#and then will say something that I personally disagree with like. globally consumers are starting to all ask for the same exact things

[sweet-as-kiwis]

International business is officially the Podcast Class

[dappersheep]

Food Fantasy: An Analysis on what killed a Golden Goose (3/3)

Ladies and gentlemen, we've arrived at our final destination.

Again before we start, we have our obligatory disclaimers. I do not own the game or its characters, nor do I claim to know the true history and likely fate of this game. I am entitled to the thoughts and opinions written within this post. Feel free to agree or disagree with the points being made.

This post also remains untagged from the main foofan tag. Only my followers will see this.

We are in the third and final stretch, and the checkpoint is past the cut.

Community

So... here we are, fellow Master Attendants.

As consumers of this piece of entertainment media, we are free to enjoy it however we wish. Appreciating what is there, creating something new from what exists, playing the game by the meta or however you want to play it (within your means and at your own risk of course). There's no one true and absolute way to experience the game.

However, just as you can enjoy something, doesn't mean you can't also point out flaws or shortcomings of the media in question. As an active veteran player, I've already pointed out the many gameplay design flaws  already. And I'd be pretty dumb to say that Food Fantasy's writing is perfect. Hell, it has a lot of holes from a worldbuilding consistency standpoint. 

And what of things from the community side? Yes, there will be times you'd see content you consider cringe, or something in fanon you don't agree with. Or there happens to be fan theories and fangirling posts you don't like the take of because of X or Y.

And that's fine. If we all happen to play the same way, like the same thing, agree on the same thing and produce the same thing, well, this would be one helluva boring community, wouldn't it?

But what if someone decides the way you're playing the game is wrong and harasses you over it? What happens if someone decides that their interpretation of the game's flavor text and lore is more important than what anyone else thought about it? What happens if someone decides that they're absolutely right, and you and everyone else who disagrees deserves to be bullied out of the fandom?

As much as I want to say we aren't part of the problem why the game is deteriorating, we are unfortunately, part of the reason why the game is as such even if most of the blame is directed towards Funtoy and Elex themselves.

⦁ Whale Authority. Whales will always be part of a gacha game's ecosystem. Without them, the game won't be able to maintain its upkeep costs, moreso  for one that services global regions instead of just one. But when a game decides to cater its decisions of what features should be prioritized and when it should be launched around only its most elite paying players' voices  -even if that influence has since tapered off-, you know there is something wrong with the publisher's management team and priorities.

⦁ Interguild drama. While I did not personally follow any of this, this has certainly been the peak of in-game tension back in the day. Poaching good players from both competitive and smaller guilds, guild mergers that often ended up making the annexed guild/s the equivalent of UK colonized India or Australia, suck-ups chummying up to guild leaders to keep a spot in an active, high ranking guild (for bragging rights!) despite never contributing much to overall damage, and just general dislike of certain players' attitudes. Actions like this have disillusioned many players about their playing experience and the reason why many eventually just lost the motivation to log into FooFan.

⦁ Cheaters. You know very well about the Hacker-teme I've mentioned before, but that was in context of Elex being incompetent with dealing with them. Here, I would like  to point out the players who are desperate to dominate  the playing field for whatever reason to the point that they would resort to cheating the ranks with forceful modifications of the APK. Whether it is to rank high in catacombs weekly, get a top spot in daily disaster damage, or weasel their way into the competitive whale ranks of a major ranking event, these are the people who have no qualms messing with the code to give themselves an easier time with the game. And if they're caught? Some pretend that they've made a mistake, some quickly sell the account to escape the blame, some others just scamper away into the dark and hide in the lower ranks where they can't be found. Others simply don't care and keep cheating until Elex decides to finally ban them... if Elex ever decides their rebates score isn't worth saving the account.

⦁ Ship wars. Ah yes, a staple of drama in any fandom. There doesn't need much explanation to this as we've all had our fair share of running into a battleground in whatever fandom we visit. Someone ships BB52 wholeheartedly? Nope, problematic 'age gaps'. Someone likes Napoleon with Pastel? Someone's bound to misinterpret their bios in order to justify that Napoleon was being abusive. Spaghetti and Borscht? Borscht is minor coded, ship her with Vodka instead. Whiskey and Pizza or Cassata? Cancelled! And I've never heard of the Foe Yay trope or pretend I don't know about it! Rarepairs? Disgusting! No fanon in my canon playground! Turkey and Eggnog? Gasp! How dare you, you pedo-shipper-even-though-you-never-said-you-shipped-them-romantically-but-that-isn't-my-point!

⦁ Character Obsession: Bias. On one hand, you love a character so much. Relate to a character so much. You have thus pulled this character into the folds of your bosom and coo at them like a mother dove and get so minutely triggered if someone so much as makes one disagreeable or joking comment about the character that you fly into an overreactive ballistic rage that would make a Canadian goose honk in fear. You don't care what they are in canon. You don't care about the possibility of mistranslation. What matters is the fanon space you carved out for them to exist in and that's all that matters. The problem with this is when this obsession takes over common sense and social etiquette and it steps into harassment territory. You begin to think: I'm the only one who 'understands' the character. I'm the only one who wishes better for the character, everyone else is out to defame them! Oh wait, you like them too? Do you like them the way *I* like them? No? Maybe if you're my 'friend', I'd let it slide. But to everyone else? No one else has the right to like them as much as I do. No one! Never mind that they're completely fictional- No one hurts my bias because in turn, they're hurting *me*!

⦁ Character Obsession: Anti. On the other hand, you hate a character so much. This character just makes you see so much red. Their smug little smirk just makes your blood boil. Their fictional backstory makes you recoil in disgust. You hate that someone else loves a character you hate so much.  You cannot *believe* that someone could be so daringly stupid to like a problematic character. They must be problematic too then. They must be hiding real life secrets that are problematic! Yes, yes. That's right. That person's a supporter of abuse. That person's into pedophilia. That person is into military lolita fashion that Japan started the trend of but clearly Japan was part of the Axis Powers! And that... that person... that person... is a roleplayer and a yaoi fangirl properly interacting with minors and adults. How dare they...!

⦁ Fan Translations.  Normally it wouldn't be a problem that a group or two or several are translating pieces of the game's lore ahead of the official. But with Elex's very delayed translations and extreme allergic reactions to translating Food Soul bios, people have become dependent on fan-translation groups to get their fix. The problem herein lies... is when the translators get drunk off the power that they are one of a handful in a small community who can magically transcribe the oriental moonrunes into English. The problem starts when the translator starts to have an inclination. The problem starts when the translator loses their professional detachment and start adding in details here and there into the fan translated product that ultimately changes the meaning and direction of the entire story. The problem is also escalated when that translator's embellished product is touted as the truth by their followers. If there was an upcoming character whose backstory is connected to a character they hated (either because of someone or they just don't like the character) and you were hoping to read the fan translation? How would you know that what you get isn't something doctored to the point it's basically fanfiction?

⦁ Social Justice Vigilantism. Sometimes someone does not have a character obsession or need it to be annoying. Sometimes, someone just wants to ring the alarm over something they find 'problematic' in order to police and sanitize the enjoyment of the media for 'everyone'. They no longer really take enjoyment out of a new Food Soul design being leaked, they no longer read the lore just to enjoy what it has to offer. Instead, they nitpick bits and pieces of the design and point it out repeatedly as a reason why the whole thing is bad. They point out bits of the story and inject their interpretations of it without really comprehending what they've read in full and react badly to it. What's worse is that they have no qualms publicly posting their reactions and eagerly and hungrily await those likes and echoes of agreement that they were right.

⦁ Circles of Influence. Everyone has a group they eventually gravitate to in a fandom. It comes with its own pros and cons. Sometimes you join a group because someone you admire is in there, sometimes you join a group because you just want to mingle and see more content. All valid reasons. Arguments can't be avoided in a group, it has to happen... But you have to take care. You have to take care to feel the change in the air of the group. When someone starts pushing people to agree with them. When your most admired people start to feel overly sensitive about certain characters or issues. When you start to feel obligated to spy on other groups outside of this one for 'nonbelievers', 'traitors' and 'heretics' who do not think the way this group does, and that bringing back bits and pieces of gossip as offerings would somehow make you more favored in the eyes of the inner clique or remain inside it. There is a gripping sense of annoyance when that person comes in to complain but you can't do anything about it but nod and agree. There is a pervading sense of fear and apprehension of overstepping an invisible boundary. There is fear that you might be next on the chopping block, after witnessing one of the others being ganged up on and thrown out without a second thought, their name spat upon like they're worth less than dirt. And so reluctant you are to give up what you have with them that when they push you to do something you are reluctant to do, all in the name of 'harmony and justice'... You do it. Even though it would mean offering yourself up to the mob with no salvation, and the stark realization that... [they] never cared about you as a friend.

And we've come to the end of this analysis trilogy. The writing got a little bit strange in this post, but honestly this is the best way I could put it. I'm aware things can and will be more complicated than the bullet points I've written but I'm just one person and I tried very hard to keep details of all the drama that happened in this fandom as vague as possible. Of course, that wouldn't work if you know what I am talking about.

The community is quiet now for the most part, the game is somewhere between limbo and the living plane. Things could be better for us, but I don't really count on it.

I wish I could leave a bit of a moral warning or something. But rather than do that, I just hope this was an entertaining read into one individual's eyes into Food Fantasy and everything that makes it up.

[kuroopaisen]

not to throw my two cents /now/ but for shows like aot (I personally stopped after s2 and i havent rly considered picking it up again yet), there definitely are problematic elements and depictions that should be called out when necessary—and we need to especially listen to those whose identities were unfairly treated. anime and manga aren’t innocent of problems, as are the artists behind it :,)

I won’t lie, japan still continues to be sketchy w how they teach and treat their history, but ig we as watchers/readers these media can remain critical of what we consume ? the act of watching smth w fascist elements doesn’t mean you condone it ! and choosing not to watch or support (i find these to be different things) bc of those problematic elements is also valid.

oH and I personally don’t rly like aot either from what I’ve been seeing LMAO as a person who dedicated 2 years of high school to extensive studying of history it’s just :\\\\\\ I think all the points have been made by ppl before me, and by you!! 

hello miss yuki!! first of all, i think the idea that people can’t consume Problematic Media is. is stupid because. humans are capable of critical thinking DJLSDALKJ that’s like... our thing. and just because something’s ‘problematic’ doesn’t mean there’s nothing valuable to draw from it? and by that, i mean... sometimes i specifically seek out things i know i’ll disagree with so i can actually talk about it properly, instead of relying on heresay. 

i guess it’s like the jk r*wling thing. do i think people who enjoy harry potter are militant transphobes? no! do i think it’s a bit shifty to spend money on harry potter merch that isn’t secondhand and is therefore putting coins in miss transphobes pockets? yes! there’s difference between consuming and supporting for sure. 

people have complicated relationships with media and internet discourse tends to make things too black-and-white. where do we draw the line? does resonating with shinji’s story in neon genesis evangelion mean you now support sexualising underage girls? does enjoying harry potter mean you condone fatphobia? does enjoying my hero academia mean you hate the lower classes? 

but at the same time, if someone wants to steer clear of something because of those kinds of things, they absolutely have a right to and neither them nor their intelligence should be insulted for that. a lot of people like to throw around “oh you just don’t understand” as an insult and honestly, Shut Up. leave people be.

ANYWAY aot 

yeah a lot of my problems with aot come down to isayama using a metaphor that isn’t even his to draw on. even if the pernicious aspects are unintentional, they’re still harmful. and also, it’s pretty obvious that isayama’s done his research? with how well the story emulates certain facts in history (and even referencing the madagascar plan hh), there’s no way isayama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. and you can’t really brush up on your knowledge of wwii without the whole antisemitism thing, so... 

but i think an issue i have with a lot of the criticism towards aot is that it comes from a very Western perspective; and i get that to a degree, but it’s also important to think about where the author comes from and who he’s writing for. that doesn’t exonerate any of the problematic aspects to any degree, but context is. well, sometimes it’s everything 

for example, i don’t think the question is so much “is isayama a nazi” as it is “is isayama trying to justify japanese expansionism” because while both are awful, one question is more relevant to what he’s likely to believe (even in the infamous twitter screenshots, he pretty staunchly seems anti-holocaust). i think ethnocentric criticisms muddy the water. 

i’m a dual major in anthropology and history, and while that absolutely doesn’t give me authority, it means i tend to focus more on this sort of thing? there’s no way isayama could’ve known that attack on titan would become so... global? and an issue with episodic things of any nature is that it’s almost impossible to analyse them in their whole until it’s finished. aaaand in most cases, that takes years.

so regardless of what isayama intended, that means there are still right-wing groups that love aot and see it as a metaphor for the great replacement, or there’s people who see it as a justification to abandon pacifism, and so on. but there are also people who see it as a staunchly anti-war story, or a narrative about the cycle of hatred. 

YEAH w the watching vs. supporting, i’ve actually been streaming aot on gogoanime because i didn’t know what i’d think of it when i started, even though i have an animelab and crunchyroll subscription. the question is, am i giving it social capital by discussing it online? some would say yes (i’ve got a platform, and just talking about it in general gives it affluence), some would say no (even if i have a platform, it’s small in the grand scheme of things, and how many people are actually reading my mini essays?)

ANYWAY this is largely incoherent i’m so sorry sdalkjfslfkdj look after yourself!!  

[jaywrites101]

Five-Star Reviews Suck (And they blame you for doing reviews wrong.)

Tonight on Thoughts that Keep Me Awake in Existential Horror, Amazon and Google's rating systems are killing your puppies.

As someone whose job is to review various creative projects and work with creators to improve them, I can say with absolute certainty that no one should ever review things unless it is their job. Now, I could very easily write an entire essay twice the size of this one to back that claim up, but tonight I have an even bigger fish to fry. So if you take affront to that claim, stick around; I'll get to it eventually.

No, tonight I'm breaking down the Five-Star Review. What it is, what it means, why EVERYONE is using it wrong, and how the companies who implement these rating systems blame you for its failings.

Let's start with what the Five-Star review is. And the most important fact to know going in is that Five-Star Restaurants are a globally recognized symbol of excellence, and the companies asking you to leave Five-Star Reviews deliberately want you to mix these two up. They want you, the reader/consumer to think:

Five Stars = Unrivaled excellence.

But that's not what the Five-Star Review is. At its most basic, the Five-Star Review is one of those questions you see all the time in surveys where you pick one of five:

[Strongly Disagree] [Disagree] [Neutral] [Agree] [Strongly Agree]

They do this for two reasons. 1) This system is simple and anyone can understand it. 2) If you take the average of 100 reviews, you get a number that feels predictive. More on that later.

This system is not a review. It is a rating. And it is also officially called a review. But, and I cannot stress this enough, it is not a review!

A Review is a system in which one person breaks down the product or service they have used and provides targeted feedback to the creator or fellow users about the pros and cons of this product or service.

