Friday 25 January 2019



Edutainment 

T.K. McNeil 


There have long been objections about the blurring of the line between news and entertainment. Elements of show-business (witness the stylish hair and snappy clothes) and filth, filthy “commercial interests” creeping into what are meant to be trustworthy sources of information. A mandate difficult to fulfill while also selling commercial time had appeasing share-holders. We all need to make a living but PBS does all right particularly in terms of programs like Frontline and PBS Newshour and, despite getting funding from some of the more charitably-minded evil corporations, they operate free of any commercial or third-party influence.


(Charlie Brooker)

This has been some very fertile ground for topical comedians. Both those using it as the basis for jokes as well as those who have decided to use it to there advantage. At least in terms of willfully, and overtly, blending elements of showmanship and amusement, literally and figuratively, to put a little bit of apple sauce on some pretty unpalatable facts. The first case is best exemplified, in my humble opinion, by Charlie Brooker, now best known as the mad, dark genius behind Black Mirror. Particularly his NewsWipe and Weekly Wipe programs in which Brooker, who works in a form of Comedy know as “satirical pessimism” responds to the news as though it is just another vulgar entertainment show. A prime example of using the trappings of modern cable news and combining them with humour, as well as genuine earnestness and emotion, is The Dailey Show hosted by Jon Stewart and its spin-off This Week Tonight fronted by John Oliver. Note that two out of the previous three examples have hosts originally from Britain. I think I may be sensing a pattern or at the very least a trend of two (which is absolutely a thing).

(Adam Conover)

Outside the realm of news, there has come to be a new genre of comedy infused information shows (or fact based comedy shows depending on your persuasion) unironically referred to as “infotainment” or “edutainment”, in which every effort is made to try and hide important but possibly uncomfortable or unpopular facts. As well to try and counteract the now well known factor of cognitive dissonance. This is seen most clearly in the hit TruTV series Adam Ruins Everything. A case meta Comedy gone horribly right the show started as a series of shorts on the comedy site CollegeHumor and follows host Adam Conover as he goes about his life as a professional smarty pants debunking commonly held misconceptions and generally annoying everyone around him. One of the show's main strengths is not only itself awareness, most of Conover's friends being played by his real-life friends and former CollegeHumor collaborators but also its self-deprecation. While Conover is presented as being a borderline genius in terms information gathering and retention, his social skills leave a lot to be desired, much of the humour deriving from well-placed sight gags and the built-in, some might say natural, contradiction between Conover's smarty-pants persona while explaining things and his adorkable discomfort and misunderstanding when it comes to dealing with people a human level. 

Wednesday 16 January 2019


Self (ish)

Amy Wright


It has become something of a fashion for ideas to come into the public consciousness and then to be held as concrete, ironclad "truths". This is particularly true if the notion allows for, at least the appearance of, personal or moral superiority. One such idea that has actually reversed in recent years is the assumption that only criminals and soldiers have tattoos. While thoroughly ridiculous, this instance of tomfoolery was believed by large swaths of society until very recently. These days such petty, preposterous, presumptions are still common, particularly with regard to technology. A situation reaching all the way back to the beginnings of the digital age. While it was once popular to dismiss computers as "mere toys", the sands have begun to shift, beginning with the advent of social media and fully mobile digital devices and now many speak as though such devices have the power to shape the very form of the human mind.

Among the most common, and egregious, of the claims being made with regard to contemporary media infrastructures is that it is leading to a marked and unprecedented increase in the instances of so-called narcissism. To begin with the use of the term in the majority of contexts is faulty or at the very least based upon a false premise. Narcissism refers to a state in which an individual believes that everything that occurs, both positive and negative, occurs because of them. What most people are usually talking about in
such churlish condemnations is megalomania. Though even this designation is rather over-stating the case, as well as being farcically narrow in scope.

The apparent increase in seemingly self-centred behaviour has its basis not in prevalence but rather awareness. Citizens are no more self-centred now than they have been at any other point in human history. The primary difference is that, presently, people have become more able to put themselves into the public sphere with changes both in terms of recording as well as distribution due to advances, or at least refinements, in  technology. As a result the general populous have become more aware of what would have formerly been private citizens.


Partly what makes screeds against self-documentation, particularly selfies, absurd is the fact that people have found methods of documenting their bodies and lives since such means became possible, dating back to the parchment and charcoal self portraits of the Renaissance. Age-defining artist Artemisia Gentileschi was particularly known for this. Partly as a result of her having been banned from the art academies of the day due to her gender. Self-reference using mirrors became her only avenue to mastering anatomical rendering.

