chronic illness. Chronic illness is expensive. It is expensive in every possible way. It damages the life of the afflicted and the lives of those around them and costs a hell of a lot of money. The times, the cheers, and the laughs that could be spent living well and healthy are instead sopped up by hospital visits, little blood sugar kits, and lots of feverish accounting.
This trend has been attributed to a number of factors like diet, work, and exercise habits. All of which are valid. Sleep has also been implicated though I fear that its not been implicated strongly enough. Because culturally the myth of the Insomniac Ubermensch still reigns. Hence, my interviewers glowing opinion of the practice. It’s what achievers do!
I’m a tad skeptical when it comes to suburban achievements. 40, 50, 60 k a year, some degree in something spiffy, etc all seem like tawdry compensation for health. I really doubt that had these talented and dedicated individuals, spent their time truly critically assessing what it was that allowed for real excellence, that they would have hopped onto a giddy predetermined little maze.
With the resources and technology, we have at our disposal today we could do far better than more of the same.
It never ceases to amaze me how awkward social interactions are. How weird and spacey people are. At first, I thought that I was just seeing things. But as I adopted healthier habits and gained more confidence in my powers of observation I really only found my impressions confirmed.
This is, of course, likely due to a number of factors. But peoples inability to critically assess concepts, to remember things, and to hold a sustained polysyllabic conversation definitely has something to do with everybody being constantly shagged out.
As I got more and more refreshing shuteye, like the former drunk who notices the slur in his AA buddies speech, I noticed the lapses in attention, the moodiness, and the infuriatingly obvious missed cues of the sleep deprived.
A good portion of the dangerous myth of the Insomniac Superman has to do with an ignorance of biology. It’s really funny because there is so much in our culture that people now use to cast off responsibility and cultivation. O you’re a bit blue: HERE’S A Pill! They have no trouble attributing the blues to biology but they don’t attribute their ability to perform to the most natural and biological of things: sleep.
Well, the NIH, Harvard, and a good number of researchers and scientists have done great work in isolating the exact role of sleep. Everything from weight to memory, to the susceptibility to accidents and cancer, is affected by sleep.
As I have already said sure there are many factors that contribute to something like cancer. I’ve heard people wonder aloud as to why we see so much ailment, why we have such a high rate of chronic illnesses. Despite the fact that plastics and pollutants and longer lifespans are a factor we must never leave out behavior.
Not sleeping is bad behavior. If you don’t believe me here are some links to people with bigger diploma shaped Phalluses than I:
https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/summer12/articles/summer12pg17.html
https://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/importance_of_sleep_and_health
As for me I’ve just awoken from a lovely post work siesta and am going to use my relaxed natural energy to enjoy a beer and play the piano.
Go forth and nap!
There’s a sort of sterile spirit around these days. It disguises itself in the frock of ‘minimalism.’ But its really closer to provincial laziness. I track the problem a bit and conclude: Don’t throw the burgers out with the beer.
The triggering: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/
– I actually agree with the general gist of that article. I’m just using it as a spring-board to discuss some of the slippery slope effects that come from adopting a :’low information diet.’
My main site: http://www.fractaljournal.com
O dear, it’s happened again, someone asked me if I Facebook…
There is a now ancient video of Michael Crichton sitting in with a panel of sci-fi writers discussing the state of that industry. During that discussion he brings up how the increasing presence of cameras has the potential to change the way that people interact. He says that being in front of a camera certainly makes him act differently than he does in a more private setting.
This behavioral shift is the problem with sites like Facebook.
Ok, but behavior changes from generation to generation and is often brought about by technology. So why is this particular behavioral shift a bad thing? Aren’t these Luddite concerns?
The sort of behavioral shift that seems to be the trouble is group-think, confirmation bias, and insecurity. Though the three things are distinct phenomenon they share a common thread and are thus treated as the ‘behavioral shift’ in question.
This phenomenon is supported by four ‘emergent properties’ common to all social networks, electronic, and otherwise.
1) The Constant Peanut Gallery
2) Increased Misunderstanding
3) False Security
4) Increased Preening
All of these properties emerge from the need for validation.
