My Reflection in the Pool

This quarter, I have blogged about a number of different issues. Not all were directly related to media, but they were probably close enough. I feel that at first I was writing kinda willy-nilly, but eventually hit on a winning formula. I would take a piece of media and a social issue and show how they are connected. Finding these connections was probably my favorite part of this assignment. Also want to give a quick shoutout to Holman Jenkins, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal whom I try to emulate in this blog.

I'm not going to pretend that this assignment changed the amount of media I consume, the types I consume, how I feel about the media I consume, or even my mindset about life. What it did do was give me an outlet for thinking about things the way I like to, and force me to write it down every week. I didn't change the way I think, the mindset Mr. Starace has taught us was something I did instinctively, it's just about forcing me to use it more. 

I have changed the way I look at specific media, however. I had the right perspective before, just not the specific knowledge to apply it. This class and this assignment have taught me about the specific motives, methods, and effects of media, and I can use these facts as general principles in deductive reasoning. I've learned more about new things to think about than about how to think about things, because I think I've learned that already in other places.

Keeping this blog enabled me to reap the seeds of metacognition. This blog is called Ben Metacognates on the Internet, and that is the most valuable element of this blog from my perspective. Displaying my stream of consciousness for myself and others is a mechanism I use to explore small thoughts of mine and apply them to more situations. I can take the idea that activists should market to those who disagree with them more than those who agree and expand that into a whole new way of fighting for justice. I can cultivate the seed of a connection between Rick and Morty and political correctness and grow it to be an insight into people's true feelings about being PC. I can add to the thread connecting Hamilton and education until it's a steel cable that could support the bridge between education and entertainment in future schools. All of this because I was metacognating. When I wrote down what I was thinking, I was able to take it further instead of just wondering about it now and then during certain classes that shall remain unnamed. 

This post is called my reflection in the pool because in a way this blog is like my own narcissistic reflecting pool. I had these ideas, but here I found the perfect outlet to express them permanently. It's as if I finally saw my reflection, and I fell in love with it. It exemplifies the best parts of me, and I can't get enough of my own metacognition. Like Narcissus, I intend to continue gazing at my reflection, although perhaps not until I die, and I will definitely take breaks for food and stuff. The only obstacle is my own laziness, so we'll see how things turn out. I look forward to whatever the future brings as I metacognate until my brain is empty and the blog is filled to capacity. Is it ethical for me to generate revenue through ads?

Starace's Secret Origin

The government launches a top-secret project involving the creation of human beings from a combination of the genes of other humans. They obtain a hair from Fidel Castro and a toenail clipping from Seth Rogen. They take a funny man and an economically liberal man and in an attempt to create a funny, economically liberal man. They succeed. This man is Mr. Starace.

The evidence is clear. Mr. Starace is a genetic hybrid between Fidel Castro and Seth Rogen. I felt I had a duty to share the truth with the world.

#FeeltheJohnson

I know last week I said everyone should vote for Trump, but the candidate I'm really rooting for is Gary Johnson. This is his campaign website. He is the Libertarian party's nominee. I know that some of you will automatically associate this with anarchy or perhaps don't know what libertarianism is, so I'll give a brief overview. Basically, it means that I am liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, although it's a little more nuanced than that. This is a link to a 2-minute political quiz that will tell you exactly where you fall on the political plane (not a spectrum, it's 2-dimensional). Gary Johnson embodies these ideas. That's why I #FeelTheJohnson, which is trending on twitter only after #feelthemath (the hashtag for how Bernie lost because of math) if you type in #feel. 

Speaking of Bernie losing, I think that Gov. Johnson is a great option for Bernie supporters who will not vote for Hillary. He agrees with Bernie on basically all social issues and has a 73% similarity to him on a political affiliation quiz. Some of his biggest issues are getting money out of politics, legalizing drugs, and ending interventionism. Here is a video to explain why Bernie supporters should consider Johnson. In fact, even if Hillary was your choice, Johnson might give her a run for her money. 

If you're concerned that splitting the democratic vote will allow Trump to win, think again. The majority of conservatives don't like Donald Trump, and many of them would prefer Johnson over The Donald. In fact, many Republicans are actually Libertarians but don't realize it, because they are pro marriage equality and pro choice, but don't know that the Libertarian party exists. Johnson was polling at 10% of the popular vote last week. This week it's 11%, and that number will keep rising. At  15% of the popular vote, he will be in a presidential debate. From here his recognition and support will grow even more.