Vincent Van Gogh did a plethora of self portraits. mostly because his reputation was such that he couldn't' get anyone else to sit for
him. Being nicknamed "The Mad Dog" will do that. The only significant difference between this form of self-portraiture and what is being done now online is the comparative ease of production and publication facilitated by digital photography and the Internet. Both of which were heralded as grand advancements when they were first launched. One tech entrepreneur going so far as to state that the Internet was "the greatest innovation since the invention of fire." Apparently he’s never heard of the telephone.


Monday 14 January 2019



The Menace Among Us?

Amy Wright 


Life can be a real minefield. You never quite know what is going to happen, every action involving a degree of risk. Sound like an exaggeration? Just look at the stats on people who die in their bathroom every year. The trick is to try and make sure the risk is considered and reasonable. Of course there are going to be instances of the unpredictable and chaotic but this is just more reason to at least try an exercise a degree of control over all factors it is possible to do so. 


There is, however, a cadre of humanity existing in the present epoch for whom decentralization is not only a positive but has been adopted as a philosophy. I refer, of course, to so-called "Anarchism." An allegedly dangerous philosophy literally meaning "rule of none" from the Latinate language, this now notorious philosophy is now seen as a  cliche at best and a punchline at worst. Exactly because they are thought not to be a serious factor anymore. Many would have one believe that the greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist. 

One of the most effective tactics taken by the modern day Anarchist is the mantle of the "Libertarian". Don't let the appeals to the democratic values of freedom and liberty throw you off. Libertarianism, be it "left", "right", or "moderate" has a lot more on common with classical Anarchism that it seems. Even alleged
Conservative Ben Shapiro has been quoted as saying "the  government sucks at everything." An Anarchist statement if there ever was one. 


(Michael Malice; The Face of Modern Anarchism)

Others are a lot more open with their anti-state sentiments, such as author and commentator Michael Malice. According to Malice and "Intellectual Anarchists" such as Noam Chomsky, Anarchism is a philosophy and they are not against rule but rulers, in the form of a coercive, top-down form of governance. Once that use the threat of violence to control the people and forward their own ends. 

An example from history is the notorious case of the "Diggers." The popular name for a group of peasant farmers who petitioned the kings to be able to keep more of their own crops. A request which got them cut down by the royal troops. 

Friday 11 January 2019


In The Details 

Amy Wright


In this modern, diverse “woke” society, people are more sensitive and mindful than ever before. Not only in terms of privilege they never new they had but it is now clear who to blame for absolutely everything. The very idea of personal responsibility, of course, being a conservative plot hatched so they could stay in power. It is simply no longer okay to demean, deaconess or discriminate against any identify able group. Except one. In even the most equal and egalitarian of societies, one can still find instances of 
scapegoating. Modern Western society is no exception, there being at least one group that fall outside the protection of the Social Justice echo chamber, despite having been continually and constantly, attacked, slandered and demonized for decades. I, of course, speak of Satanists. 

Satanists have been the victims, yes, the victims, of "Occult Scares", alarmist news reports, religious and state persecution and, worst of all, idiotic and sensationalist talk show hosts grossly misrepresenting them and artificially inflating their numbers. To say nothing of all the completely concocted stories of "Satanic Ritual Abuse", none of which have been remotely true. None the less such claims have become one of the greatest cultural boogeymen, excuse me, boogey-persons, along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, "inflation" and razor-blades in Halloween apples. 

The fact of the matter is, no matter how difficult it might be for many to accept, Satanists are people too. More than this, Satanism 
is a religion like any other. Is their belief system odd, immoral, selfish and corrupt? Yes but no one is being told that they are going to burn in Hell for being Scientologists, who are allowed to exist with little to no static from he powers that be, many members of the power elite actually being members. Thank God for Lucien Greaves and the Satanic Temple,  fighting for the legally protected civil rights of non-monotheists.

As with any other proper religion, Satanism is divided into denominations and sects. 12 of them in fact. So, I hope it is clear that to use such a  the broad and retrograde term "Satanism" as though they are all the same is both narrow minded and prejudiced. Throw  a bit of racism in there and it is an oppression hat trick. One of the largest divisions within the Satanic faith that most choose to ignore like Sufis, is that of "theist" Satanism and "secular Satanism". Theist Satanists believe in Satan as a literal mystical force in the world. Secular Satanists, which is most of them including Grieves and Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey, are strictly philosophical. They have no belief in the mystical and see the figure of Satan as symbol of ultimate freedom and independence. Freedom and independence which they use to justify and indulge in all manner of physical and carnal depravity including the entire range of sexual perversion, except apparently child abuse, and the utter, literal destruction of all opponents. But who are we to judge another culture, right? 

