The Age of Outrage

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Age of Outrage sounds about right. Nowadays it seems people are just purposely looking for something to be offended by and raise a ruckus about.

the sad part is most don't even believe in what they are raging about. it's a spur of the moment/ in popularity thing. It's a Virtue Signaling Thing....Or it's something they do to pass the time to get noticed. Some even do it just to cause havoc.

I still think my most favorite Out of nowhere Outrage comments was about Superman.

I made the mistake of saying something like, 'This is America, Why Can't Superman say Truth, Justice and the American Way anymore?' I woke up the next morning and someone got all in a fuss about my saying 'this is america' when he was reading the post in finland or some place outside of america.

smh. sometimes you can predict how people will react to things, other times it's 100% completely off the wall or overboard.

I really do wish I could give up the internet sometimes. it's far too much of a headache.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

the sad part is most don't even believe in what they are raging about. it's a spur of the moment/ in popularity thing. It's a Virtue Signaling Thing....Or it's something they do to pass the time to get noticed. Some even do it just to cause havoc.

I still think my most favorite Out of nowhere Outrage comments was about Superman.

I made the mistake of saying something like, 'This is America, Why Can't Superman say Truth, Justice and the American Way anymore?' I woke up the next morning and someone got all in a fuss about my saying 'this is america' when he was reading the post in finland or some place outside of america.

smh. sometimes you can predict how people will react to things, other times it's 100% completely off the wall or overboard.

I really do wish I could give up the internet sometimes. it's far too much of a headache.

More like... giving up social media. I mostly use the internet to stream shows, upload videos, buy stuff online and do online gaming once in a while, but don't really waste time catching up on what's next on the 'this offends me' trend.

[sdp]

It's always ironic when people talk about privilege when they live in a first world country.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

More like... giving up social media. I mostly use the internet to stream shows, upload videos, buy stuff online and do online gaming once in a while, but don't really waste time catching up on what's next on the 'this offends me' trend.

I gave up Facebook social media groups 3 years ago. I've been a happier camper ever since.

I'd LOVE to be able to give up message boards, since over reacting sensationalism and intentional trolling has migrated to them as well. but SOMETIMES the extra strife helps distract the mind from things I KNOW I don't need to worry about. Like if that bump in the road was a person i just ran over...ugh.

Life sure is fun, isn't it?

[Papenbrook]

Originally Posted by Spike Spiegel

Spoiler:

When I started university a few years ago, I was very much on the left, having grown up as one of the only black kids in a mostly white, very Protestant/Lutheran peer group. My immediate family is Pentecostal, so I had a double helping of conservative values crammed down my throat. I saw the social and moral hypocrisy of stereotypical "White, Christian America" firsthand.

What I encountered in college felt like another side of the same coin. During my junior year, I did an internship as part of an interdepartmental project to promote diversity on campus. It was a whole semester of argumentative in-fighting about the issues, and we barely had anything to show for the money that was granted to us by the end of it, save for some hastily edited YouTube videos that recited statistics on race, gender, pay gaps, etc. and photos of trips we took to some museums. We could barely hold discussions about anything--even a logo design or an addition to our web page--without someone shrieking at the other party to shut up.

There were other experiences I had, like a female boss in the English department who was dumbfounded by the idea that one of the female students I'd done some peer tutoring with had started stalking me around campus while also bombarding me with session requests at work. And, despite the decidedly liberal atmosphere, I encountered a lot of hipster racism.

It's important to critically evaluate the society you live in. However, I think that some professors today try to actively proselytize rather than show students how to think and evaluate things on their own--and oftentimes, it is for the progressive viewpoint, though I did also have one conservative Catholic prof who attempted to use a literature course as a subtle means of attempting to debunk atheism and postmodernism.

I've gone back and read some of the same books, plays, and philosophy texts I was assigned to read in college without any due dates for reports or having some authority figure tell me their spiel about the dynamics of power and oppression, and I've found it to be a much richer experience. However, it makes me question the value of paying exorbitant sums of money to be preached at when, in retrospect, I could have just downloaded a list of the most important texts of the Western canon and gotten them from the local library for free. The people who define the meaning of "privilege" have a great deal of privilege themselves, just due to the fact that what they say gets taken more seriously than someone who might be a real life example of the statistics they enjoy citing. For instance, does a white female tenured women's studies professor with a mortgage, working partner, luxury sedan, and two kids have to worry as much about the day-to-day struggles of life as the overworked, underpaid black single mother of two who gets her Pumpkin Spice lattes for her every morning at the campus Starbucks?

IMHO, polarization on American campuses is just one symptom of a larger problem with education in the country as a whole. Is it overvalued? If so, for what reasons? With this mentality that everyone needs to go to college, despite skyrocketing costs, are we placing the value in sitting in a classroom to pass the tests and get a degree rather than struggling with weighty concepts to formulate your own views?

Maybe some of these kids cling to their polarized views because they become the only tangible thing they can hang on to. When you and all your friends realize you'll graduate with crippling debt and sh*tty job prospects, and you see how f*cked social mobility really is in American society, it would seem easy to want to fall back on those narratives you were taught in school. They've effectively replaced religion for certain groups of people, and they help give context to the uncertainty of the economic state we are currently in.