Literal Definition according to Google:

a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary. a critical appraisal of a book, play, movie, exhibition, etc., published in a newspaper or magazine

A Rating is a generalized statement about a product or service to determine if said product or service is adequate for its promotion.

Literal Definition according to Google:

a classification or ranking of someone or something based on a comparative assessment of their quality, standard, or performance. the value of a property or condition that is claimed to be standard, optimal, or limiting for a substance, material, or item of equipment.

One of these things is to provide a flexible analysis, the other is to determine the value of a thing.

Companies want YOU to treat the Five-Star Review as a review. But internally they treat the Five-Star Review as a rating.

So why does this matter? So the two biggest companies on Earth got the definitions of Review and Rating mixed up, big deal, right? There's certainly no possible way this affects your life. Right??? Keep reading, they didn't get these definitions mixed up. They mixed it up deliberately. And they do this as a measure to screw every body out of every thing.

Once again, this comes back to you, the consumer. You see a Five-Star Review and it leaves you with opinions. Even though the "Review" is not actually telling you anything of value. Experts comment on this all the time. Five categories are just too narrow of a field to get an accurate assessment out of anything. That's why most legitimate review sites leave a rating out of 10, or even 100. Five... five just oversimplifies everything. And the problem with oversimplification is that it sweeps a lot of sins under a big 'ol rug.

People fall through the cracks in a Five-Star system. Lots of people are miscategorized, undervalued, and barred from receiving the benefits they deserve.

Remember when I said that the Five-Star Review feels like it gives a number that's predictive? Turns out, that's not how numbers work. In most things when you average together massive amounts of numbers, you end up with numbers that support the trend. (I'm not a math guy, so these are my generalizations.) But with the Five-Star Review the more numbers you get, the closer to 3 it becomes. To break it down into even less math: if enough people say "Thing Good," the reviews show the thing is indeed good. But with the Five-Star Review, the more people who rate and leave ratings; the more average your product appears.

This is because the companies are selling the Five-Star Review as a review but treating it as a rating.

Now let's talk about you, the consumer who leaves reviews and the consumer who reads the ratings.

Picture this, you bought something on Amazon, and now you're leaving a review of the product. You give it four stars because it was pretty good, but not flawless-

Already you are being too critical.

If you give a product three stars out of five; that means it was an average product. This statement would prolly surprise many of you. Because we've been conditioned to think of the Five-Star Review as a review whose stars are awarded depending on excellence, no review is supposed to be a sign of an average product. So how do you tell people the product is bad? You leave a critical comment telling people the product was bad.

Anyone who's ever sold a book online will tell you otherwise. Comments, no matter how bad, are considered positive by the algorithm. The Five-Star Review system favors large numbers over nothing. One hundred One-Star Reviews will far outweigh any product that has twenty Five-Stars Reviews. Even though anyone who looks at these statistics should clearly see that they are equal.

And when you look at a product that has an average review of fewer than four ratings, you dismiss it out of hand.

But the more ratings a product has, the closer to three its ratings will become.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of bad sellers has used this to their advantage. Some writers who were just terrible make use of this system to look average. It favors them.

But if you're just starting out, you are already going to get crushed by the algorithm. And then, when people don't leave reviews because your product was averagely good; you suffer. And then, after struggling to get reviews, people leave reviews that are less than five stars; you suffer. And the more rating you get; the more you suffer.

This, despite what it may seem, is the system working perfectly. Because it's tricking you into believing that it's an effective system for weeding out low-quality products while stifling anyone trying to use it.

Anyway, this has been my rant. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. Like and Reblog and all that. 'Night.

[chinesegal]

Another review of a shitty article.

Barely a day ago I noticed yet another shitty article written by an animal rights activist trying to smear the farmer Jenna Woginrich, and it’s written by notorious steppelord Gary L. Francione no less! Today I finally sampled enough bravery to try to brave the dumpster-fire that is his thoughts and opinions.

Let’s begin.

“Jenna Woginrich, supposedly a former vegetarian/vegan (she has used both terms), has been aggressively pimping “happy meat” for about five years now. She claims: My beef, after all, wasn’t with beef. It was with how the cow got to my plate in the first place. One way to make sure the animals I ate lived a happy, respectable life was to raise them myself. I would learn to butcher a free-range chicken, raise a pig without antibiotics and rear lambs on green hillside pastures. I would come back to meat eating, and I would do it because of my love for animals.She advises those who care about animals:If you really care about the humane treatment of livestock then I strongly suggest you eat them.“

I just wanna say, I don’t really agree with Woginrich here. Not everyone has the opportunity or skills to start becoming a farmer, but otherwise I don’t really have that much of a problem with what she is saying.

“Ms. Woginrich has a new essay: An Open Letter to Angry Vegetarians.It starts: This is a letter for the angry folks who think not eating meat makes them morally superior to those of us who do.Oh, oh: we can see where this is heading.She goes on to tell us that she was a vegetarian/vegan (she uses both terms) for nearly 10 years, a PETA supporter, and “animal activist,” but has decided that all food involves killing because animals are killed in plant agriculture and harvesting, and growing crops involves other harms, including war, so she produces and promotes “happy” meat. “:The simplest backyard salad from your own organic garden to the fake bacon in your shopping cart — both take lives. I have simply chosen to take lives in a way that causes the least amount of suffering and causes the least amount of wasted global resources. And yes, it means there is blood on my hands now.The truth is there is no meal we can eat without killing. None. A trip to your local grocery store for tofu and spinach may not include a single animal product but the harvesting of such food costs endless animal lives. Growing fields of soy beans for commercial clients means removing habitat from thousands of wild animals, killing them through deforestation and loss of their home. Eating meat you raised means eating food infused with integreity [sic], sweat, loyalty, determination, love, friendship, memories, loss, perserverance [sic] and respect.And none of these things are ingredients you will not find on a package of tofu no matter how close you look.”

“And Ms. Woginrich complains that those who disagree are violating her human rights:Eat in whatever way invokes respect and gratitude in your soul. Be grateful we live in this time of contrived and soon-to-be over luxury and abundance. But do not come to battle here, accusing those of us raising good meat of murder. Those are fighting words, unkind words, and for someone so intensely passionate about treating animals well you seem to have no issue treating human beings like crap. I’m an animal, too. I would appreciate some ethical treatment.

So what is there to say about Ms. Woginrich’s position? I could say a great deal. But I think four comments will suffice. First, and as a preliminary matter, Ms. Woginrich should not confuse disagreement with “anger.” It is very common these days for those who are criticized for promoting animal exploitation to whinge about being “attacked” or “bullied,” or lament their status as victims of “anger.” I certainly agree that people should not address Ms. Woginrich in uncivil ways. But disagreement with and reasoned criticism of Ms. Woganrich, who is profiting from exploiting and killing animals, and who is actively promoting animal exploitation, does not amount to incivility or anger.“

You don’t know her life, mr Francione. I mean, many, many people including farmers like her have been harassed by militant vegans. One friend of mine has literally been accused of being a murderer for working on a dairyfarm, and another was given death threats from a vegan petfood company for merely pointing out nutritional inadequacies in their products. With that in mind, “anger” could very well be a massive understatements.

“ Second, Ms. Woginrich has no clue about basic ethical reasoning. She appears to think that morality is a matter of personal preference and nothing is inherently morally wrong. People may be put in jail for killing other humans, but that’s just a matter of a legal convention. There’s nothing inherently morally wrong with intentionally killing a human. “

I mean... Almost nothing is inherently morally wrong excluding things like rape, bigotry and genocide. Killing can be done in self-defence, lying can save lies and stealing an apple for a starving child is barely a crime in my opinion. So I don’t even get what you are trying to go for here.

“ I suspect that this is a good part of the reason why Ms. Woginrich sees herself as victimized by disagreement. If she sees fundamental moral issues as involving nothing more than a preference, then it would be natural for her to think that disagreement, including substantive, principled, and reasoned disagreement, is an expression of “anger.” 

Hmmmm. (grumbling as I think about everything shitty an ARA has said, including death and rape threats against hunters and farmers). 

“ I note that her blog says that we can look forward to see her writings about the Civil War. Given her moral subjectivism, I will be curious to see if she defends human slavery as well. After all, on Ms. Woginrich’s view, the morality of human slavery is just a matter of preference. There’s no moral truth there.“

Comparing animal husbandry to slavery, how nice. No, mr Francione, that is never justifiable in my opinion and I will tell you why: neither veganism nor vegetarianism are universally feasible. Not just because of substinence hunting in developing countries but also because of diet restrictions and eating disorders making changes in diet nearly impossible and the dozens of ex-vegans you can read about online. And animals unlike humans do not have a concept f ownership, they cannot think about the implications of being owned property. Therefore, comparing farming animals to slavery is something that is never justifiable.

“And if Ms. Woginrich maintains that there is moral truth where humans are concerned but not where nonhumans are concerned, then’s she is merely another speciesist who begs the question from the outset and engages in circular reasoning. So, without saying more, if you don’t accept moral subjectivism (and no one does except when they are thrashing about continually trying to convince themselves that exploiting the vulnerable is morally acceptable), and you reject speciesism, then Ms. Woginrich’s position collapses.“

circular reasoning my ass. You radveegs are much more guilty of “circular reasoning” and I will hsow you someone who explains that much better than I can: miss @avatar-dacia

The only people who do not accept the fact that morality is subjective are usually WBC-type christian fundies or radveegs who never accept that their diet is not feasible for everybody. 

“I should add that Ms. Woginrich seems to think that murder, as a legal term, involves killing with “malevolent intent” and that deliberate killing done with “gratitude,” “respect,” and “love” is not the requisite culpable mind state for murder. That’s wrong. Murder involves killing a human in a premeditated or deliberate way. The mercy killing of a loved one suffering from a painful illness done out of love and compassion is premeditated killing and constitutes murder. And Ms. Woginrich clearly is killing animals with premeditation even if, as she rather incredulously claims, her heart is overflowing with “gratitude,” “love,” and “respect” for the nonhumans she exploits and kills. This is, of course, not to say that Ms. Woginrich is guilty of murder because murder is a crime defined to involve humans only. But her claim that her mind state in killing animals is not the mind that would allow for a conviction of murder if a human were involved is, like most of what else she says, wrong. “

The precise legal definition of murder varies by state and country, but I am pretty sure that legal euthanasia is not murder in most lawbooks. Even if it was, there’s still a GIGANTIC difference between animal husbandry, euthanasia and murder. Also, what I find really goddamn sick is your insinuation that slaughtering an animal for food makes one a possible murderer or “psychopath”. Literally thousands if not millions of people grow up helping their family butcher an animal throughout the world, and most of them will never kill a human. My maternal grandfather was the kindest man I knew, and he grew up butchering animals. He is not a “serial-killer.”

“Third, Ms. Woginrich’s argument in a nutshell is: we can’t live perfectly so it’s fine to kill nonhumans. But that’s just silly. I agree that living involves indirectly harming nonhumans and humans. When we build a road, we know that some humans will be killed on that road. Does that mean that there’s no difference between building a road and intentionally killing humans? Of course not.

I agree that everything we consume involves indirect harm to nonhumans and humans, and that we all need to consume a great deal less. But does the fact that the manufacture of a product may have resulted in the negligent death of a human or nonhuman mean that there’s no difference between that negligent death and an intentional killing of a human or nonhuman? Of course not “

Pesticides are literally used to intentionally kill insects and small mammals considered “pests”. Vegetable and crop farmers will pay trappers to capture and cull raccoons and deer to stop them from eating their produce. Those deaths are not “negligient”.

“ I agree that the harvesting of crops involves unintentionally harming animals and humans who are killed or injured in the agricultural process. But if we were all vegans, there would be many fewer acres under cultivation. Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University has written that livestock in the United States consume 7 times as much grain as is consumed by the entire U.S. human population and the grains fed to livestock could feed 840 million humans who had a plant-based diet. “

From what I have seen, cattle are usually fed crop byproducts, things humans don’t want to eat. I actually found a good study on this. But your assertation is still not really relevant here, if we are comparing one person being a substinence-farmer to vegans eating commercial crops. And cattle do not need to be fed crops, pasture is a thing although feeding animals by-products from plant agriculture could actually be a good way to lessen food waste.

“Should we do everything possible to avoid any unintentional nonhuman (and human) deaths that occur during harvesting? Of course. But does the fact that unintentional deaths will occur however careful we are mean that intentional deaths of nonhumans and humans are morally justifiable? Of course not. And if we all took veganism seriously as a fundamental moral issue, would we develop better ways to avoid that unintentional harm? Of course we would. Ms. Woginrich proudly proclaims that the animals that she raises and kills are being fed with “local non-GMO feed grown by our neighbors.” And do her neighbors harvest that feed without unintentionally killing animals? No, of course not. So she’s participating in the unintentional deaths and the intentional ones. It is clear that her position–that unintentional deaths cannot be avoided so the intentional ones are morally acceptable–is frivolous on this basis as well.“

In my opinion, becoming a substinence-farmer and raising your own animals for food is not evil nor wrong, because veganism is not universally feasible as I said earlier. And technically, someone who consumes only local produce and products whether they are vegan or not is probably causing less harm than a vegan who consumes exotic fruits and vegetables picked by underpaid workers. Meaning that Woginrich is actually trying to avoid nonhuman and human harm by being a farmer.

“ Ms. Woginrich even has a “donate” button on her page. That makes perfect sense. The whole happy exploitation movement is about buying indulgences for engaging in morally unjustifiable behavior. So I don’t blame Ms. Woginrich for cashing in as well. “

Or you know, since female ranchers usually don’t make that much money, she is just low on cash.

[perfectirishgifts]

3 CEOs Who ‘Get’ Gender Balance - And Build It

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/3-ceos-who-get-gender-balance-and-build-it/

3 CEOs Who ‘Get’ Gender Balance - And Build It

Ronan Dunne, EVP & Group CEO, Verizon Consumer Group, Charlie Nunn, CEO Wealth and Personal Banking … [] HSBC and CEO-Designate Lloyds, and Tiger Tyagarajan, CEO Genpact.

“You get better outcomes, and you come to decisions with more pace, when teams are more gender balanced,” says Charlie Nunn. As the just-announced new CEO of Lloyds Banking Group, he will be able to test his hypothesis. He is joining an unusually balanced bank his predecessor as CEO, António Horta-Osório, carefully crafted over his decade there.

There are a handful of CEOs who are deeply committed – and increasingly skilled – at building high-performing, gender balanced organisations. I recently had the pleasure of facilitating a conversation between three of them – Verizon Consumer Group’s Ronan Dunne, Genpact CEO Tiger Tyagarajan and Charlie Nunn, currently CEO of HSBC’s Wealth and Personal Banking Division. All three are convinced that better balance delivers better business – and are pretty convincing at explaining why. They are all the more convincing for being some of the rare leaders to have successfully balanced their own businesses and Executive Teams.