Okay so it's unlikely he has a chance at winning in a straightforward general election. But truth be told, it's also unlikely that Clinton or Trump will either. Both are polling at around 40% right now, and keep in mind those will keep going down as Johnson pulls support from Democrats and Republicans. Since both will agree with around 50% of what Gary Johnson has to say making him neutral, they just need to be at least slightly unhappy about both other candidates for Johnson to be a viable option. 

As long as no one gets over 50% of the electoral votes, no one can be elected president by the general public. You need a majority, not just a plurality, to become president. In the case where no one wins, the House of Representatives votes on who will be president, with each state getting one vote. States with multiple representatives must come to a decision. Both parties will fear the other winning, and Republicans have only 57% of the House. In states that are split, the minority group will likely not consent to a vote within the state, and it seems likely that all will have open discussion to decide what is best. Most of the Republicans are establishment and not too fond of Trump, so they are likely to look for an alternative. Because neither party wants the other's nominee to win, it seems that Gary Johnson would be bot parties' second choices. This gives him a shot at winning if it comes to a vote in the House. It's pretty unlikely, but possible, and all of America might be #feelingtheJohnson pretty soon.

"You're like Hitler, except Hitler cared about Germany or something." What Rick and Morty tells us about political correctness

Rick and Morty is certainly my favorite show right now, and possibly the best show that's currently airing. It is fantastic. The best way for me to describe it is an animated, morally questionable Back to the Future. It combines humor and intricate plot into a perfectly balanced ice cream sundae. The characters are some of the most intricate I've seen, and the best part is the willingness to break rules. Here's a link to what is, as far as I know, a perfectly legal way to watch the show. Don't worry, your computer won't get a virus.

Take the very first sequence in the pilot episode. Rick walks into Morty's room in a drunken stupor and pulls him out of bed. Morty says it's the middle of the night and expresses pain when Rick pulls him out of bed. We see the two of them in this flying car that Rick made. He is drinking, and he tells Morty that he's going to blow up the planet. But don't worry, he's going to save this girl who Morty has a crush on, Jessica, and they can be Adam and Eve in a "fresh start." He then tells Morty that he doesn't have to worry about him "messing around with Jessica." Keep in mind Jessica and Morty are 14 and Rick is his grandpa. They fight, and Rick agrees to land the ship. When he opens the door, dozens of alchohol bottle spill out. He tells Morty he was testing him, then falls asleep. The bomb counts down, and then it cuts to the title sequence.

This alone breaks so many rules. It's a cartoon, which is usually lighter, and even if it's adult it definitely doesn't discuss an old man "messing around" with a 14-year-old. It's suspenseful, and at the same time the dialogue between Rick and Morty is pretty funny, just with their word choice. The shock factor is high, and it's compelling anyway. Another thing is the unique dialogue. Morty stutters a lot, Rick will occasionally burp in the middle of sentences, and the whole thing feels very improvised. It seems like they have general storyboards, then just work out the dialogue as they go. After just this two-minute bit I was hooked. Later on in the episode *spoilers if you want to watch it which you should at this point in time if you haven't already* Rick asks Morty to put giant seeds up his butt, so they can get through inter-dimensional customs with them. I don't know any other show that would have a Grandpa ask his grandson to put giant seeds up his butt. It's pretty comical, and it is unique. Rick seems to have zero regard for Morty's well being, focused only on science. The plot *BLURRRGH* thickens, however, later in the show as the characters develop.

The most interesting part of this is how popular the show is despite being so not politically correct. It seems like in regular life, a lot of people strive to avoid upsetting anyone and use as many unoffensive words and sentences as possible. In a world where microagressions are a thing, people feel pressure to avoid doing or saying anything that might "trigger" anyone (sorry if putting the word "trigger" in quotes triggered anyone). This show throws all of that out the window, holding absolutely nothing sacred.

"But if people are so concerned about being politically correct all the time, how is it that the show is so popular?" I can hear all of you asking. Well it seems to me that there's only one good explanation: people don't actually want to be politically correct. It seems that the only reason people are so PC all the time is to avoid public shaming or at least the distaste of others. Perhaps some do it for a sense of self-righteousness, but overall it seems that when people are allowed to not be PC, they choose that option every time. And why wouldn't they? Feeling like you need to constantly avoid offending someone around you can be stressful and draining. Saying what you feel or having what you feel expressed by others makes you feel good. While we should strive to be inclusive, it's clear that the level of PCness expected is uncomfortable for most.