Tuesday 8 January 2019


The Troll Defence Guide 

Amy Wright


There wee always have always been things to fear. From wolves in the trees to deranged killers in the shadows, we have always had our monsters, both real an imagined. Now, with the slow shift into the digital realm, to the point "In Real Life" has to be used to distinguish between actually real life and the representation of it online, particularly via social media, another breed of monster has emerged, growling from the dark. Last seen menacing bully goats trying to cross their bridges, Trolls have made a major comeback on the social media landscape, one advantage to the infamous "gate-keepers" of yore being a semblance of security. 

By far the worst blight of the 21st century, directly linked to at least one death by suicide, a Troll is also one of the most complex issues faced, exactly because of the nature of this activity. Making people react is exactly what Trolls want. To get angry or upset and reply to them only gives them joy and motivates them to do it more. Which is why the main bit of advice when it comes to dealing with them is "don't feed the Trolls." While a nice sentiment it also isn't very realistic and fails to take into account human nature.

It is a sad but true fact that we are reactive, no matter how much we wish it wasn't the case or try and not let things get to us. While it is still not a great idea to respond honestly or to lash out in anger to the provocations of Trolls, there are still things you can do to defuse their power while also letting them know what you, and most of the world, think of them. 

1. Pretend To Agree
It can be a bitter pill to swallow but if Trolls get by and get off on conflict and pain and thrive on complicit silence, consensus is  their logical Kryptonite. 

2. Sympathize 
No, seriously. Next time someone is a jerk online, ask them what is going on or who hurt them and if they want to talk about it. They will never see it coming and are more than likely to just leave. Most likely to go and cry in the corner of their mom's basement. 

3. Fight Fire With Fire
Reserved for only the most formidable of responders, partly due to the barrage of abuse you will get, this is a way to really hit back against the sad little idiots who make the Internet miserable for everyone else because they have nothing else in their lives. Some preparation is also required so you can do it immediately, timing being a factor in the effect. The next time a Troll says something awful to or about you respond immediately with something like "oh you poor thing" or "you need this more than I do" with a link to a dating site. 

Friday 4 January 2019


By The Numbers 

T.K. McNeil 


It can be difficult to find love. Outside the animal kingdom and cultures with arranged marriages, locating a life partner can be a labour of Herculean proportions, never mind actually trying to woo said match. Modernity is so rife with protocols, neuroses and pitfalls it is almost a wonder the species didn't die out years ago. We are still truckin' along but barely. There is hope however. The saints and geniuses that make up the tech. industry (sometimes out of whole cloth) have found a way to make even the often arduous process of courtship and seduction all the easier, calculating romance down to a science. 

As hard as it is to believe, there are still people who futility  resist the paradigm changing juggernaut that is online dating. No matter who you are or what your particular proclivities there is a dating site or app just for you. Sure, some of them are of the Dark Web but what is a bit of semi-illegal programming when it comes to true love and fining one's soulmate. We all have our needs and all that really matters is that we get what we want, right? There are some so-called "reasonable people" who would call this attitude "selfish" or even "predatory" but they don't understand that humans are inherently selfish and evil. Just ask Richard Dawkins. 


Truly the greatest invention of the 21st century and in no way just digital versions of the sort of Lonely Hearts ads. that have been running in newspapers since a least the 19th century, dating apps have taken all the guess work out of the human mating ritual. You just sign up, find someone attractive (pro tip, almost no one actually reads the profiles) message a bit and set a date. If you like each other stay together, maybe even move in together and have sex (the ultimate goal of the entire endeavour) until someone better comes along. If you don't go your separate ways, no harm no foul. 


As usual with brilliant, time-saving, possibly species conserving innovations there those who have a problem with the very notion of online dating. Negative nellies who want everything done the hard way who protest that there should be more to relationships than just sex, or that the patented "eyeball test", by which the profile picture is used as a primary determination as to whether it is worth messaging someone, is "superficial" and even "demeaning." If there is a more heartfelt element, that the Internet is no place for human emotions to cultivate. That people aren't math equations and cannot be reduced to algorithms. Sure, we could try simply talking to people who are around us in real life and real time, get to know each other through common interests and let relationships develop "organically" like in the dark, ignorant days of our parents and grandparents but who has the time for that? Particularly when there is a fast, cheap and easy way to gain short term gratification