Why We Need More ‘Manels’ (on Gender Balance)

Why, many might object, (including one of the participants) a ‘manel’ of three male CEOs to talk about gender balance in business? Isn’t that totally hypocritical and emblematic of the problem? I’d argue there are three reasons why it’s increasingly essential:

The vast majority of businesses everywhere are still run by them (see chart)

Their commitment is the No.1 success factor for building balance, and

CEOs are not vocal or visible enough on the issue – especially not outside of their own organisations.

Percentage of male CEOs in top global stock exchanges

So INSEAD’s Balance In Business Club took an innovative approach and gave the stage to the people who should actually be accountable for balance. The audience concurred, in response to a poll question on who should lead the charge, 91% voted for the responsibility going to the CEO.

In my all-too-long experience, ‘selling’ the idea of gender balance is a skill that too many leaders still lack. Most male leaders aren’t good (or comfortable) ‘selling’ why balance matters to other men who may be less convinced than they are (still the majority). Many women are convinced that gender imbalances don’t shift because of bias. I disagree. I think gender imbalances are so sticky because of a lack of leaders who push it convincingly. So we urgently need to showcase leaders who do, if we have any post-pandemic hope of building back in a more balanced way.

A lively debate ensued around three questions: Do companies and leaders really buy the ‘WHY’ of gender balance? Do they understand ‘WHAT’ is currently going on in their organisations that creates and perpetuates imbalances (or do they just chalk it up to bias and roll out some training)? ‘HOW’ do you successfully implement balance -without a big backlash and lots of resentment from men?

WHY Care?

“Part of my frustration,” admits Tiger Tyagarajan, “has been that for 15 years, most conversations on this topic ends up spending 80% on the ‘why’, because it looks like everyone needs to be convinced. I don’t think people still fully get it.” Charlie Nunn, on the other hand, was convinced that most of his peers got the ‘why’ but stumbled on the ‘how.’ Ronan Dunne’s frank assessment was that most leaders are somewhere in the tepid in-between. “They broadly accept the WHY,” he suggests, “but there is a significant group of male senior leaders who would describe it as: ‘WHY, but… it’s not possible in my sector, not in my industry, not my whatever, it’s somebody else’s problem.”

So how can you convince people about why they should care about gender balance? For Nunn, it’s grounded in an obvious business imperative. “I serve 39 million customers across 60 countries; the customer lens is hugely important for what I do. If you are going to properly serve those customers, you need to properly represent that customer base in the teams that you build.” As Dunne framed it: “talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not. In a world competing for scarce resources, the opportunity for any smart business is to better match talent to opportunity than your competitors. Being underrepresented in any group, whether that be gender, culture or race, means you’re simply playing with one hand tied behind your back.”

What’s Going On?

So, if the arguments are so clear, why is change so slow, and what’s going on inside organisations that causes such persistent imbalances? All three CEOs agreed that leadership creates culture, and many corporate cultures aren’t particularly inclusive of the kind of differences that diverge from the existing dominant norm.

“The starting point is what you say when you are in a position of leadership – the language you use, the culture you create.” With this, Nunn summed up the reason we find ourselves in a very unbalanced position today, as “the biggest issue in my industry is giving people the confidence to lead, and what changes to make and how to make that happen.”

Perhaps this lack of confidence is a result of the broad swathe of often-conflicting opinions out there. As Tyagarajan explained, “There is a massive mindset spectrum. I think gender is just one aspect of a bigger problem: people need to be able to appreciate cognitive differences.”

HOW To Balance?

The issue of implementation was seen as the crux of the gender balance challenge by all three CEOs. All agreed quotas are not the solution. “A quota basically says we have all given up,” said Tyagarajan, “that we need a referee who will punish us if we don’t follow this rule that’s been set. There is no desire, motivation or competition, and that is not a good world to be in.”

So how did they balance? First, it starts with leadership, including the female role models that companies boast of having developed and like to showcase. Too often, they are anti-role models to a younger generation of women (and men). Companies get the women their cultures design, and are (still) often trying to act and sound like men. The result was aptly summarised by Dunne: “For an average 30-something female, in my personal experience, less than half of the women in senior positions in companies I have worked in have been perceived as role models for future women leaders by the women inside those organisations.”

Finally, the CEOs insisted that systemic change underpins the shift in leadership and culture. “We need to look at the nature of work,” said Dunne, “and redefine it so it is more modular. The nature of how you develop your career is more structured and intentional in making hybrids of different roles and different experiences.”

Understanding the overlap between gender balance across different cultural realities is essential in achieving balance in global companies. Tyagarajan explained that at Genpact, “in China, our leadership team of 14 is 13 women, and in Romania our leadership of 9 is just 1 guy…the cultural differences are huge.” But this becomes just as unbalanced as the male dominated teams in other countries. It might look balanced in aggregate, but it doesn’t feel balanced on the ground.

The CEOs wryly admitted that large companies were good at presenting aggregate gender data that hides the fact that balance is often built on the back of a lot of women in certain functions and countries and a lot of men in others, rather than in achieving balance across disciplines and geographies. “Large organisations sometimes have the ability to fudge data,” observes Dunne, “when you actually segment the data, sometimes it’s reflective of math, rather than success of execution.”

In the end, the goal isn’t balance insists Dunne. “I don’t do gender balance. I am in a war for talent – I build teams, and I build an environment in which I genuinely aspire to create the conditions in which each individual in the organisation can be the success they deserve to be.”

While probably every CEO on the planet would say exactly the same thing, these were three CEOs who actually did it . And lived to share the tale. I hope more will follow their lead.

From Diversity & Inclusion in Perfectirishgifts

[klaralachman]

Social Media

owadays, social media play a very important part in our society. Influencer marketing is dominating the market within the younger generation, we spend hours daily scrolling through our feeds, consuming content. Some people think that social media are toxic and a waste of time, others are disagreeing. For me, it's a great source of inspiration and entertainment but I also think that it's very important to set boundaries because social media can sometimes be truly toxic. I am really picky about the people I follow, and if someone’s content does not make me feel good I unfollow them. I also try not to spend too much time on social media, because it can be very time-consuming. I set a timer for one hour of Instagram per day and it really helps me to stay on track with my other responsibilities (but let’s be honest sometimes I just click ‘15 more minutes’ and keep scrolling haha).

(image from google)

Social Media can be very useful in terms of branding and promoting your work, especially if you want to work within the creative field. It’s important to show your audience what you have to offer and to keep your social media accounts up to date. A very good resource on this topic is a book from Austin Kleon called ‘Show your work - 10 ways to show your creativity and get discovered’. (online pdf version: https://www.pdfdrive.com/show-your-work-10-ways-to-share-your-creativity-and-get-discovered-e199462138.html )

This book builds on his previous bestseller ‘Steal like an artist - 10 things nobody told you about being creative’ which helps to discover your own and unique creative style. In Show your work Cleon talks about using platforms to get discovered. He places a lot of focus on showing side projects and behind the scenes.

‘ Whether you share it or not, documenting and recording your process as you go along has its own rewards: You’ll start to see the work you’re doing more clearly and feel like you’re making progress. And when you’re ready to share, you’ll have a surplus of material to choose from.’ - Austin Kleon (Show your work)

I really like his book, because of how raw and human it feels. Cleon doesn’t place himself above his readers or in a position of some kind of teacher, he simply shares his experience in a very fun but also interesting way. I would highly recommend his books to anyone who is interested in improving both their work and their online presence.

Social Media - wise he advises to share something small every day. He says that overnight success is a myth and the daily hard work is what pays off. And again, it can only be research, description of the process or a small part of what you’ve done that day - showing the process makes your audience feel more connected with you.

Before you set up an account, it’s important to realise who your target audience is and therefore which platform will be the most suitable to use. If you are targeting older people, you won’t probably find them on Instagram or TikTok and if you want to share your visual work and behind the scenes, LinkedIn might not be the place to go. Each platform has it’s own purpose and it’s important to be able to distinguish in between them.

Instagram is perfect for sharing visual work such as photographs or graphic design. Because you can add multiple photos into one post, it could also come in handy in showing behind the scenes, the processes, before and afters etc., but it might not be the best platform for long articles and descriptions. For those it’s ideal to set up a blog such as Tumblr, where you can really dive deep into the subject and write as much as you want. Instagram is also one of the most used platforms in the world, with over one billion of monthly active users.

https://www.google.com/search?q=instagram+monthly+active+users&oq=instagram+monthly&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3j0i22i30i395l4.4418j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As we can see, the audience is there, which is a great pro, but a con is that there is a huge overload of content, which is why it’s important to post on a regular basis to make people notice you (also it’s better in terms of the algorithm and post engagement). 

If you want to make it as a photographer or a digital designer, the looks of your profile can be quite important. Your feed should be aesthetically pleasing and your profile picture should stand out whilst displaying what’s your passion. Sometimes it can be good to include your logo to have a consistent branding and you should definitely link other platforms where people can find your work such as your portfolio website. 

Here are examples of profiles I find really inspiring.

Jacob is one of the best photographers I follow and for me his work is really inspiring. I think that his profile is really well put together and his photos are just a blast to look at. Thanks to his skills and the internet he could pursue travel photography as his full time job and he has worked with multiple grand brands such as Mercedes, Volvo etc.. What I like about his profile is that not only he shows the final photo but often the unedited version and sometimes even the editing process.

Frauki is a German travel photographer who I also find very inspiring. From the look of the photographs you can tell that she knows what she’s doing and her feed has a very calming vibe. She also shown behind the scenes which I really appreciate.

Apart of photography and travel related accounts I also follow few Graphic Design related ones, @Femmetype is one example. It’s an account sharing female typography artists and it’s a great source of inspiration when I’m in my creative slump sometimes. I would love to be once featured on such page, because I think that it really helps with getting discovered (by a brand or a potential client)

@Andiegraphics is a graphic designer based in the Czech Republic and she is a true idol to me. Her designs are very gentle and beautiful and looking at her profile just makes me want to create more and more.

As you can see, none of these creatives have their logo as their profile picture, and I have decided to do the same. I think it’s much more personal if creatives use their photographs as their profile pictures instead of their logos (for brands it’s different - good practice to use their logo). I have linked my website to my accounts so anybody can view it and take a look at my logo there.

Instagram is not only about showing your work though. When potential employer looks you up, they don’t only want to see your work but also your personal life. Your social media accounts can tell a lot about you as a person, how you like to spend your free time, what are your other passions etc.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

With over 2 bilions of monthly active users, Facebook still dominates the social media world, which makes it a great platform to promote your work.To be honest I prefer Instagram over Facebook, because of its clarity - you can see all the posts right away, whereas with Facebook you have to scroll down to find what you’re looking for. This platform is also not as visually oriented, which is not that suitable for me, but everyone needs to decide what works the best for them. And again, it’s all about the audience you’re aiming for.

It’s a good practice to create a Facebook page along with your personal profile page and to refer to it in your CV etc.

Another great platform to use if you want to get employed is LinkedIn. Apart from Instagram it shows more of your professional side, and it’s the perfect place to look for a job or an employee (if you are an employer of course). You can build a wide network of contacts which may come in really handy if you’re looking for a job and there’s a job listing board - personalised to you based on your chosen criteria. Part of LinkedIn is also LinkedIn Learning - great platform to broaden your skillset.

I have decided to use LinkedIn and Instagram to promote myself and my work. My username is @klaralachman​ on both because of consistency, and they both link to my website.

This is my instagram page, as I have mentioned I decided to use my own photograph instead of logo and the same goes for LinkedIn (everyone uses photographs in there as well). I used my logo as an additional photograph on LinkedIn though.

Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed it

K

[comm2800mockumentary-blog]

Evaluation

Outline: 

Update 11/05/20 Main content, explained - 

Interviews: I will adopt the best or most controversial segments of an interview and use them without context to build tension and 'hook’ the audience in. From the subject interviews I have now, examples of this might include:

1) ‘My money, my phone, my internet ain’t shit...“When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can't eat money.”’ - Quoted by interviewee SS20T

2) ‘I think we’ll be even more socially distanced than before all this’ - Interviewee 2G01B

3) ‘...It’s man-made...I wouldn’t say I agree, but I wouldn’t say I disagree either. It’s a possibility’ - Interviewee 2G01B

Whilst these aren’t necessarily scripted (I haven’t planned them) I think using controversial or dramatic segments will build arrest my audience from the start and make them interested in watching the rest of the series. Even in the current circumstances - where these ‘pandemic’ narratives have become over-saturated. 

Archive footage: This footage will not be my own.

These clips will be distorted and overlapping. The news will be the main source of archive footage I adopt here. Clips of news as it identifies its first fatalities and rapidly grows across Britain and the world. Rapid cuts will move between the two to reveal a build up to something unknown to the viewer. Adopting a crescendo style epic to build tension, too, will add to the enigma of the sequence. 

In using the 999 call, I believe this will be useful in constructing an authentic message and inviting the viewers into the type of crime or detective theme I aim to create. The title itself ‘the story of an invisible killer’ highlights a narrative using similar conventions. We’ll slowly unravel the life of Covid-19, how it began, how it spread and it’s victims - in a much similar set up to a murder-based docu-series. The titles will ultimately ‘climax’ and end all tension before we return back to a state of equilibrium. Perhaps some establishing shots and tracking shots can highlight the world as we knew it before. This is overlaid over the voice over of an interviewee as they begin to unravel the story of the virus from its onset. This will take up the last few minutes of the narrative. 

Update 16/05/20 Mini teaser: 

Update 17/05/20 Feedback: 

2G01B: Well edited. A current and gripping story.

WDL40: You explore themes of global, economic and political concerns well. It flows nicely and I can see where it all ties into the ‘invisible killer’ narrative. I would like to see some more interview clips! 

[Interviews are currently available to view on the One-drive shareable link.]

D_D64: All is good. I would have liked to see some use of the title in the typography. Maybe starting with ‘Outbreak’ but eventually fading out the first part so all that is left is ‘break’. 

Critical Summary:

How successfully did I meet the criteria?

1) Effective project design - whilst I didn’t execute my final documentary project idea, I most certainly had a lot of fun conceptualising and pre-planning it. Instead of delivering a 4 minute pilot, I invested my time into prepping for it through scripts, vision boards, test shots and more. Doing this allowed me to visualise how the final product would be and ‘fine tune’ any irrelevant or unnecessary ideas I had originally planned for. I believe this pre-production element also allowed me to come up with a solid, attention grabbing pilot sequence - ‘hooking’ audiences into a docu-series which combats topics of crisis. I would suggest, thus, that I was successful in this area of research and am happy with the research I conducted.  

2) Research practise methods - This area was a lot harder to attempt. Considering that my idea was continually evolving, sometimes I found this a little challenging to document. For example, I perhaps didn’t mention how I plan to ‘animate’ parts of my project. I liked the idea of a sand artist or a sketcher to illustrate my work through ‘in camera’ techniques rather than using software like After Effects or Adobe Illustrator. This is because I felt as though it would be more suited to my authentic and personal approach, giving a sentimental feel to each segment. 

