fortunatelystickycollectio-blog4

[fortunatelystickycollectio-blog4]

#BlackLivesMatter is a movement that sparked conversations on whether black lives are the only lives that matter..

I mean why are we even having this conversation in the first place? White people have proven to disrupt so many movements started by black people through crying victimhood and making it about themselves instead of about the cause itself. When we say black lives matter we do not mean white lives are not important, all we saying is that white supremacy is oppressing us and we need to deal with it in the best way we know how..

So no, being pro-black doesn’t mean I’m anti white.

Lets talk about the movie Black Panther, released on February 2018 in South Africa.

My favourite!

Apparently some white people were attacked for attempting to go watch the movie on the day of its release. Fake news?

A white person calling their own to order. I’m impressed!!

Why would people lie about such and then cry #WhiteGenocide? Why is Black progression and success always stepped on? Shook!

This is honestly how I feel. EFF leader Julius Malema states that there is no white genocide in South Africa and that we have problems with black genocide and discrimination. (Article by Juniour Khumalo on City Press, 28/08/2018)

This reiterates my previous point.

CULTURAL LIFE: WHITE ANXIETY

Apartheid has evidently caused conflict between black and white people and this has sparked robust conversations around the South African economy. Arguments are that without white people, the South African economy would not have been as boosted as it is currently because black people were not capable of managing resources back then (Calitz, 2014). Quite frankly the argument has always been that white people had to develop a new system in which the economy could be boosted and maintained, therefore they ended up creating a capitalist system. According to Calitz (2014), the insinuation that most white people hold is that they achieved so much compared to today’s black rule that is referred to as ‘rape’ of the economy.

Is it not ironic how white people think they have improved the economy of the country when above all else black people were never given a chance? How are such conclusions made when a black people’s call to involvement has always led to exclusions? It becomes genuinely fishy for white people to become overly dramatic and hysterical on things that do not matter/exist. For example, I do not understand why learning an African language is so exaggerated. They live in an African led country! Why that should be applauded when black people do not get the same appreciation back for learning English is beyond me. Black children adopt the English language from a very young age in the schooling system, not voluntarily but rather forcefully or by fate of our messed up system. However, this does not mean that they initially wanted to be taught in English majority of the time or as a medium of instruction, they were not given the memo. It is a societal call for everyone to learn each other’s language and for us to rejoice and take pride on African languages, without unnecessary applauds being given.

Another concern is with the #Black Lives Matter movement in which some white people had protested and contested against it for #All Lives Matter. The Black Lives Matter movement was not meant to eradicate or imply that all other lives are not important, but it was specifically aimed at dealing with the general injustices black people face due to white supremacy. Why should white people always try to disrupt and discount black people’s movements just because they deem it fit? Because surely they are not experiencing injustices and oppression on the same level (if white people are). Another example is with regards to #FeesMustFall protest, which caused conflict between black and white students. In 2017 black students were protesting for free education because after having protested for the past 2 years for a 0% increase in fees, they still felt like they could not afford the fees because university fees are too high. White students began being tired of the protest and began their movement aimed at dividing students and demanded that we go back to class because they wanted to learn. This is a classic example of ‘if it doesn’t apply to you, do not retaliate’. If they did not relate to the call of free education then they did not need to make black students feel like they are crazy for fighting for a just and fair cause.

According to Calitz (2014), the new concept of  ‘rolling apocalypse’ creates the idea that whites are victims of the new South Africa because of their loss of power and black people’s capacity of no longer under the constraints of white people. A myth that has been making the moves is that white people were effective in their reign in South Africa and are the sole contributor of the successes of the country (Calitz, 2014). According to Smith (2017) every demand of equality by people of colour is always backlashed by white people in the attempt of playing victimhood and making it all about themselves instead of the actual victims. What makes their call on victimhood as noticeable as the fair cause created by African people is their influence and technical skills they acquire because they are able to use their wealth to their benefit.