Validation is the core of many goods and many ills. It is important to check your perceptions, ideas, and at times your very person against the ideas, opinions, and persons of others. It helps to form a balanced opinion and is arguably the animating principle behind parliamentary government and peer review.
Yet, peer review and parliament often act as agents of confirmation bias rather than guardians of truth. Galileo’s works were reviewed by the experts of his day and found lacking. Does this mean that we should do away with parliament and peer review?
By no means. It was corroboration of his findings that eventually led to their acceptance in the scientific canon. Bad peer review can be reviewed by good peer review. So long as the process is ongoing issues will be resolved.
This brings us to the core of the problem with Facebook: Stagnation.
The constant peanut gallery often leads one to adopt the biologically expedient role of ‘crowd pleasing’ whether consciously or unconsciously. Increased misunderstandings arise because folks choose to share views dampened by crowd pleasing. A false security arises from the perceived confirmation of one’s views and person leading to increased preening or display of those characteristics.
All of these are the recipe for group-think, confirmation bias, and insecurity that form the stagnation which makes Facebook an unsavory medium. The sort of things that I believe to be at the core of Crichton’s concerns while on that panel.
I use Word Press, YouTube, Mastodon, and Minds. These are all social networks in their own right. Am I then being unfair to Facebook? Isn’t vlogging and blogging and posting subject to the same problems as Facebook. Why don’t I get a Facebook account?
Well, for one Facebook has a rather checkered history. It is also different from the sites I choose because it involves ones immediate circle. Due to its reaching so close to home its effectiveness for debate and unbiased analysis of ideas and persons becomes compromised.
It is much easier to focus on ideas and arguments with sites like Word Press and YouTube. All the problems with Facebook do of course occur there but it is with less frequency and degree that they do. This is as I have said due to the close and personal nature of Facebook.
Which not only compromises privacy but brings us all the dark sides of a global village with alarming speed. I am rather cosmopolitan in my outlook so I am not at all promoting provincialism in criticizing ‘the global village.’
It is in fact provincialization that we have to fear from ‘the global village.’ The provincialism of ideas. Human beings despite their variety of cultures and philosophies do share a certain common psychological profile. Due to this common thread all of their variety becomes endangered rather quickly when filtered through one global ‘common room.’
This is why the majority of the world is now California. I’m serious. Look at all the dudes, and jeans, beards, and t-shirts. It’s been going on for quiet a while. This narrowing of style and ideation. Where a girl in Frankfurt is nearly indistinguishable from one in Orange County.
Yes, all right but, Facebook isn’t meant to be a place for the exchange of ideas. It’s meant to be a way to connect with friends!
Ok, well I do have a phone and a car, and an email, and a post office. Why does the whole world need to know of my circle of friends? Why does my circle of friends need to be privy to my every interaction with my circle of friends?
Is shooting messages and inviting/excluding people from events publicly really ‘connecting?’
I rather think it has the opposite effect. To where I can hardly enjoy a beer with friends, without one of them shoving a little screen in my face. Bearing the latest meme or Facebook faux pas, glowing with hi-def brightness that the table behind me can read.
This is why I don’t Facebook.
Did you see that smug look! I thought I was being scholarly. There’s no such word as Genossischkheit as per my web query. Nonetheless I take poetic license and dub this Genussiness which is a word for enjoyment without abandon.
Subjects Discussed
1) Music and how neat it is that instruments are much more readily available due to financing options like rent to own.
2) ‘Violin Yoga’ or using an instrument to center yourself rather than some esoteric practice or as a complement to your esoteric practice.
3) How learning different instruments are good for getting a better feel for music quicker. IMO.4) Genussiness – the best way to approach life in the context of the knowledge of death. Which in my opinion is using things like art and music to help you live life to the fullest without the opera buffa of being a ‘tragic artist.’ Enjoyment without abandon. The union of the bridge builder and the painter.5) The environment through the lens of Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear and E.O. Wilson’s book Consilience.6) How despite having an art friendly culture it’s often difficult to find work and get along with other artists.7) An attempt to point out how good things are despite the serious challenges I brought up.
The Fractal Journal 