Initially, I attempted to make my own sketches. Though, I realise that this not only would be extremely impractical (and time consuming!) but also quite tasking as I am not an artist so would need a lot of test-products and practise. Then, my idea was to to ‘hire’ (or rather ‘borrow’) an artist and credit their work within my docu-series. However, once again, the process of sourcing a voluntary artist would be extremely time-consuming and challenging as creatives deserve to be paid for their work and I would have very little to offer. Finally, I opted to resign from this idea within my 4 minute pilot and stick to conventional documentary making. This allowed me to conceptualise the idea, without actually having to execute it; and, given the short time scale, this was probably for the best! 

On the other hand, however, my research in ideas and themes is present - highlighted through my ‘Inspiration’ blog posts. I would say that the original idea evolved tremendously as a result of continual research and practise. At times, watching non-related shows and YouTube clips would inspire my work to take a different turn. Likewise, researching and reading different approaches, ideologies and theories regarding the practice of documentary making too helped construct my final project. Throughout this project, I aimed to vary my research in author, date and style. This, I believe, is evident in my final project which was shaped from the origins of a mock-documentary with comical elements at its forefront, to a tech-and-edit-heavy docu-series reflecting on how the virus effected us all. The hands-on approach too guided my research and thus, whilst I did struggle in this area, I do believe I did confidently and successfully execute this brief within the pre-production of my documentary. 

3) Critical analysis review - I would certainly agree that I used a variety of sources to aid and support my research. Whilst most of my sources were books (sourced online), I enjoyed studying varying topics, including: documentary origins, the authenticity of documentary making, modern practices and much more. These scholarly texts were useful to some degree in understanding the theory behind this practical art of documenting - and, in some cases, fabricating - real-life stories. However, the skill of documentary making lies in the practical skills too. So, I also used visual mediums like YouTube and Google-sourced images to help manage my understanding of documentaries more closely. This was especially important as my pilot would, once complete, be uploaded to a visual platform like YouTube. 

It seemed that this decision was the right one. Not only did I believe that YouTube (as the second most popular social media site) could attract a wider target demographic but also, my market agreed that my docu-series felt fitting for a platform like this one. 

On the contrary, however, I examined pre-existing documentaries like Tiger King and sitcoms like The Office UK which have established distribution companies, to inspire my hybrid genre. Where I will be tackling issues concerning the virus alone, this will be rather dark and upsetting; almost like a crime investigation using interviews and personal accounts to illustrate the era. On the other hand, I will attempt to break this up with comical or up-beat bursts of footage as a way to showcase that ‘every cloud has a silver lining’. 

To summarise, thus, I did use various resources - both scholarly and non-academic sources - to produce my finalised concept. I feel knowledgeable on delivering and executing this piece as a ‘shreditor’ now, but, simultaneously understand the inner workings of ‘what makes a documentary...a documentary’. 

4) Advance practical skills - Whilst I enjoyed the idea of the ‘shreditor’ role, I was a little surprised at its intensity. Of course, I didn’t (in the end) construct a practical piece to submit. However, even in the initial planning, and then creation of the test shots, the shreditor role had its challenges.  

In my previous experience of working in teams, I have definitely learnt a lot. From making compromises and sharing unified responsibility, to the delegation of a team-production - I believe that this opportunity allows us to individually specialise at what we do best, and create a project which resembles the best of our skills. In single-handedly running each role (and thus bearing its responsibility too), however, even the simplest of tasks became challenging. To me, the process was harder than anticipated because I was responsible for all sides of pre-production, production and post. Even in my test shots I found it challenging to set up and film, when this wasn’t even half of the equipment I wished to use initially!

Perhaps in finding these limitations, though, I learnt a valuable lesson that I otherwise would have disregarded. As a single documentary maker, the equipment I wished to use would be highly unrealistic as I would’ve found the process of transportation and setting up extremely challenging. Not only would this significantly eat into my time, but also cause issues with running the shoot i.e. expecting to film and manage sound simultaneously. However, as noted in an earlier blog post, I would require the assistance of my peers and to support me in the filming process i.e. in sound management. This would limit the time I would spend in fixing any issues I had during the shoot as well as lift the pressure a little. Meaning that my time would be solely on the film making and subject. 

5) My final review - Reviewing and critiquing my 2 minute test piece allows me to understand my ideas in the ‘real world’ - advancing from the simplicity of my pre-visualisation to the actual docu-series itself. 

What I found with the filmmaking is that sound is an over-whelming pain which I did not consider for! I didn’t anticipate how good the mics on my phone and camera were as they picked up small sounds like birds in my neighbours garden or my fish tank (strange!) in the background of my interview with my mum. The distorting of sound compromised some of the shots I took and would’ve been greatly problematic for the real pilot. However, in testing locations which worked / didn’t work and how these undesirable noises could be avoided (using sound covers for example), only led me to a better final production...or that which will come after lockdown. 

Furthermore, I depended a lot on archive footage. Especially when cutting different segments of audio together, archive visuals were necessary to hide this. Likewise, in the real edit, using Avid will be useful for brightening and contrasting shots and adding colour where necessary.  

I also noticed that studio lighting will address some of the lighting issues I had and so will be a (new) requirement I will have to consider. Especially for the cinematic look I wish to adopt, this is especially important! Moreover, I will need a camera that can adjust its focal length to enhance this. Using my own Canon meant that I was limited in the visual effects, though with the BMPC, I feel more confident in playing around with the settings and making a more visually dramatic piece!  

I enjoyed making it and whilst my production time was limited (I constructed it over the space of a day!) I found it beneficial in my practical understanding. I hope you can see the development of my idea over the past few months and are on board with my idea. Hopefully I can execute the vision I have in mind and produce a high-quality docu-series aimed to enlighten and educate the broad target market that is those who fell victim to the 2019-2020 global pandemic: Coronavirus. 

[goldensunbalotiyaposts]

Weight Loss

From healthy diet plans to helpful weight loss tools, here you'll find  latest diet news and information.

There are many not unusual weight loss myths that humans live with the aid of in relation to their health. It is difficult at times to separate the weight loss myths and reality from what is authentic. Many sound true at the same time as others are simply laughable. I as soon as examine someplace that if you drink water at night time that you are going to advantage weight or that in case you scratch your head too often you'll lose your hair....

Weight Loss Myth # 1

The greater weight that I should lose the greater extreme my exercise routine should be

Weight Loss Truth: Although having an excessive workout recurring is exceptional, there are some matters you must consider: the primary being that everyone is at a specific level on the subject of their fitness and how much intensity they can genuinely handle. If you have been physically inactive for a number of years, an intense workout for you is probably, walking half a mile a day. After you stroll that 1/2 mile you notice which you are sweating bullets and which you are tired. However, for someone who has been physically lively for plenty years, on foot half of a mile can be done without a sweat. Everyone has a unique definition of what "severe" is.

If extreme for you is working out for an hour a day, but due to existence's busy agenda you simplest have time for 20 mins a day, then the ones 20 minutes will move a very lengthy way. It won't necessarily be categorised as "intense", in line with your definition, but the ones little cardio moments will have advantageous fitness changing effects.

Fat Loss Myth # 2

Stress and weight gain do now not go hand in hand

Weight Loss Fact: This is considered one of those "laughable" myths. To learn greater how pressure is adding lbs. in your life please download my loose E-Book, "Psychology of Releasing Weight"

Weight Loss Myth # 3

I can shed pounds whilst consuming whatever I want

Weight Loss Truth: Sir Isaac Newton as soon as said " What is going up should come down." There are natural standards that govern our lives. If you throw a ball up inside the air, it is going to come back down. You can take a seat for your sofa and imagine and visualize that the ball will staying afloat inside the air, but natural standards train us that it will come down. Same goes on the subject of our weight.

This is one in every of the maximum not unusual weight loss myths out there. It is illogical to think that your fitness and weight are going to be in stability if your nutrition consists mainly of twinkies, chips, and donuts. Sure you can burn it off via exercising, but maximum human beings whose weight loss program is composed of specifically junk meals are in all likelihood no longer disciplined enough to stick to a workout recurring. I do understand some individuals who, from the outdoor, look like they are in right shape, because they may be no longer "fats, but who have excessive cholesterol.

 Just due to the fact I sense sorry for crushing the hearts of such a lot of twinkie lovers out there, I would say this. You can consume junk food, cookies, chips, ice cream, pizza, burgers.... All of the ones "soul satisfying ingredients", however it need to be carefully. Anything in excess is never correct.

Fat Loss Myth # 4

Skipping meals is a suitable way to lose weight

Weight Loss Fact: There are numerous studies that show that individuals who pass breakfast and eat fewer times at some point of the day have a tendency to be plenty heavier than who've a healthful dietary breakfast and then consume 4-6 small meals at some point of the day. The purpose to this is probably the fact that they get hungrier later on in the day, and may have a propensity to over devour during other food of the day.

Weight Loss Myth # 5

I will now not lose weight whilst ingesting at night time

Weight Loss Truth: You can over take pleasure in food for the duration of the day and now not eat a unmarried element at night and you WILL advantage weight. As is the truth that you may starve yourself at some stage in the day and consume all night time long and you still will gain weight. The key here is balance. If your frame is telling you that it's miles hungry then possibly you ought to concentrate to it. The reality is, that over ingesting, even as not exercising, will reason you to gain weight; irrespective of what time of the day that you consume. Whenever I am hungry at night, as is my addiction with different food at some point of the day, I strive to select some thing this is natural in nature. Something like fruits, vegetables, or I would possibly even make myself a fruit smoothie. During the ones moments that I am yearning ice cream or some thing sweet, I permit myself to get some, and DO NOT sense responsible about it. Many folks who are overweight live their life in guilt and shame. I permit myself to get some, however, WITH MODERATION.

Fat Loss Myth # 6

I'm not perfect till I lose weight

Weight Loss Fact: The person who does not experience perfect because they're fat is because they're now not acceptable to themselves first. The manner that you assume others view you is based on your view of yourself. I without a doubt believe that one must come to be emotionally in shape before becoming bodily healthy. I have gone through those self-limiting emotions earlier than. Once I realized that I turned into ALREADY ENOUGH within the eyes of God and that I had no want to prove myself to each person or to receive outside validation for my self-worth, that made all of the difference for me. Once you accept yourself as who you are RIGHT NOW and realize that you are already sufficient inside the eyes of God, you'll no longer sense like you are not ideal because of your weight.

 Weight Loss Myth # 7

I need to reduce calories to shed pounds faster

Weight Loss Truth: Cutting your calories down is probably a fantastic thing, if you are appreciably overeating and stuffing your face. However, if you are ingesting proportionally then cutting energy may have an aversive affect. If you're slicing energy and are starving your body, then with a purpose to lower your metabolism, or in different words sluggish it down, which may bring about you certainly no longer losing any weight at all, even if you are "cutting calories"

Fat Loss Myth # 8

Skipping meals will assist me shed pounds

Weight Loss Fact: Skipping food may surely purpose you to advantage weight! You becomes too hungry and will eventually have to eat. This will knock your metabolism off track and will eventually gradual it down. Think of a car running low on gas (food), in case you do no longer fill it up, it'll ultimately stop operating. Same goes for our body, we want to preserve it fueled constantly.

Weight Loss Myth # 9

I suppose I even have genetic weight benefit, it runs in my family!

Weight Loss Truth: Can a person say E-X-C-U-S-E-S? I will now not deny that there is probably inclinations for heavy parents to elevate heavy youngsters who will stay heavy their entire lives, however I don't consider that there is clearly a "fats" gene or DNA out there. What we do inherit from our family, primarily folks who without delay raised us, are our perspectives and beliefs. Your perspectives approximately meals, money, religion, politics, education, etc. Are primarily based upon how you were raised. If you were raised in a domestic where the number one food cooked wherein fried meals, then you definitely would possibly will be inclined to preserve cooking and ingesting fried foods during your life. If that is the case then you definately might be a little heavy around the waist. The easy thing to do is guilty it on folks who had been in price of your upbringing, however, you ALWAYS have a preference to change.

 Fat Loss Myth # 10

Eating wholesome is simply too hard

 Weight Loss Fact: Eating healthy is the handiest thing within the world.....as soon as you've got trained yourself to do it. How in many instances have you located a purpose to shed pounds or to "consume better"? The first few days you are doing notable, eating all kinds of meals which you usually wouldn't devour. Then some thing funny started out to happen, you went returned for your old habits and behaviors. This has befell to you in different areas outside of your health. It will be with making money, seeking out a brand new job, or on your relationships. Creating a new dependancy takes time due to the fact our mind's do now not like change. Change to the mind is dangerous. Anyways, if you would really like to learn more about how our brain attempts to sabotage us from growing new behavior then please down load my unfastened E-book, "Psychology of Releasing Weight"

Weight Loss Myth # 11

You have to give up your preferred foods to shed pounds

Weight Loss Truth: What could a global with out chocolate and without pepperoni pizza be like??? I assume it'd be a torturous global to stay in!! Lol, now on a actual note I absolutely disagree with this myth. You are in reality able to devour your favourite ingredients. Depriving your self of this kind of pleasure isn't always fun, and pretty frankly you in all likelihood WILL eat it anyways. As has been stated earlier than, the actual secret's moderation. If you're a steak lover, then possibly it may not be the fine things to eat it each unmarried day, however perhaps a couple of times a week. Those who recognize me personally understand that I LOOOOOOOOVE hen wings with pizza. In an ideal global in which I wouldn't benefit any weight and my arteries were clog-less, I would like to consume it several times in step with week, well more like each day. However, I recognize that those aren't the healthiest of food choices so I even have it about 2-3 times in keeping with month. I am no longer giving up my favourite meals, I am simply eating it carefully so that it would not catch up to me within the shape of excess weight.

 Fat Loss Myth # 12

Overeating is triggered via starvation

Weight Loss Fact: Nice try there. If most effective we should blame "hunger" for it. In fact, this man or woman we call starvation has nothing to do with you OVEREATING. It would possibly have something to do your body telling you that it is time to "fuel up" and that it desires food, but that isn't always a demonstration that one have to overeat. What reasons many human beings to overeat are special reasons. One of the main ones is feeling of strain, depression, loneliness, anxiety, fear, and other down grading feelings of that nature. Many instances food can be a method of satisfying your needs. You might be in reality getting your wishes met thru your ingredients. For example, if you stay a lonely lifestyles, and are not very satisfied, then meals could possibly be a means of you feeling glad and comforted. There are other articles that I actually have written in this subject however suffice it to say that overeating is NOT cause by being hungry.