The retaliation white people fear to suffer with all African movements and protests is that they can see that black people are letting loose of the oppression and slavery they were reduced to during apartheid. For argument sake, the thought of living with black people on the same level, legislatively having the same opportunities, being in competition with them and probably sharing land has proven to be a bitter pill to swallow for many white people. This is because all they have known is being in control of black people, their thoughts, their asserts and probably their destinies. They have not been exposed to the love of ‘sharing is caring’, ‘black lives matter’ etc. on day to day basis. This all is based on white people’s failure to accept their loss of privilege and power (Calitz, 2014). Also, the realisation that the special security treatment they once had by virtue of apartheid is now being shared ‘equally’ between black and white people makes them feel targeted instead of protected (Calitz, 2014).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calitz, W., 2014. Rhetoric in the Red October campaign: Exploring the white victim identity of post-apartheid South Africa.

Smith, D., 2017. “The backlash against Black Lives Matter is further evidence of injustice.” Retrieved 09 September 2018 from the World Wide Web: https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-backlash-against-black-lives-matter-is-just-more-evidence-of-injustice-85587

[fortunatelystickycollectio-blog4]

Fake news. Where do I start? Maybe here? Does outside beauty inevitably lead to inside ugliness? I think not!

Let’s jump off to President Donald Trump of the US. Personally, I think he has pretty much gone back on every good promise he’s made, and doubled down on every bad one (such as border wall, immigration ban, a terrible Paul Ryancare in place of Obamacare, negotiation of drug prices with the Pharma industry etc.) ..so I personally do not think “no one’s ever had a more unfair life than me”.. All I know is he is not such a good president as he claims to be and all these are lies!

His own suppoters have come realise how stressful he is to work with and are calling him all sort of names.

On a recent online poll at Monmouth University in the US, students and staff were asked to vote for their best media house generally and in relation to Trump’s coverage and these were the results. Plot twist: Fox News has been seen as the most untrustworthy media channel and the votes show complete disapproval of Trump’s coverage on Fox News. Why is this? Could it be because it is used as a plarform to glorify Trump? Could be!

Well point is you are really just being called to order President Trump!

I would like to believe that this is not the case but I found this really funny!

PLEASE President Trump!

At all times let us please protect ourselves against fake news!

POLITICAL LIFE: FAKE NEWS

Fake news has been defined as fictionalised news-like content that carries incorrect information aimed at pursing certain goals, either misinformation or conflicts with the mentioned parties or people directly affected (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). According to Shao, Ciampaglia, Varol, Flammini & Menczer (2017), fake news have more political motives than entertainment and political motives have proven to be more powerful. This is because its spread is a risk to the global economy, in terms of who is elected and whether they would advocate for freedom and democratic rights (Shao et.al, 2017). If they do not, this would interfere with the public’s belief and cause disruptions in society.

There are three different types of false information, namely misinformation, disinformation and mal-information. All these are shared with the knowledge that they are ‘false news’, disinformation and mal-information are shared to cause harm while misinformation is shared for entertainment (Shu, Sliva, Wang, Tang & Liu, 2017).  There are always motives and agendas associated with the distribution of fake/false news. Usually content is intentionally manipulated to mislead the readers or viewers and to ensure that the agenda prevails. The beauty of fake news shared on social media is that it allows for constructive criticism, readers are able to detect whether it is relevant and believable or not. According to Shao et.al, (2017), social media platforms are not meant for trustworthy information but rather posts that prioritize robust engagement and conversations. The issue of fake news has expanded over the past years, this is because of low cost websites that can be used for software controlled files called social bots (Shao et.al, 2017). People can easily edit factual information to put fake news and it would still look like the original information. This is problematic because passive readers take information as it is and do not question it, popular news attract finite attention from such readers and they easily believe what they read. Furthermore, this kind of behaviour has implications on how far the fake news travels and this cycle continuously repeats itself.

New media may be an impactful and good platform in which people can engage and entertain themselves without relying on old media, but it has sparked the spread of fake news than ever before. This is because everyone can be their own ‘journalist/producer’ and post anything they want without intense gatekeeping, or none at all. The impacts of fake news on society is the influence it has, it can break the authenticity of the news ecosystem to an extent that people’s perception of original and real news changes and becomes flawed beyond measure (Shu et.al, 2017). The intention of the media or the producers of the fake news is to ensure that consumers accept their news and leave no room for rectification or real news (Shu et.al, 2017). According to Shu et.al, (2017) the main cause of social media fake news is the low cost of creating social media accounts and maintaining it, that people who do not have evidence of their claims can easily resort to social media to disseminate their own news, which might be fake.