One may think that the people who like this show are just people who aren't PC to begin with, but I know a good number of Rick and Morty fans (or at least a good percentage of the fans I know) who are usually very PC but love Rick and Morty. It allows them to cut loose, and who can blame them? Read this quote: "It's like the C-word and the N-word had a baby, and that baby was raised by all the bad words for Jews." I find this funny. I feel like a lot of people would find this funny, but their immediate reaction might be one of shock or disgust because that's the reaction they've been trained to have. It seems like the shock I experienced while watching that first two minutes was less of shock and more of finally finding something I felt I didn't have to filter for, and that was a good feeling.

Men Wear Masks and Women Wear...Very Little

The Mask You Live In is the sequel to Miss Representation, and it is about the same things Miss Representation is about, but regarding men. Here is a link to the trailer, I highly recommend the movie. It focuses in how men are taught to hide emotion and be aggressive. It discusses how men are all steered toward "boy" things, and away from "girl" things. It seems that it is more acceptable for a little girl to be into sports than it is for a little boy to be into dolls. Of course, neither is actually limited to one gender (although marketers seem to think so), but we have this perception that they are.

One thing I found interesting in the film was some information about depression. Statistics about depression say that women are more likely to be depressed than men, but it turns out that the traditional way to measure depression doesn't account for the way men tend to express depression. When a woman is depressed, she will express depression in the ways we think of it now. When a man is depressed, he will express it mostly through anger and acts of violence. He is taught that anger is the only emotion he can show and expresses his self-hatred or hopelessness through this outlet. I thought about this, and it seems that this would be bad in two ways. First, it's harder for them to be treated because their symptoms aren't screened for. Second, they are likely to get in trouble with the law or in their social group, which can lead to even worse situations for their mental well-being.

It is interesting that women's problems are amplified so much more in the media than men's. This is probably due to the sort of behaviors perpetuated in men: they aren't supposed to express when they are distraught about the way the system is going, and less likely to feel emotionally about the pressures on them. Conversely, when a man sees something he feels is wrong with the world, he is more likely to take action about it, while a woman is more likely to talk about the problem to express her emotions without doing anything about it. In reality, there is no reason both options couldn't be done together (perm), but some combination of nature and nurture made these the norm.

I feel that one shortcoming of The Mask is that it focuses heavily on toxic masculinity, men perpetuating hyper masculine behaviors to other men (calling each other pussies, ridiculing crying, etc.) but doesn't address enough why they feel the need to do this in the first place. Sure, these habits were probably perpetuated by other men, but it doesn't really address where the problem comes from. It seems that, just as the idea of what a woman should be is perpetuated by men, the idea of what a man should be is perpetuated by women. Even if men have more power overall, women still control which men they pick (I know that's heteronormative or whatever, but I'm talking about the population as a whole so what is true for the majority is most relevant).

I think this shows a really interesting parallel between the two, because both seem to aspire to be what the other is missing. Men are supposed to be assertive action-takers, something women are told they can't be. Women are supposed to be helpless damsels who are taken care of by others and who express their emotions freely and need a shoulder to cry on, things men are told they can't do. As far as sexuality goes, I think what each is supposed to be is actually a representation of what the other is. If a woman is a sexual object, an emotional relationship isn't necessary, something the ideal man doesn't have. If a man is supposed to be gentle, putting the woman first, than emotion is the most important part of the relationship. Both show their own ideas of what they should be in what they say the other should be. To summarize, everyone is perpetuating unrealistic expectations about everyone else, and all of those expectations show more about your own insecurities than about the other person.

If We Want to Stop Trump We Should Consider Voting for Him

Looking at the upcoming election, for me at least, it looks like another decision between the least of three evils. None of the remaining candidates are really anywhere close to having views that relate to mine. In fact, I'd say that all of them are more than 50% away from aligning with my views. When deciding who I will endorse, I try to look at the candidates from different perspectives, because seeing who I agree with the most is fruitless.

It seems that voters are good at expressing distaste with the system, but poor at choosing a candidate who will solve it. An article that discusses this, and the one that got me thinking about this sort of stuff in the first place, can be found here. A good example of this phenomenon is Mr. Trump, who draws mostly angry voters who are upset with the system. His policies, however, are sure to cause a number of issues and will be counter-productive, on top of just being racist. In fact, that article discusses this as well. He also isn't very presidential, using ad hominem attacks in excess and being generally rude. He has no filter.