 Weight Loss Myth # 13

Only drastic diets work

 Weight Loss Truth: There goes that phrase again...DIEt....the ones "drastic diets" are handiest good for short weight loss and speedy weight advantage after you get of it. These drastic diets variety from the "cookie food regimen", lol.... All that way to "the water best weight loss program"..... I am sure you could shed pounds while on these DIEts, however the weight could be gained proper again and normally with some introduced weight as a bonus

 Fat Loss Myth # 14

I am too fat and too far down the street to begin

 Weight Loss Fact: A lengthy adventure starts one step at a time. It is herbal to expect instantaneous effects and to even fear the road ahead of you; specifically if you are extraordinarily overweight. The secret right here is to make SMALL incremental changes. Don't anticipate perfection because to be able to lead you to disappointment. You are never too some distance down the street to in which you can't see the sun's light......

 Weight Loss Myth # 15

I can not do it, I even have tried normally and have failed

 Weight Loss Truth: The wonderful Henry Ford as soon as said "Whether you think you could, or you suspect you cannot- you're right.'"......It is 90% mindset, and 10�tually getting off your butt and doing something approximately it. You fall down, you get lower back up.... You cave in again, you get lower back up again. If you have tried to lose weight inside the beyond then it's time to hold trying. Discouragment is to losing weight as is a bit of fried bird to a vegetarian......They DO NOT cross hand in hand.

 For  more information visit here :   http://healthfitplans.com/category/weight-loss/

[junker-town]

‘It’s just business’

How MLB became a microcosm of capitalism’s failure.

“It’s just business.” You hear it whenever some marginalized community loses a necessary service, or when a sick person is denied sorely needed coverage for their health, or when a laborer’s basic humanity is impugned, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

It’s a phrase spring-loaded with the connotation that “businesses” are in the business of doing anything and everything to make money, and that their mere existence justifies the collateral damage they cause. On some level, it’s difficult to blame people if they default to “it’s just business” when they encounter a wrong being done by a company that manufactures their steel cut oats or designer toothbrushes — if only because, hell, we all need to get on with our day.

We’ve been told “it’s just business” so often in our lives that we accept it as easily as air. It has become a state of existence, perpetuated by economic titans such as Milton Friedman, who declared “there is one and only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.”

Plenty of people disagree with this worldview, but there’s no denying the rules of the game are ill-defined, malleable, unenforced and yet somehow ubiquitous. What they are not is equitable or ethical.

Major League Baseball is a prime example, having emphasized its bottom line at the expense of both players and fans by constantly changing the rules of the game. It has done so despite having already bilked cities, counties and states for tax breaks and public dollars for stadiums, despite an antitrust exemption upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and despite the foundational importance of fans as stakeholders in its individual organizations and the league.

There isn’t (yet) a salary cap, but front offices — likely due to pressure from ownership — have begun to treat the aptly named Competitive Balance Tax as a line in the sand. In 2012, MLB placed a heavy tax on spending more than five percent of one’s draft allotment that no team has yet to breach. Once the ability to spend freely in the draft was eliminated, teams used the international free agent market to build teams cheaply relative to the free agent market, proper. The most recent CBA tried to put a stop to that by implementing a hard cap on international spending, but regular free agency spending never bounced back. And despite these supposed great competitive balance measures, MLB has experienced record talent disparity over the last two offseasons.

The words “competitive balance” and “parity” often get used in sports, the idea being that leagues should strive for an environment where some combination of talent, intelligence, stamina and plain old luck decides champions, and not budgetary advantages. To that end, leagues and owners pursued options like salary caps, the draft, the reserve clause, international spending caps, luxury taxes, draft pick compensation, restricted free agency … the list goes on.

And conveniently, all of these measures come at the expense of labor. It’s not just salary caps, which are a transfer of wealth from players (labor) to owners, but the draft, too, which eliminates the ability of draftees to leverage teams against each other. Competitive balancing is always about limiting the top spenders rather than prodding the cheapskates.

As consumers, we’ve gotten used to rationalizing upcharges or degraded service, like the collective action of major American airlines which started offering a “basic economy” class that is helpful only to people who are traveling long distances on airplanes without bags (as we all love to do). We come to believe our inconvenience is helping a company stay afloat and continue to provide a service we otherwise wouldn’t have. Too often, though, we are being underserved and oversold in the pursuit of a temporarily attractive bottom line that will boost a stock price just long enough for that company to sell itself to another corporation, leaving them, and us, to hold the bag.

It doesn’t have to work this way though, mostly because this way isn’t working out for the vast majority. As Anu Aga, ex-chairperson of the giant engineering firm Thermax Limited, said “we survive by breathing but we can’t say we live to breathe. Likewise, making money is very important for a business to survive, but money alone cannot be the reason for business to exist.”

Baseball isn’t a vital industry to humanity, but it is a good study in how capitalism corrupts itself. In theory, a baseball team’s goals are simple: win games and entertain fans. By pursuing profit, it can also aim higher, building community spirit in the process. But in practice, baseball has become cheap and callous. After decades of spiritual degradation, MLB has come to epitomize the clash between society and late capitalism, and the ways in which capitalism is winning.

It’s strange that shareholder-first ideology has become so prevalent in sports. Efficiency uber-alles, especially in baseball, is orthodoxy these days, but that certainly wasn’t always the case. The late-era George Steinbrenner Yankees were built upon the Core Four, and supplemented by mercenary free agents who helped bring World Series titles to the Bronx.

And yet, after a pair of frosty offseasons, MLB now presides over organizations that routinely pass over premium talent at prices that are more than justifiable by public advanced metrics.

For a long time, $/WAR was the default framework by which free agent signings or trades were evaluated. This inevitably led to teams to lean on quality, young talent that was — and this is crucial — under team control for long periods of time. That control, which gives teams unilateral ability to decide salary for the first three years of any player’s career, became an end unto itself. It wasn’t rare to read something along the lines of “yes, Team A dealt away Superstar X to Team B for a smattering of players you haven’t heard of, but Team B will receive 15 controllable seasons in return, while Team A will receive only a year.”

Efficiency was, and is, the name of the game. It’s not enough to win, but you also have to appear smart while doing so. This is, in part, why teams don’t simply promote their prospects to the majors when they’re ready. Instead, they wait until after they’ve manipulated those players’ service time to gain an additional year of control.

As on-field optimization became de rigeur, baseball teams began using the same heartlessly efficient principles in other decision-making areas of their organizations. It isn’t enough to sell out a crowd, teams must maximize dollars per customer. That means ceding traditional fan seating to luxury boxes, raising ticket and concession prices, and generally just making it more difficult to attend a baseball game. This shift was aptly summed up by Robert Alvarado, the Los Angeles Angels’ then-VP of marketing and ticket sales, to Pedro Moura in this 2015 OC Register piece:

“We may not be reaching as many of the people on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, but those people, they may enjoy the game, but they pay less, and we’re not seeing the conversion on the per-caps,” Alvarado said. “In doing so, the ticket price that we’re offering those people, it’s not like I can segregate them, because I’m offering it up to the public, and I’m basically downselling everybody else in order to accommodate them.”

How one perceives that statement depends a lot on their views of why a business, and why a baseball team, exists. If the goal is to make money, then optimizing “per-cap” conversions is a reasonable place to start (even if one could also argue quite convincingly that it’s short-sighted). If one happens to think a baseball team exists to serve its community, as a municipal staple and entertainment option, then the statement is outrageous. Choosing empty seats — to intentionally not serve a significant portion of the fan base, to ensure upper-class patrons don’t see their perceived value impacted — is blasphemy.

Owning a sports franchise means shepherding a sacred member of the community that has existed for generations. It means benefitting from decades of handed-down fandom. To be unwilling to invest in a team should be considered sacrilege.

If, according to Aga, money alone cannot be the reason for a business to exist, then what is? There may not be one reason, exactly, but if there were, serving the community, be it locally, nationally or globally, seems as good a place to start as any. To look at the people and environments that compose those communities and think first of them, to think of returns on objectives rather than returns on investments. The rules of the game work a lot better when they’re geared towards the consumers they purport to serve rather than the bottom line.

Somewhere along the way, a bunch of people decided prioritizing shareholders above success and fan experience was just the way things ought to be. That making an extra buck at everyone else’s expense was the cost of doing business. That because a company or a corporation was incentivized to do something — or more accurately, was not incentivized not to do something — they bore no responsibility for their actions. None of this holds objective truth. We have agency and responsibility that extends beyond our incentives, or else they would be called mandates. We can hold people responsible for the communities they leave in ruins in the reckless pursuit of the bottom line. We can choose differently.

For sports franchises, that entails a commitment to winning more than efficiency. No matter what people implore you to believe, sports franchises aren’t like other businesses. They inspire fierce allegiance like few brands can, sworn lifelong fealty merely by virtue of being born in their general vicinity. They trade in cultural value, and thus have an obligation to provide for that culture.

Other brands sometimes create those loyalties, sure, but that’s often thanks to a period of time when the product was best in class, before marketing took over. When it comes to other businesses we tend to, eventually, update our priors based on quality, price, convenience or some other service standard. Yet, when’s the last time someone changed their favorite baseball team due to ticket prices? They might show up less often, but their allegiances — who they root for — tend to be entrenched. This means the only way for a team to adequately serve its “customers” is through good-faith competition. Rebuilds are acceptable when they’re not also (read: actually) an effort to line ownership’s pockets, and they’re even more acceptable when the team later spends to win.

That puts sports teams in a unique relationship with their customers. They are highly incentivized to do right by their fans, and yet they can also easily abuse that relationship if they want. Essentially, they are free to choose either Friedman’s or Aga’s view of capitalism.

Sports franchises are an obvious, and potentially powerful, tool to build community, and yet so often, and seemingly increasingly, they take the path of least resistance. My argument, my plea, extends to businesses of all stripes: Focus first on serving your customers and employees, and allow profit to serve as a guideline within that endeavor. Justify your existence. If as a company you’re already profitable, but can further increase profits by slashing essential services or making them worse, do you do it? A commitment to profit maximization provides an easy answer. But so does a commitment to your community.

Sadly, this time of global crisis has dampened hope that teams can put others first. We’ve seen athletes come to the fore, offering to cover the salaries of stadium workers who are suffering in the absence of sports, and deepen their bonds to the people and places they represent. And while many organizations have pledged to do the same, too often they’ve led from behind, waiting until they’ve been shamed to support employees rather than lay them off.

Rarely have corporations been forced to so distinctly choose between rededicating themselves to communities or continuing to plunder as they see fit. The pandemic gave baseball a test in this regard. They’ve clearly flunked it.

[opedguy]

Atty. Gen. Barr Works on Russian Hoax

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), April 11, 2020.--Atty. Gen. William Barr, 69. reminded the press that his probe into the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into 73-year-old President and his 2016 presidential campaign goes on. Democrats and the mainstream press dismissed any concern about 59-year-old former FBI Director James Comey and his FBI management team.  In the heat of the Russian hysteria, the anti-Trump press had him tried, convicted and sentenced for conspiring with Russia to win the 2016 election.  Daily stories from the New York Times and Washington Post, without proper attritbution, used unnamed sources to confirm Democrat talking points that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 presidential election against 72-year-old former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.  It’s most ironic Hillary started the Russian hoax, calling Trump a “Putin Puppet” at their final 2016 presidential debate in Las Vegas.

              Barr has the unenviable task of connecting all the dots at a time when the nation’s consumed by the coronvirus AKA SARS CoV-2 or Covid-19 when so much camfouflage and cover-up happened at Comey’s FBI.  Comey said under oath that he had sufficient “probable cause” or “predicate” to launch a counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign, never admitting, that he used Hillary’s paid opposition research against Trump AKA “The Steele Dossier” to dupe the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] court to obtain warrants to wiretap the  Trump campaign.  No one in the Democrat Party or mainstream press found anything wrong with the FBI’s conduct.  Barr expressed grave concerns that the FBI violated Department of Justice rules and the rule of law, to investigate a presidential campaign.  Press complicity is a threat to the First Amendment.

            Barr’s already been subjected to press attacks, publishing articles that he’s Trump’s puppet, not an independent attorney general concerned that the FBI violated DOJ policy, possibly breaking the law. Barr appointed 70-year-old U.S. Atty. in Connecticut John Durham May 15, 2019 to investigate possible FBI lawbreaking.  When 75-year-old former FBI Director Robert Mueller competed his investigation March 23, 2019 finding Trump and his campaign did not conspire with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign, it opened up a can of worms. Reports of FBI improprieties were pouring in with texts-and-emails exchanged during the campaign by former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his lover, FBI Atty. Lisa Page.  Both Strzok and Page acted like conspired to prevent Trump from becoming president.  Both denied wrongdoing, saying they only expressed personal opinions.

            When Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz completed his report of FBI conduct Dec. 9, 2019 he did not find the FBI broke the law when it came to its FISA applications, finding instead “sloppiness and mistakes.”  Barr disagreed with Horowitz’s findings, prompting him to appoint Durham to investigate FBI conduct with respect to FISA abuse.  “My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes and sloppiness,” Barr said, refuting Horowitz’s Dec. 9, 2019 report. “There  was something far more troubling here.  We’re going to get to the bottom of it.  And if people broke the law and we can establish that with evidence, they will be prosecuted,” Barr said, referring to Comey, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page and others who participated in the FBI’s attempt to sabotage Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

            Comey denied April 11, 2019 that he spied on the Trump campaign.  “I don’t know what the heck they’re talking about,” insisting he had all the probable cause needed to launch a counterintelligence investigation.  But mounting evidence suggests otherwise. Former FISA Court Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer said Dec. 17, 2019 the FBI deceived her court to obtain warrants to wiretap Trump campaign officials.  “The frequency with which representations made by the FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in the FBI application is reliable,” Collyer wrote.  Barr and Durham have that admission by the former FISA Court Chief Judge to refute Comey’s statements that he did nothing wrong seeking warrants to wiretap the Trump campaign.

            While the world grapples with the coronavirus nightmare, Barr puts one-foot-in-front-of –the-other on a long, windy trail to determine whether or not the FBI broke the law investigating the Trump campaign. If you ask Democrats or the mainstream press, they already tried, convicted and sentenced Trump to Russian collusion.  Mueller rained on their parade when he concluded March 23, 2019 in his Final Report that no collusion took place.  “Spying on a campaign is a big deal,” Barr told lawmakers last year.  “I think spying did occur.  The question is whether it was adequately predicated,” a question that was already answered by Judge Collyer.  Comey never produced a shred of evidence to justify his counterintelligence investigation other that the discredited Steele Dossier.   As the clock ticks, Durham has turned up the heat on Comey and his former FBI management team.

About the Author    

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s director of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[cloudytian]

Understanding Gender Dynamics in Touhou and Historical Japan (Part One)

tl;drs in bold, so you can skim parts that you’re not interested in. 

This is the first half of a two part essay on the interpretation of gender dynamics in Touhou, which is part of a larger series of essays on the geared to help western consumers of eastern media recognize how their cultural values differ from historical eastern ones so that they may better learn to understand the cultural background of the media they consume. While the focus will be on Japan because of its current cultural dominance in entertainment, the epistemological guidelines I give can be used to better analyze our approaches towards understanding different cultures with a more critical eye.