Trolls have been found to be the most effective human beings who disrupt online communities by responding or posting posts that trigger emotions (Shu, et.al, 2017). Trolling behaviours highly influence people’s moods and how they are led to respond. It is important to note that fake news has no investment in accurate reporting at all and do not build long-term reputation on quality news (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Based on this, this means their fake news are targeted at consumers that already have false ideologies and are more likely to believe fake news irrespective of whether they have researched or not. Another enforcer of fake news to consider is how information sources can be blurred (Tandoc, Lim & Ling, 2018). Real news information can be posted on a legitimate website but that article can be shared through Facebook for example and that may allow for the navigation where people would edit or put misleading captions that are fake (Tandoc et.al, 2018). This is another standard way in which fake news can be disseminated even though the article in itself might be real content.

There are several typologies of fake news, all are aimed at operationalising wrong information. Satire, parody, fabrication, manipulation and propaganda are all ways in which fake news can be operationalised. Satire uses humour and exaggeration to make news more interesting, and this is a way in which news can be fabricated to meet the agenda (Tandoc, et.al, 2018). The format in which it presents information allows for fake news. Parody also uses humour to attract consumers, however it differs from satire because it directly uses non-factual information to present their humour (Tandoc, et.al, 2018). The content used in Parody has proven to be subtle but still able to make the consumers glued. Fabrication is the publishing of non-factual information in a legitimate website to make the news look real (Tandoc, et.al, 2018). This ideally means that a legitimate platform is used to lure people into believing the presented information. Manipulation is based on visual views, this is where two photos can be combined to form one thing with the intention of misleading the viewers, and this is called photo-shop and is used a lot due to the skills and techniques people have gained through new media. The final typology is called propaganda, this is where political parties/entities create false news to influence the public into voting for them or abiding by their notions (Tandoc et.al, 2018). These are their strategic ways in which they lure the public into being in favour of them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allcott, H. and Gentzkow, M., 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), pp.211-36.

Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G.L., Varol, O., Flammini, A. and Menczer, F., 2017. The spread of fake news by social bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07592.

Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J. and Liu, H., 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 19(1), pp.22-36.

Tandoc Jr, E.C., Lim, Z.W. and Ling, R., 2018. Defining “fake news” A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), pp.137-153.

[fortunatelystickycollectio-blog4]

This GIF expresses how I’ve felt for a very long time about talks on homophobia but lets!!

I mean from a very young age, particularly as blacks, boys are taught not to wear too bright of colours because those are meant for girls while girls are taught not to play too much with boys because they might grow to be masculine than feminine etc. But what society in general does not know is that...

Well point is they..

When you know you’re not accepted..

On the good side, it appears that on the 6th of September 2018, the Supreme Court of India overtuned part of the #Section377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised same-sex relationships between two consenting adults.(Twitter: Human Rights Campaign @HRC)

To Indian homosexuals:.. I mean??

Honestly, globally we have a long way to go but we are from very far.

PERSONAL LIFE: HOMOSEXUALITY

Society deems it fit to police people’s personal lives and make it seem like it is a societal call to ‘fix’ and call homosexual people to order. According to Connell (1992), homosexuality is placed under deviance and this erases the dimension and complexity of gender and sexual politics. Society regards homosexuality as some kind of mental illness, in which is justified by psychological principles such as Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis. However, this is exclusive of the general thoughts and misconceptions society holds, in particular uneducated/illiterate people who do not know of such theories. Society, in particular black families, believe that cases of DNA similarities in homosexuality on a family lineage should be found, otherwise homosexual men are stigmatized because they believe it’s their choice.