All of these seem like reasons to vote against Trump. Why would we want a rude, obscene, obnoxious businessman whose policies will fail and whose mouth will evoke hatred from other countries as our president? Obviously we wouldn't. Perhaps a better question is why would current Trump supporters want a rude, obscene, obnoxious businessman whose policies will fail and whose mouth will evoke hatred from other countries as our president? It seems that, given enough time in office, Trump's policies will fail and likely be shot down by the supreme court. He will probably make enemies with every other head of state (he may have already done so in some cases) and thus decrease US hegemony and make America look bad in even Americans' eyes. It's hard to believe that the establishment Republicans in Congress will be too happy with this, and I don't think an impeachment is unreasonable. If this is true, it seems that current Trump supporters will think poorly of their decision once they actually see Trump as our president.

Why  is this eventuality preferable to one where Trump isn't elected in the first place? Without his failure as President, Trumpists won't have any reason to believe that Trumpism doesn't work. This means we are likely to see Trump again in future elections or people like him. The harm caused by a wave of disenfranchised voters supporting someone like Trump every four years outweighs the harm caused by Trump's temporary success.

If Trump becomes president, we will see a surge of politically disengaged people begin to identify as liberal, just as we have seen as Trump gains traction. This means a weaker Republican party and a stronger Democratic party, which I'm sure most of those reading this will be happy about even if I'm not.

Furthermore, in a situation where Trump creates global tensions with the U.S. we would see an increased overall dissatisfaction with the way the system is run. This means more different approaches to politics, and hopefully some positive change. It seems the only way to take down Trumpism is to endorse it and thus put it through trial by fire.

Green is Not a Creative Color: Merchants of Creativity

For those unaware, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared is a video series on Youtube that critiques different kinds of media. So far there are five episodes, and the sixth and final episode comes out in June (probably on the 19th, but that's just a hunch). I may do future videos on the 2nd-5th videos, but todays post is about the first one. Here's a link to the video. You should probably watch it if you want to understand this post.

The notepad opens with "What's your favorite idea?" then a very brief pause, then "Mine is being creative." It doesn't really want the characters to say their favorite idea, just to tell them they should be creative. Then, when it asks about the orange, it shows how to be creative by explaining that it sees a silly face in it. Once again, it's just telling them what they should think, not worrying about what the characters think. We see how the notepad controls their creativity when only after putting on the monocle, filtering their vision, do the characters see shapes in the clouds, and the same ones at the same time. Eventually, the characters start figuring out how to be creative, especially the yellow guy, the youngest of the bunch. He paints a picture of a clown. The notepad pours black paint on it, saying "it's time to slow down." The notepad clearly doesn't want them to learn to be creative. The most striking example is when they are spelling their favorite colors (or rather colours; this is a British series) and the yellow guy chooses green. The notepad tells him that "green is not a creative color." You should chooses your favorite color, but only from a small set of options.

It tries to tell the characters not just what to think, but how to act. "I use my hair to express myself." When the red guy says, "that sounds really boring, the response is "I use my hair to express myself." The notepad can't respond, just repeat what it is supposed to drill into the characters' minds, almost like hypnopaedia. Once they have been sufficiently conditioned, they are sent to let their "creativity" flow. They make art about death and eat flesh. clearly their conditioning has taught them to use their creativity positively. Perhaps that's a metaphor for them eating themselves, preventing themselves from reaching their potential.

There is one shot where the angle spins around and we see a camera and a sign that says "Don't Hug Me I'm Scared Take 1." It you hadn't figured it out already, this is evidence that the video is a commentary on children's media, and how it totally removes all parts of actual creativity. Nothing the notepad wants the characters to do is actually creative, it's all engineered by the notepad. The notepad, or children's media, is conditioning the characters to listen to it, not themselves.

The interesting part of this is how similar it all is to what's discussed in Merchants of Cool. It's not the teens who create teen culture anymore, it's the media. They're told how to express themselves, preventing any chance at actual self-expression. They look at themselves and others through the lens of the media, so when they make decisions about what to buy, they aren't really making a decision at all. Total Request Live is comparable to the part where they choose their favorite colors: it's a choice, but it's from a predetermined subset of options.

Even if there are some similarities, there's still one huge difference: merchants of cool have a goal of you buying their product, but merchants of creativity don't seem to have a goal. That's because their goal is much more long term. They don't want to make kids buy their product when they're young, they want to condition them to listen to everything the media says so they can get money out of them later. That's how much control they have, and their control of our lives is always proportional to the size of their wallets.