I started writing this in response to this video post by @thejorlosopher (provocatively titled “There Are No Women in Gensokyo”), because @turbobyakuren​ was the only watcher to recognize that imposing western values upon a Japanese work that draws heavily from historical Japanese values erases their culture AND results in a faulty analysis.

I then realized that it was difficult for consumers immersed in western culture to realize that a different set of values govern eastern media because:

A) their cultural dominance is rarely challenged enough for them to realize that their values are not universal and unequivocal across all cultures

B) understanding current eastern values requires a historic and government context of the ancient philosophies that influenced them because of the strictness by which governments imposed the enforcement of their values, and there concepts so fundamentally interconnected that any overview will always be incomplete.

B draws from a tenet true for all pursuits of knowledge; the further you go, the more context and scope is required, and so it is not possible for any singular person to possess the absolute expanse of experience to know everything about a singular subject. There are those who can be called masters in a field, but never those who can be said to have mastered a field. It is therefore imperative that we all approach education with the mindset of students.

So, this first part focuses critical thinking practices that have helped me as a student of global customs with learning to identify ignorance of cultural and behavioral mores and how to work to lessen it. 

You don’t need to watch Jorlosopher’s video to read this analysis because A) I cite the specific line I am referring to when using it a segue and B) I find it to be deeply flawed and shallow. That said, I encourage you to watch the video first and freely form your own thoughts if you intend to participate in that part of the discussion so that my views will not colour your interpretations of it. 

POOR CRITICAL META-ANALYSIS AND IGNORANCE OF IGNORANCE

Jorlosopher, there were some good points made in your video, but many more mistakes. For one, you're ignoring the cardinal rule of artistic interpretation: do not assert that your interpretation is the only correct one. That discourages constructive discussion and invites meaningless echoing or argumentative head-butting that does not serve to constructively develop ideas, and narrow-mindedly discounts the possibility of others coming to different conclusions because of their differing experiences and background. Or, as ZUN put it (though I can’t find the exact quote), everyone has their own personal Gensokyo, and they're all equally real.

So, I'm not going to argue that your interpretation is incorrect, because it is a valid prediction of how our societal constructs might appear in Gensokyo according to your existing cognitive schema, but I will argue that your interpretation is weakly supported and too drenched in existing prejudiced rhetoric to be valid as a thoughtpiece on gender dynamics, and give you some advice on how to rectify those mistakes.

First off, from a purely structural standpoint, you lack a coherent message on gender dynamics in Touhou other than the title, because your statements about Gensokyo blatantly ignore the vast Eastern influence on the setting, and have no supporting evidence for your insubstantially simplistic claims.

"But Cloudy, this is a casual thing, it's made for fans of Touhou who are already familiar with the world I'm talking about!" 

Again-- your interpretation of Touhou canon is not the only correct one, and as it is expansive, you will forget and misremember some things and continuously form interpretations as you read that will influence interpretations of future things you read. Therefore, it is imperative that you cite sources when interpreting large bodies of work and promoting your interpretation so that people can see the chain of thought behind your reasoning. Also, by applying academic scrutiny of gender dynamics to Touhou, Jorlosopher invites not only academic counter-scrutiny and meta-scrutiny but also the nerds who take that stuff super seriously, and I am nothing if not a huge nerd.

So, friendly advice: please kindly cite your sources, and evaluate your own biases, or nerds will beat you up and steal your nerd card and also possibly your lunch money.

REFUTATION OF “THERE ARE NO WOMEN IN GENSOKYO“

You have next to no supporting arguments for your claim that “there are no concepts of womanhood in Gensokyo”, as you have no sources or examples to base your claim on. The strongest argument that you have is not, in fact, your rhetoric but rather a quote from @asa-turney​ misrepresented to suit a simplistic and shallow model of the concept of gender that does not even acknowledge the existence of nonbinary spectrum of gendered concepts in Touhou and eastern media as a whole. Asa has repeatedly and thoughtfully explored the relationship between androgyny of traits in anime and our modern conceptions of gender, so the fact that you would use a quote from an advocate of diverse gender expression to justify an interpretive view that marginalizes diverse gender expressions demonstrates a lack of credible ability to analyze the context of ideas.

It’s also a useful gauge of academic validity, because good scholars must know how to evaluate the not only the context of their field, but also the context of their arguments. You cannot trust someone to possess the intellectual integrity to thoughtfully analyze broad, complex topics if they cannot thoughtfully analyze their own narrow claims.

Jorlosopher’s claim: "The fact that there is only one gender creates a plain in which there are no genders [in Touhou]."

Asa’s quote: “What does ‘being a female’ mean in Gensokyo? It means something, and means nothing at the same time. They’re all female because they’re drawn with a certain aesthetic in mind, but gender identity never comes into play because no one is treated differently for filling any particular role as any particular gender.”

Asa's quote focuses more on the inequality of gender dynamics than the expression of gender identity-- Gensokyo is appealing because in its internal logic, there are none of the dynamics that reward masculine traits and demean feminine ones, or punish people for possessing or lacking masculine or feminine traits that society says they shouldn't. This does not mean, however, that the association of masculinity and femininity do not exist, as they are cultural concepts held and dictated by the society that Touhou is based upon and explores the traditions of. By failing to identify or acknowledge these masculine/feminine associations and dynamics, however, you strip away a deep level of complexity and artistic accomplishment of Touhou as a series and deminishes the impact of Japanese culture upon the world of modern media.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ANALYZE GENDER DYNAMICS?

However, I disagree with Asa’s claim that “gender identity never comes into play because no one is treated differently for filling any particular role as any particular gender,” because it restricts the exploration of gender dynamics only to how they are used to deprecate people, and thus implies that gender dynamics can only be used for prejudice. This conflation of “gender dynamics” with “gender prejudice” is what Jorlosopher’s claim relies on, when gender dynamics can and have been used to artistically and scientifically further our understanding of human experience, such as in the romanticised strength and valour of literary heroes like Karna or Mulan or in the appreciation of human beauty spurred Renaissance artists to pioneer the modern field of anatomy. We must consider what it means to explore gender in a way that is not purely dictated by ignorant opponents in order to promote the positive awareness needed to overwrite this ignorance so that more constructive debate and discussion can occur.

I define gender identity from an epistemological perspective as the words and ideas used by people to describe and communicate a specific permutation of “feminine” and “masculine” traits, whether they be visual, biological, social, or mental, as well as absent, concurrent, or contradictory, both in terms of how they are used to describe oneself and how they are used to describe others. The key to exploring gender, by that definition, lies in recognizing what standards and values define masculinity and femininity across various cultural contexts.

And there definitely exists a deliberate interplay of masculine and feminine motifs in Touhou names, designs, and personalities, most prominently with Marisa and Miko, which serves to highlight the ephemerality of social constructs like gendered associations and lampshade the futility of trying to simplify such natural ambiguity by confining it to rigid absolutes, but that’s a topic that can’t be tackled without an exploration of the impacts that the philosophies behind eastern religions have had on perceptions and the development of common modes of thought.

A LACK OF MEN DOES NOT MEAN A LACK OF CONTEXT FOR GENDER

Jorlosopher’s claim: "There is no significant population of men impose traits onto...therefore these traits will not be discouraged in women."

First, there's no unshakeable evidence either way on just how many men exist in Gensokyo. There's not even the argument of stable populations to consider because for all we know, the Human Village could be 99% gays granted fertility through prayers and divine intervention, so I'll grant you benefit of doubt for the premise, instead of immediately refuting it with, "The Human Village has a notable male population, and Gensokyo split off in the 1800s when human society in Japan had already developed gender roles and biases which then influence the youkai they create and bestow them with those same gendered preconceptions, so while sexism might be nonexistent in Gensokyo thanks to the importance of traditionally feminine professions such as shrine maidens in their society, this does not mean that sexism never existed in the first place, but rather that it was overcome by granting all people the same agency of opportunity that used to be reserved exclusively for men."

I will, however, strongly imply that instead.

Second, your representation of gender discrimination against women revolves solely on men, and only addresses one possible avenue of prejudice when in fact the rationales between all sorts of prejudice are connected. The prejudice formula can be broadly boiled down to down to “If discrimination of groups exist, then comparisons of groups exist. If comparisons of groups exist, then contradicting opinions will arise. If contradicting opinions exist and we try to diminish the validity of one opinion solely to validate the merits of another, then ignorance takes hold and prejudice spreads.” Note that discrimination, in the sense of recognizing the distinctions between one thing and another, is not inherently bad in itself, but only becomes harmful if we use our differences to justify an ignorance that demeans the value of opinions we poorly understand.

Third, it fails to acknowledge the feedback loop of tribalistic demonization of an entire dissimilar group, and then the consequent demonization of even the traits of that dissimilar group that causes prejudice to entrench itself. By attempting to eliminate all exposure to a group, the internal tribe removes positive exposure to that group that would challenge and contradict the prejudices they hold and confront them with the burden to change.

And lastly, it fails to acknowledge the existing standards of feminine and masculine traits that were present in Japan that ZUN chose to include and explore in Gensokyo, out of a complete ignorance of historical Japanese culture.

I believe that you have good intentions and genuinely attempt to acknowledge the existence of and refute the justifications of sexism, and thus hold no ill feelings towards you, and in fact welcome your thoughts! There's a sort of underlying dissociation between entertainment media and academia, as there isn't nearly enough discussion on the themes, merits, and influences of pop culture, even though it's such a large part of our lives and by definition, the most popular form of artistic and cultural expression today. But I cannot feel positive about the messages espoused by someone without the intellectual integrity to examine and compensate for their own intrinsic biases when making a statement about gender politics while claiming to be a philosopher. Work towards correcting your biases by expanding your scope, and never stop learning.

Remember that Remilia built a house-rocket and flew it to the moon with only her unshakeable self-efficacy holding it together and then literally powered it on faith and prayers, because the “common sense” frameworks of the modern, westernized outside world that you attempted to enforce upon themes illustrated in Touhou in your limited understanding of cultural context don’t automatically translate to Gensokyo. You can try to adopt the sense of Gensokyo to explore the fantastical wonder within that world, but you absolutely cannot impose your sense upon Gensokyo so as to limit it to the meagre surface banality of your personal world so that you can claim that you have explored it.

Learning and self-improvement is a personal journey different for all. I cannot and will not attempt to dictate the means by which you grow as a person, but I will attempt to give my fellow students a tool for furthering their understanding so that they may meander less and reach further than those who have come slightly before.

The latter half of this essay (which will be posted tomorrow) will examine the expectations for the roles of women in historical Japanese society, particularly around the start of the Meiji Period during which the westernization of Japan began to diminish the hegemony of the “traditional” values that Touhou celebrates and satirizes in equal measure. Understanding the expectations and values that define womanhood allows readers to better identify what qualifies as masculine and feminine motifs in Touhou in the context of the oft-ignored retro eastern perspective that it draws from. 

[msclaritea]

For Steven Moffat, lead writer and showrunner of the sci-fi blockbuster for eight years, however, it’s a question he is more than happy to leave to his successor. “The new Doctor has to be written by Chris Chibnall, not me. Whatever he does is just fine by me,” says the screenwriter, who hands over the reins of one of the BBC’s most valuable franchises after Capaldi’s final appearance in this year’s Christmas special. “Just choose the best person for the job and any other agenda, however worthy, should be ignored. It has to be the best person for the Doctor Chris Chibnall is writing for” As the guiding force behind Doctor Who and Sherlock, two television mega-brands whose every plot twist is debated by an army of social media obsessives, it’s understandable if the Scottish writer might feel some relief at stepping back from one of the shows which has consumed every moment of his working life. “Doctor Who and Sherlock is a lot of telly to create in a year and none of it is easy. It’s been a tough run. There’s going to be a big hole in my diary. I am one script from oblivion,” he jokes. But Moffat does offer a little advice on casting for Chibnall, the Broadchurch creator and another life-long Doctor Who fan, who takes over as executive producer in 2018. “Just choose the best person for the job and any other agenda, however worthy, should be ignored. It has to be the best person for the Doctor Chris is writing for,” he says. Like the Time Lord and his travelling companion, the writer and his new Doctor will be tied together, explains Moffat, who eased Matt Smith into the role after David Tennant’s departure. Steven Moffat appears at the BFI & Radio Times Television Festival on 9 April. Click here for more details, and for other Doctor Who and Sherlock events at the Festival “Chris is going to be working with the actor for quite a few years and it is a pressure cooker. It can be tough, so you need to choose your friend wisely. So long as it works for the good of the show, that’s fine.” The handover will occur in a Christmas special regeneration scene, with Moffat inviting Chibnall to script the new Doctor’s first moments. “We had a laugh about it – I said to Chris he would get a minute at the end of the episode.” Moffat is too immersed in the tenth series of Doctor Who, which launches on 15 April on BBC1, to feel nostalgic at the end of his tenure. “We’re still working absolutely flat out on it, so there isn’t anything to feel yet. We’re shooting the finale and we’re working out how to relocate the final scenes indoors because of the weather. So it’s business as normal. Then it’s the Christmas special and a few weeks off.” Pearl Mackie, pictured with Peter Capaldi, was announced as the Doctor’s new companion, Bill in April 2016 Photo: Ray Burmiston/ BBC Fans will get a sneak preview of the series and of the Doctor’s new companion Pearl Mackie at the BFI & Radio Times Television Festival next weekend. Moffat will also be inducted into the Radio Times’ Hall of Fame at the festival for “pushing boundaries and altering the landscape of British television.” “The viewer doesn’t care that I’m leaving,” Moffat insists. “It’s far more important that it’s Peter’s last series, that’s a big deal. One beloved Doctor is going so that’s hugely exciting as a writer.” Mackie’s Bill Potts is “quite different, more grounded and earthy. She’s terrific, very charming and engaging, she owns the show, she is sensational.” The alien assistant Nardole, played by Matt Lucas, “was initially in it for a few episodes but he’s in all of them now, one way or another.” The Doctor is set to renew acquaintance with old enemies the Cybermen and the Ice Warriors too. “We have a smaller budget than other shows that look cheaper. I want more than three monsters on screen at a time” Moffat has worked consistently on Doctor Who since penning episodes for its 2005 relaunch and he hasn’t lost any of his enthusiasm for the character’s possibilities. “He’d rather be larking around and meeting Enid Blyton. But whenever he sees somebody in trouble he has to try and help. He’s eccentric and immensely resourceful. But he’s also a man who’s blown up planets and wiped out whole armies.”  A vital money-spinner for BBC Worldwide, along with Sherlock, Doctor Who’s global audience has expanded to some 80m during Moffat’s stewardship – yet BBC budgetary restrictions make the challenge of representing the show’s ambitions on screen even harder. “There’s a cultural sense sometimes that Doctor Who is the little engine that could, it’s this plucky little British show. But it’s actually one of the giants. It’s one of the least well-funded of the giants but it’s operating at that level. Why? It’s a massive show,” Moffat asks. “We have a pretty good budget. But we have a smaller budget than other shows that look cheaper. We don’t have the top budget, not by the standards of a colossus of the TV world. I don’t think it’s as good as it could be. I want more than three monsters on screen at a time.” “Overnight ratings are meaningless. But that won’t stop people saying ‘Sherlock’s ratings are in trouble’” Perhaps Doctor Who’s future lies with a funding partnership between the BBC and a deep-pocketed streaming service like Netflix, giving viewers the opportunity to watch new episodes without waiting for Saturday night to roll around? Measuring its popularity by overnight ratings is already irrelevant.“I’m walking on my stumps trying to work out how to tell people to stop looking at overnight ratings. I know the ‘overnights’ are going to be bad,” Moffat sighs. “The more popular a show is, the more people watch on streaming after the first showing. But that won’t stop people saying ‘Sherlock’s ratings are in trouble’. Overnight ratings are meaningless. People are watching across the week. Some people save up a whole Doctor Who series and they watch all the episodes at once. You don’t read a book a chapter a week.” “The way people are watching TV is in the process of the most radical change and you can’t stop binge watching. My kids don’t understand the concept of linear scheduled TV. Even BBC1 as a channel doesn’t mean anything, things have changed so radically.” Steven Moffat and his wife, the producer Sue Vertue at a screening of the Sherlock 2016 Christmas Special. Photo: Jeff Spicer/Getty A prominent Saturday schedule slot is still important to “cut through” however. “My worry over the last year was launching during the Rugby World Cup. When Doctor Who launches it needs to be the event of that moment and I thought it got swamped. We should make it our business to make sure it is in a place where it will be the focus of attention.” Hollywood surely beckons for Moffat, who was asked by Steven Spielberg to write the screenplay for his 2011 Tintin adaptation until he had to step back due to his Doctor Who commitments. “I might do something next that’s a little out of everybody’s focus,” suggests the writer, who was frustrated by accusations by some on social media that the death of Mary Watson in the last Sherlock run meant female characters were getting short shrift. “Sherlock is the story of two blokes – what am I supposed to do with that? Make one of them a woman? We chose not to do that” “I massively expanded the role of Mrs Hudson in Sherlock. Mary Watson dies in the end because she always did (her death is inferred in the Conan Doyle stories). With Molly Hooper we gave Sherlock more of a female voice than ever,” he says. Hartswood Films, where Moffat’s wife Sue Vertue produces Sherlock, is a “feminist studio run by women.” Ultimately, Sherlock is “the story of two blokes – what am I supposed to do with that? Make one of them a woman? We chose not to do that.”  Unsurprisingly, Moffat disagrees with critics who have suggested that Sherlock and Doctor Who have become too “tricksy” or convoluted under his watch. “The last Sherlock episode (“The Final Problem”) was a massive hit on any viewing metric scale. You can’t take a few commentators to be the voice of the audience. “I’ve never met anyone who finds Doctor Who ‘difficult’. Hand on heart, if you think Doctor Who is difficult, then Breaking Bad is really going to confuse you.” For all Moffat’s protestations, Doctor Who viewers who have revelled in the show’s reinvention are likely to miss his guiding hand. “It will feel like an ending when I finally stop,” Moffat acknowledges. “Normally I’d been planning the next series by now or Sherlock (currently on hiatus) and I’m not doing that. I’m just trying to make a really good, action-packed, exciting series of Doctor Who.” He will restrain himself from submitting story ideas to Chibnall. “In the short term, at least, I have to get out of the way and let Chris get on with it. You don’t want the previous boss hanging around when you start a new job. I’ll take him out for a drink when he’s feeling miserable.