The concept of homosexuality has been viewed as a ‘type’ of a human being, this raises questions on social control and shaming (Connell, 1992). Homosexual people are treated as the ‘other’ while heterosexuality is treated as natural and dominant. This is problematic because the two sexualities are separately evaluated and this makes a certain sexual preference seem more or less dominant than the other, which causes conflict on society and  disrupts the capacity to which homosexual people are able to accept themselves and ‘come out’ (Connell, 1992). From this, it can be concluded that personal and public aspects of identity are separate but related (Cass, 1979). Society relates and brings together these aspects by infringing on people’s personal lives and engaging and shaming them in public. This on its own creates a division in society in which some people are for homosexuality and others favour heterosexuality.

It can be argued that we cannot speak of societal homosexual conflict without linking it to religion. The contestation of gay and lesbian civil rights bill in over 72 countries has mostly been from religious leaders or for religious reasons (Husbany, 2013). Major Jewish bodies and Christian denominations have stood against homosexual rights, arguing that this is not God’s will and that it is ungodly and unbiblical (Husbany, 2013). Therefore, arguably, societal conflict on homosexuality mostly on the premises of religion and Christianity. According to Husbany (2013), churches which are against homosexuals have the same structure and values with regards to patriarchy. They oppress people based on their ‘by birth’ fate but not by what they have grown to be, but rather by ‘it’s a choice’ narrative (Husbany, 2013). This is why gay men and lesbian women have resorted to adopting feminist views which protect them and state that gay and lesbian people are still human beings and they did not choose to be attracted to the same gender. Although situations do not change, homosexual people gain more confidence on their sexuality.

Given the oppositions & contestation of homosexual rights, including the societal conflict, it has proven to be a challenge for homosexuals to find love and actively engage in it. This is where new media recreates face to face interactions and ultimately matches homosexuals through a dating app called Grindr. Grindr matches people based on their geographical proximity to each other and individuals are left with the decision of either engaging and going on a date with the person or not passing and not going out with them (Cass, 1979). According to Cass (1979) Grindr is a spatial connection through bodies but expressed digitally. Grindr is currently sitting on 4 million users in 192 countries, with over 10 000 new sign ups everyday (Cass, 1979). This proves the struggle society inflicts on homosexual people, to an extent that they have to resort to finding love through the internet. Positively speaking this is good for homosexual people because at least they have found ways to find love, in which does not step on society’s toes. However, generally speaking, this shows that society is not progressive because ‘human rights’ are not applicable to everyone. Also, in most instances, digital dating has proven to be for hooks ups and intimate interactions than for ‘finding love’ (Albury & Byron, 2016). Society, religion and the constitution policies people’s personal lives without being aware and this creates conflict beyond just constructively arguing about sexual relations but towards a stagnant society. This is pointed out because digital dating is not an effective way of dealing with homophobia because people in the rural areas or who do not have access to the internet are mostly not able to find love. Why are we deciding to base people’s love success and affections on digital devices when clearly we are still living in digitally divided societies/countries? A rhetorical question.

The way in which we are taught certain things from a young age contributes to how we view the progression as we grow up. For example, if in the 1900s there were no homosexuals and everyone was heterosexual does not mean we cannot consider how things have evolved and progressed since then and it does not mean we do not have to accept change. We live in a continuously evolving century and for us not to accept change only means we have been programmed to stay the same and this social control only shows how powerful homosexuals are to an extent that society feels it has to litigate against their rights and participation in same-sex relationships. It is funny how a large percentage of the world is still legislatively homophobic. We can argue that South Africa is very progressive for an African country, only in the sense that same sex marriages/intimacy are allowed, but sadly the views of homophobia are still there, even views on corrective rape- giving opposite intimacy by force to turn a homosexual person back to being ‘straight’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albury, K. and Byron, P., 2016. Safe on my phone? Same-sex attracted young people’s negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook-up apps. Social Media+ Society, 2(4), p.2056305116672887.

 Cass, V.C., 1979. Homosexuality identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of homosexuality, 4(3), pp.219-235.

 Connell, R.W., 1992. A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender. American sociological review, pp.735-751.

 Hasbany, R.L., 2013. Homosexuality and religion. Routledge.

[fortunatelystickycollectio-blog4]

Welcome to the inside of my mind, where we recite and call out falsification without fear

Anonymous