Molly gave Sherlock a female voice? Hartswood is feminist? TFP was a MASSIVE HIT?! What the devil is he smoking, cause I want some.

@teaandqueerbaiting @skulls-and-tea @monikakrasnorada @cosmicgoat @tjlcisthenewsexy @may-shepard @madzither @gosherlocked

[annisa-nuraini]

The Sophisticated Technology and What We Can Do About It: In Response To Gita Savitri Devi’s Generasi Tutorial

They say technology is a drug—and somehow it does feel like it—then what, precisely, are the side-effects?

It is interesting to read one of Gita Savitri Devi’s latest published blog post along with its comment box which gets flooded by colourful responses. If you ask me, whether I “agree or disagree”, it would be apparent if you have already acquainted with me personally, or happen to understand my writing in this platform—hint: I value critical thinking at its best. If you haven’t, or do not get the not-so-subtle expressions I often deliver, there’s no need to burden yourself to think about such things (or if you still want to, it is pretty much up to you). Moreover, the extent of which she addressed is too broad to choose between two options. Because, as we can see from the comments box with hundreds of people’s views in it—which I have read, I am certain that any derive of one’s perspective, be it through direct statements or writings, will always be open to discussion. Henceforth the disclaimer; if we have different opinions on such matter, there’s no need to be overly salty. It is possible to read something we do not agree with on the internet and simply move on with our lives.

Spotted in a limelight as a vlogger, blogger, and social media influencer; tons of people have clearly thrown a bunch of comments, remarks, and questions on Gita’s social media accounts—not to mention the blog of hers I have mentioned before. Those two cents vary from asking general knowledge related to the topics she brought into her YouTube videos to the more private ones. Some of them, however, left her (and me, as a passing reader) astounded—the unnecessary, blunt, and insensitive ones; such as, “Kak, alisnya kurang tebel,” or “Gaya kerudungnya bikin dahinya kelihatan lebar, Kak,” or “Gita gemukan ya,” or “Cantik banget Git, sayang udah punya pacar/mau nggak jadi pacar gue?,” or “Ortu kak Git kerja di mana?” (It’s privacy, dear anonymous), and so on. Years went by and they never seem to cease...

Such lack of sensitivity turns out involving the questions whose answers we can easily find on the internet and through people around us—especially they whom we know closely. Those asking on her social medias proves that they have been familiarized with technology and they are the one she was focusing on, thus Gita’s remark on “this doesn’t apply to ALL Indonesians” is valid and her blog post does not intend to generalize the entire Indonesian citizens.

We live in an era called the Information Age—which is also known as Digital Age, or New Media Age, or Computer Age. During it, the phenomenon is that the digital industry creates a knowledge-based society surrounded by global technology. It allows the individual to explore their personalized needs, therefore simplifying the procedure of making decisions for any kind of transaction and significantly lowering costs for both producers and consumers. Though the “Experience Era” is upon us already, we evidently are awash in information. But the truth is, we’re too overwhelmed with its data (look I even put “too” prior to the “over”whelmed as well). Those uncategorized, raw, short burst sort of news come to us fast like a thunder without any way to weigh it. Our instinct, nonetheless, keeps us sane by telling our minds to validate the information we’ve received or we look for. That way we can measure and think over, and consequently, we will understand it. How? The easiest one, by asking. Since technology is just on the tip of our fingers, most of us tend to type down the questions and ask the questions to some people in social media—the platform we mostly use personally. You’ve found someone posting about “this”, you then ask to confirm your curiosity about “this”. You’ve found someone who vlogs about “that”, you then ask curiously about “that” and the topics on its circle. And the list goes on.

Sadly, many people can’t make sense of the unfiltered information that is pointed to their screens and still, many more of them can’t even distinguish which ones are appropriate to ask some random people on the internet and which ones are not. To some degree, they even delegate mental tasks to others, looking here and there without bothering their own capacity as a human to think, contemplate, and analyze first.

Always get yourself educated, to begin with

I have stated that we can now easily access information since technology is open to everyone who is willing to use it. The internet, at the same time, offers us a free yet vast information—and when I say ‘vast’, it might even seem to be infinite to some. The amount of €1 in Rupiah is one definite example of information that we can, without difficulty, find on Google. The amount of fare we have to pay to get to a flight from Jakarta to Berlin can as well be sorted out to the same box. See? The internet with its nearly ever-present online access, allows us to first perform a smartphone search rather than calling a friend. This, too, can help us to many more beneficial use such as looking for how to learn new language, or how to bake cookies, or worth learning websites—like TED, Brain Pickings, Medium, GNFI, Indonesia Mengglobal, Selasar, Zen Pencils, many kind of crash courses or Kurzgesagt channel, and Islamic ones such as Inspiration Series, Nouman Ali Khan’s, Quran Weekly, Productive Muslim, Muslim Matters, among others (I am sure there are many more of them out there, you’ll find out eventually), or if you’re into business you can look up to Forbes or Business Insider or Harvard Business Review, or if you’re wondering which news outlet one usually reads, why not discover and start reading on your own—here are Tempo and its Indonesiana, Republika, Jakarta Post and its Academia, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Guardian, BBC, Huffington Post, (should I name all of them?) or if you’re really curious about Germany you can look upon die Zeit, der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, etc. There are so many references you can look up to. Two checkpoints, though: 1) Make sure the ones you’re reading are credible and reliable—which means they’re trustworthy enough, then 2) Just be smart and wise enough to sort the right information out first (or else you would find yourself drifting around this kind of topic).

You are also encouraged to ask the person you regard as an expert on the matter they excel

...as long as

You’ve done your foremost research, in the first place.

You know the importance of your inquiries—stating your explanation or reasons would be helpful.

You know your position—do you know the person you ask personally? Or do you have any acquaintance with them? Or not?

You intend to ask the question properly.

You do ask the question properly and appropriately.

We know that there are “soft facts” besides the “hard facts” that we can effortlessly find on the internet—where you can communicate and interact your perception or thoughts over a variety of topics with like-minded people, while the experts are able to share and communicate with us either. Those soft facts are followed by a more open-ended answer and usually subjective, varies depending on the person who answers the question. The questions are, for example, “Kak Gita biasanya baca berita di mana?”, “Apa motivasi kak Gita buat ngevlog?”, “Apa aja tips dari kak Gita untuk menyiapkan makanan yang hemat di tanah rantau?”

Curiosity gets the better of us. Asking those kinds of questions directly won’t make you inferior, it means that you’re willing enough to look into the matter closely through the person you regard best to answer it. But obviously, there are a couple (those five points above, among others) to consider before you jump into throwing others with questions. Remember that they’re not a personal computer nor a dictionary made to address lazy (or pointless, half-witted) inquiries. Furthermore, it’d be much wiser for the person who gets asked, to answer it in the same prosperous manner, and if the matter asked can be put into the easy-to-find-on-Google box, they can later refer you to look more about it somewhere else—not to mention any search engine.

.

At last, never restrain yourself to learn and learn more. The internet has gradually become our “external hard drives for our memories” which stores information, retrieves it in responses to questions, and even interacts with us in surprisingly human ways—reminding us to our friends’ birthdays and even responding to voice commands. It is not only about social media, vlogs or room tours or skin care routine videos or makeup tutorials on YouTube, it is way more than that and it depends on whether we can use its advantage wisely. Besides, we should not let technology replace our ability as a living, thinking, and any other adjective that shows us that we’re human and makes us one.

Indonesia... Instead of looking at its youth as numbers, I’d like better to hope that I can look at it as young minds with the potential of improving the country and the world we live in.

But first, our thought-process matters.

[deniscollins]

‘Morally Impossible’: Some Advertisers Take a Timeout From Facebook

Facebook generates 98 percent of its revenue through ads. It netted $17.4 billion from advertising in its most recent quarter. Unlike Twitter and Snap, which have toughened their stances against President Trump’s online statements that contain misinformation or promote violence, Facebook has held firm on its decision to leave his posts alone. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, has defended the policy, despite the resignations of some staff members and public criticism from current and former employees. According to a small business owner, “The moral thing to do, of course, is to stand on the side that’s right, But it’s hard — Facebook ads are keeping small businesses alive. If you’re not on Facebook, you don’t exist.” If you were a small business owner would you: (1) continue to advertise on Facebook or (2) stop advertising on Facebook? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

Nima Gardideh, the co-founder of a digital advertising agency, has encouraged his clients to hold back millions in advertising dollars from Facebook.

It struck him as “borderline tone-deaf” to run ads on social media platforms when they were being used to organize protests against racism and police brutality, he said. And the money spent on ads might have been wasted, since the usual concerns of consumers seemed not to amount to much at a historic moment.

But there was something else weighing on his mind: Facebook’s hands-off attitude toward President Trump’s aggressive, misleading posts.

“We harshly disagree with how Facebook has approached this,” said Mr. Gardideh, the co-founder of Pearmill, a New York marketing agency with a dozen clients, mostly tech start-ups. “For the past couple of years, this problem has become bigger and bigger. These massive platforms have to care about free speech issues to some extent, but Facebook is on the extreme end of not caring.”

Unlike Twitter and Snap, which have toughened their stances against Mr. Trump’s online statements that contain misinformation or promote violence, Facebook has held firm on its decision to leave his posts alone. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, has defended the policy, despite the resignations of some staff members and public criticism from current and former employees.

In recent days, many companies have cautiously returned to advertising, after having pulled back during the height of the pandemic in the United States. But some have decided not to advertise on Facebook, now that it has become clear that Mr. Zuckerberg will give the president a wide berth.

“I think this is Facebook’s time of reckoning,” said Dave Morgan, the chief executive of Simulmedia, a company that works with advertisers on targeted television advertising. “It may not be immediate or dramatic, but advertisers have given Facebook a lot of passes and now we are hearing they are saying it will be harder to stand back.”

In late May, the social media companies’ dealings with the president diverged. Twitter started fact-checking Mr. Trump, and posted an addendum to a tweet that called for military action against participants in a protest whom Mr. Trump had described as “THUGS.”

“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence,” the company said in a note attached to Mr. Trump’s statement.

Facebook reacted differently, allowing the same statement to go unflagged.

Around the same time, companies were struggling with how and whether to address the worldwide demonstrations prompted by the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died last month in Minneapolis after a white police officer pinned him to the ground. On June 2, in an effort that became known as Blackout Tuesday, many advertisers posted images of black boxes instead of paid ads, a gesture intended to show support for the protests.

“They began to realize that all of their messaging was off-target,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, a former advertising executive who is now an author and marketing adviser.

Facebook generates 98 percent of its revenue through ads. It netted $17.4 billion from advertising in its most recent quarter. The pandemic has hurt advertising sales in general, and some companies are still “incredibly challenged,” said Carolyn Everson, Facebook’s vice president for global marketing solutions. Blackout Tuesday “really had a very significant role on our platforms,” Ms. Everson added, with hundreds of companies pausing their spending.

Since then, ad revenue has mostly recovered for the company, she said, although several companies have been slow to return as they adjusted their messaging. Nike, Anheuser-Busch and others each slashed their daily Facebook and Instagram spending by more than $100,000 in early June, according to the advertising analytics platform Pathmatics.

Some smaller advertisers — including authors, therapy providers and payment companies — described their break from Facebook as a protest against the platform and its subsidiaries.

Simris, an algae-growing business in Sweden, wrote in a LinkedIn post that it was “vitally dependent on digital marketing” but unwilling to “continue to enable a sick system with our funds.”

“The current developments have now rendered it morally impossible for us to continue feeding the same hand that complacently offers its services as the major platform for hate-mongering, promotion of violence, and disinformation,” the company wrote.

Last week, Braze, a software company in New York, withdrew a Facebook ad campaign it had planned later this summer valued at around $60,000. Its chief marketing officer, Sara Spivey, said Facebook’s decision to leave presidential statements untouched factored into the decision.

“Facebook is the biggest publishing platform arguably in the world, so of course we want to be on it,” Ms. Spivey said. “But the bigger question is Facebook’s responsibility to make its platform safe and if we want to be associated with it.”

Abe Kasbo, the head of the marketing agency Verasoni Worldwide in Fairfield, N.J., said his agency ceased all Facebook ads soon after Mr. Zuckerberg’s comments defending Mr. Trump’s posts. Verasoni, a small agency representing regional banks and retailers, said it stopped its $6,000 monthly budget on Facebook ads.

“The amplification of divisive speech and the lack of responsibility that Facebook is taking as a platform forced this,” Mr. Kasbo said.

Ms. Everson, the Facebook executive who deals with marketers, said she had never worked more closely with Mr. Zuckerberg than she has in the past week. She acknowledged that the company’s decision on Mr. Trump’s social-media statements “is not a decision that everyone agrees is a perfect decision.”

On Friday night, she sent a personal note to top advertisers, attached to a long public post from Mr. Zuckerberg that promised to review some of Facebook’s policies. She said that most of her discussions with clients now focused on efforts to dismantle systemic racial inequality within companies.

“Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of the conversation has moved off the decision about the Trump post,” she said. “It actually would minimize the importance of this moment historically to just focus on one post from President Trump.”

The Trump campaign spent more than $2.8 million advertising on the platform last month, according to Advertising Analytics, a media tracking firm. Combined with spending by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint effort with the Republican National Committee, the president’s re-election team was the 10th largest advertiser on Facebook behind Samsung, Microsoft and the Walt Disney Company, according to Pathmatics.

Most of Facebook’s eight million advertisers are small businesses or individuals, who “continue to depend and rely on our platforms,” Ms. Everson said. Many of them are uncomfortable with the negativity on the platform but feel they have no choice but to keep promoting themselves on it.

Mr. Gardideh, of Pearmill, said his clients had tripled their advertising spending in the past four months, as the pandemic pushed down the cost for ad space. In the past few days, some of them shifted some of their Facebook budgets to Google and LinkedIn, he said, or paused social media marketing entirely.

He conceded that his clients were likely to return to Facebook soon, because the platform “is just the best option there is right now, in terms of cost and scale,” he said.

Lutchi Gayot, a small-business owner and congressional candidate in New York, said he paid for Facebook ads while feeling conflicted about it.

“The moral thing to do, of course, is to stand on the side that’s right,” he said. “But it’s hard — Facebook ads are keeping small businesses alive. If you’re not on Facebook, you don’t exist.”

[oltnews]

At work is a Rolling stone series exploring how decision makers in the fast-paced music industry spend their hectic days - as well as the emerging ideas they want to explore, what advice they would give newcomers to the industry, and more. Lily previous interviews here. When Justin Lubliner picks up the phone, he's somewhere in the middle of a 45-minute circular tour. It's normal for him. Lubliner, who is not even 30 years old, is constantly on the move - and constantly thinking about his next move. He founded his darkroom company focused on artistic development as a 20-year-old student at the University of Southern California, and then moved him from a marketing and public relations firm to a record label. After a period of consultation for Republic Records, Lubliner met with Interscope CEO John Janick, who offered Darkroom a subsidiary agreement. He heard Billie Eilish sing for the first time in 2015 when she downloaded “Ocean Eyes” on SoundCloud - and immediately started looking for it, then signed it on Interscope. Eilish, of course, is now the youngest artist in history to sweep the Big Four Grammy categories, and she was on a world tour when orders for on-site shelters went into effect and set the industry apart. music locked out. Since the postponement of his tour, Lubliner has been working from home in Los Angeles. Although he is deeply concerned about those affected by the current economic and health crisis, he is grateful for the opportunity to think about opportunities for his intimate list, which also includes the development of acts Oliver Malcolm, Gryffin and Max Leone. He just doesn't used to be in the same place for so long, he says Rolling stone. In general, what is the first thing you do every day?Since I travel so often and only come home for half the year, I try to make sure that some things are included in my day every day, but not in any way. a specific fashion. The first thing I do is wake up around 8:00 a.m. or 8:15 a.m., and I have about 10 missed calls and 100 emails - and an organized, imminent call around 9:00 a.m. I'm just going to try to delete as many text messages and emails from the night before as I'm probably in bed. Waking up to a deluge of emails, texts and calls trigger anxiety?I don't have a ton of anxiety - thank goodness - so I don't mind. It kind of gives me a nice little kick in the ass, because I really have to get on it very quickly. This is your cup of coffee before your cup of coffee.Yes. We focus on working with international markets and personal communication with our overseas partners most of the time - whether it's [parent company] On the UMG side, streaming platforms, various advertisers around the world, or marketing weapons. Obviously, we have tremendous support from Interscope and [Interscope International executives] Nick Miller and Jurgen [Grebner], so I don't want to take them away, but we are constantly communicating abroad. And honestly, we kind of want to be bogged down by people who are a few hours ahead. It makes me really excited when a lot of people communicate with me early in the morning. “You grow up thinking that more success comes from completing as much work as possible in front of you. I fundamentally disagree with that ... It is really important for me that I am not always bogged down in work and that I have a lot of free time to reflect. " Do you think a work / life balance is important?Many of my best ideas come from my thoughts and reflections, and I'm always looking for an idea or an opportunity, instead of waiting for something to happen to me. Very recently, I started to think about how to allocate my time well. You grow up thinking that more success comes from completing as much work as possible in front of you. I fundamentally disagree with this. I feel like if you work so hard and still have your head down, you don't have enough time to research, create and think about more opportunities. So it’s really important to me that I’m not always bogged down in work and that I have a lot of free time to reflect. I spend a lot of time training and walking. Unfortunately, I don't have major hobbies like surfing or jet skiing - even if I like to travel a ton. I really try to use [free time] to learn, think and stay in shape. I listen to audiobooks all the time, I listen to podcasts. I love Malcolm Gladwell. I love Guy Raz How i built this. Why do you travel as much as you do?I want to be the guy who's always there for the client. When they look up, I want them to see that I'm there. In addition, to really break an artist and understand how to market, you need a global perspective. To understand international markets, you have to go there. You have to meet people and build relationships. No one will care as much about your artist as you do, and if you personally communicate with people in these international markets, they will always prioritize the project more than if you go through a bunch of different people. For example, UMG Sweden works with all UMG artists around the world, and they also have their local repertoire, so it's very difficult to get on the front line unless you can build those personal relationships, help allocate resources to these markets and know what you’re doing. I went to almost every major music market in the world, and when I started going to these places, I always asked people: if the artist was local and signed directly in this region, what would be the five things that would you do to market the artist here, not counting streaming or radio? There are a ton of things you can do outside of traditional marketing tactics, and if you've never been to these places, it would be really hard to understand. This is especially true for markets like Asia - where social media platforms are different, the way fans consume music is different, the way fans interact with artists is different. I want to go on tour to help the artist support as well. Specifically, for Billie, many of us will go to team shows. I am still in my twenties - though not for long - I have the resources to travel and I am not engaged in enough things that I cannot travel. I don't know how many years of my life I have left. For the past few years, I had the ability to jump on a plane with a single click if I thought there was an opportunity I could take advantage of - and it was really helpful. I had a phone call with Adele's manager, Jonathan Dickins, who gave me incredible advice throughout this process. I told her about some of the plans we had for Billie's debut album and how I thought it would be a good idea to go to so many markets around the world to help promote and communicate our plans for the album. He told me that with Adele's album, he also went to all the markets in the world. Obviously, given Adele's success, it really motivated me to go up a gear and get on a plane. How did you get started with Darkroom?I saw an opening when EDM artists started playing a lot of shows in Los Angeles. Many international artists were not really represented in this sector. I wanted to help increase their exposure to the United States on blogging - with creative assets and basic marketing - almost from the point of view of university marketing for a student, because it was really the demographic target. This allowed me to understand how to communicate clients to partners, be mutually beneficial to people, and get visual exposure for an artist without spending any money. Finally, we started working with a ton of different artists, discos and festivals. Then I started consulting Rob Stevenson at Republic Records in A&R. Initially, he wanted me in marketing, but I wanted to maintain an entrepreneurial approach. Staying independent and running my own business was at the forefront of everything I did. Whenever I have had a job opportunity, I have tried to turn it into something that I could do as a partner rather than as an employee. So, I asked if I could be an A&R consultant instead, because I had run a blog, I was really intrigued by the search for artists and I had a lot of good relationships with the management teams. I worked with Rob for a year. I had a fairly good success signing some artists there, and I had the opportunity to stay there as an employee. I had just watched David Geffen's documentary and I was really inspired by his entrepreneurial spirit and the way he created his own label. Finally, I had an opportunity thanks to John Janick, who really seduced me. I think he saw himself a lot in me and was someone, as an entrepreneur himself, who would be the perfect mentor to help me grow my business. I didn't feel like I had so much pressure to succeed right away. I had the impression that if I made a mistake, he would be there to help me get up. And how has it developed since then?I've done a million different things, but I've always been told to focus on one aspect of the music industry. At Darkroom, we were a marketing agency, we were a manager, we started publishing, we made brand agreements. This is probably the first time in my career that I have decided to focus on the label. We obviously also do management, but we are really trying to rationalize. We want to use our knowledge in all these different spaces and make it more attractive for artists to work with us on the label side. Because we have been successful, we understand touring and tour marketing. Because we have finished publishing, we understand song development and A&R. Because we run a marketing agency, we understand asset creation and creative development. So we diminish all these different things, we refine as a label and we devote as much time and resources as possible to each individual artist - and we don't sign a ton. To structure the team we have today, it was not a question of having someone as an expert in a field. I don't have people on the team to do something like a normal label. Everyone does everything and helps everything. How did your routine change in the midst of the crisis?it was a good time to come up with ideas. It is a horrible time for the economy, and I am incredibly sympathetic to everyone who is struggling right now. It's really terrible and difficult, but at the same time, there is a part where, because the workload is a little lighter, it gives our team the opportunity to think freely, develop strategies and d 'to be creative. I feel very blessed and lucky. Because I run a label, as long as people listen to music, there is always business. Obviously, the industry as a whole has been impacted, especially with artists who cannot play shows, but for us personally, there is a kind of "business as usual". In my team, Austin Evenson, who does incredible work with Gryffin, uses a lot of this time to better understand the digital world. For example, he is working with another of our partners on a great tool that helps people understand how songs react on / on different platforms and international markets. Layne [Cooperstein], who pretty much acts as our label manager and oversees Max Leone, is busy. Dylan [Bourne], an A&R guy who also does a ton of creative work, has time to find new artists. My assistant Oliver [Jordan] really gets closer to a new artist that we sign, so that they can help. I try to empower and comfort my team, while letting them focus on the things they wanted to do but didn't have time to do. Billie's mom Maggie is working on a great charity initiative [in response to the COVID-19 crisis] which helps support local herbal food restaurants and brings food to places of need - hospitals, retirement homes and food banks. Passionate projects like this can materialize. For the developing artists we have, everything is really digital anyway, so as long as the platforms are supportive, and as long as we have a good strategy with social media and the creative assets are ready, that's fine. I'm not going to release a priority single right now when I can't shoot a video, but you can still release music - it may be a different song that you may not have released or that you really didn't have a good time for. This could attract different types of fans, for example. With some of my greatest artists, same thing. This opens a door to music that doesn't need a video or a huge boost, but can still maintain momentum. I definitely maintain a coherent deployment strategy for all my clients. With each one, there are discussions to release music and musical creation. What is the most overrated trend in the music industry right now?There was a time in the streaming era when platforms focused their attention on individual songs. Often times when platforms break songs - as opposed to artists - people frown. I think you are starting to see a bit of this trend happening with TikTok. These songs go viral and all the labels are clamoring to sign the artist for a ton of money, and then nothing really happens beyond that song. That said, TikTok, in itself, is not an overrated trend. It is an incredible social media platform that gives visibility to creators in a way that has never been done before and should be adopted. Although there is this fight to find the next TikTok song, which I think is starting to have a slightly negative connotation, I'm going to go out and focus more on how TikTok as a platform can be worked to help to show different aspects of an artist. Basically, there is an overrated trend coming from something that I think could be transformed into an exciting new way to market artists. It is How? 'Or' What you use the tool, while focusing on the artist as a person. What is the biggest obstacle you have had to overcome?There is a lot of competitiveness which can give you a feeling of insecurity. Many people are very territorial about what they do and they don't want you to do it yourself. When you are someone who does a lot and can help you anywhere, some people will tell you to step down. But no one cares as much about my customers as I do, and if I can contribute something - whether it's helping get activation with Spotify or a song in a movie, or helping to connect with an international market - I will. There are always people who will be frustrated with skipping steps. I feel like, along the way, there was a lot of frustration with me from people who thought I might have overstepped my limits or stepped on their toes. And as a young player entering the music industry, this frustration can really put you down and make you feel like you're doing something wrong. John Janick helped me navigate through much of this - and understand where I was overtaking or being overly aggressive, and where I was just adding value, doing my job and giving the priority to my client. If I hadn't had an excellent mentorship to help me, I think I would have had a lot of trouble. There is also the number of times people say no. A lot of artistic development involves launching and trying to convince people to pay attention to your artist and their music. You can't imagine the number of noes I got by going up - the number of meetings I couldn't get, the number of people who didn't give me the time of day. It can be incredibly disheartening. You start to think that your perception may be wrong, that things are not where they should be. If you cannot ignore these thoughts and remain confident and persistent, they can really bother you. I would take this negative energy and turn it into positivity. It motivated me. One of my favorite things in the world was a no, because it just made me want to prove the opposite to these people. I am not always right. I made bad decisions. Everyone who said no was not wrong, but when I was hungry I had to turn a no into fuel. ! function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) if (f.fbq) return; n = f.fbq = function() n.callMethod ? n.callMethod.apply(n, arguments) : n.queue.push(arguments) ; if (!f._fbq) f._fbq = n; n.push = n; n.loaded = !0; n.version = '2.0'; n.queue = []; t = b.createElement(e); t.async = !0; t.src = v; s = b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t, s) (window, document, 'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '204436500352178'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); https://oltnews.com/at-work-with-justin-lubliner-the-twenty-something-who-signed-billie-eilish-rolling-stone?_unique_id=5ea0981d8eae7