As a whole, the world's society is outdated, at least in terms of its social, cultural, economical, and moral aspects.

It's a shame, really. I believe that human beings have the potential to analyze and reflect on both themselves and society at large. I'm undoubtedly sure that they have the potential to change themselves, at least somewhat, socially, economically, technologically, mentally, morally, etc. I also believe that they could/can change others' perspectives on life, at least to some extent. But, realistically, as a result of many societal, environmental, economical, and even personal factors, we don't.

Most people try to be as progressive/ open-minded as humanly possible. However, there are some aspects that human beings just don't want to get rid of, either because of having society's biases ingrained within them, having the consequence of negativity affecting their own environment, raising the issue of possibly regressing their socioeconomic/monetary status/value, or because it would affect their point of view/comfort area. (There are other factors to consider as well.)

In addition, society tends to morph itself through complex situations that create different phenomena/trends. The affects/effects can have a complication that results in an impact that's overall dynamic and ever-changing culturally socially, etc. With those affects/effects, said society can either develop, regress, or stagnate.

Unfortunately, most people would rather choose to stagnate rather than evolve, or even taking risks. It just seems safer for them.

Generally, human beings are afraid of changes and they are afraid of adapting to those changes. They even fear that they themselves might change in some way, shape, or form.

Huh, I guess we're all somewhat conservative, at least in some ways.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Nicely written piece, Papenbrook.

I absolutely believe in moral absolutes, but that doesn't mean that I won't be willing to analyze their reasoning. I'm not one of those people to tell people to shut up of they something outrageous, even if i percieve them to be wrong. I might never agree with them, but I want to hear their side of the story

[Vegita-San]

wasnt' sure where to put this. but was watching a little of the golden globes mess at my grandmothers before i put football on elsewhere.

did it seem like debroah messing was just reading off bullet points someone just handed to her off screen? she read it in such a robotic way, it's like she didn't even care about what she was saying, just that she was expected to say it.

made me think of the age of outrage thread... equal pay being the latest platform for hollywood to rant about..

[plastroncafe]

1/10
Not your best work.

[Spike Spiegel]

Adults over the age of 25 actually watch the Golden Globes? In a completely unironic way?

Spoiler:

[Vegita-San]

i could barely stand 5 minutes of E! red carpet nonsense before i had to get out of the room if that counts.

[Andrew NDB]

I guess Natalie Portman made a stink about there being no female directors in the Best Director category?

I'm looking at the list of movies in that category and no 2017 films by female directors come to mind as being more deserving of making that list. Or does Portman mean that the Golden Globes needs some kind of affirmative action, that women directors need to be there regardless of quality of films?

http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/golde...=sharebutton-b

[Papenbrook]

I found this interesting interview.

It really summarizes the state of modern society.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Papenbrook

I found this interesting interview.

It really summarizes the state of modern society.

I haven't expected it from you, to be honest.

[***First of Two Latin Kings***]

The problem with any one extremist group is that it completely ignores any and all hard cold fact that goes against its agenda.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I guess Natalie Portman made a stink about there being no female directors in the Best Director category?

I'm looking at the list of movies in that category and no 2017 films by female directors come to mind as being more deserving of making that list. Or does Portman mean that the Golden Globes needs some kind of affirmative action, that women directors need to be there regardless of quality of films?

http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/golde...=sharebutton-b

Probably just more of them in the talent pool in general. There are a number of women directing movies out there, but not very many that are handed high profile studio films, which are more likely to be nominated for high profile awards.

It's a tough one too, because it seems like Hollywood big-shots prefer to hire directors that remind them of themselves. Plucky upstarts who make a big splash with a short film or an indi, and wear a baseball cap and glasses. So a woman has to not only get through the sexist stuff, and the industry inertia, and convince the money-men to take a risk altering the formulaic way they make decisions - but then there's the same nepotism that everyone has to deal with on top of that.

Maybe the handful of women who have crowbarred their way into the big time need to give nepotism a try. Nepotism isn't fair, but it will leave a couple of doors open.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I guess Natalie Portman made a stink about there being no female directors in the Best Director category?

Yes. A stink.
She described the all-male list of nominees as All-Male, and for some reason people are taking that accurate description as an insult.

Here, have a .gif of the one word inclusion that's giving people the vapors:
(spoiler tagged for your safety.)

Spoiler:

[Sumac]

Maybe it is because, jury had appreciated movie based on their quality?

Or they should definitely include female directors, just because they have made some movies, regardless of their quality?
Or have a special "participation" award?

I'd say both things are insulting to women.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ProactiveMan

Probably just more of them in the talent pool in general. There are a number of women directing movies out there, but not very many that are handed high profile studio films, which are more likely to be nominated for high profile awards.

I don't think that's what she meant at all. She was clearly making a "powerful statement" about the lack of female directors nominated in terms of some kind of grand injustice that has been done.

Truth is, they're just not out there. There's more every year, but not at a fast enough pace to please the angry mob with their mob mentality about it all.
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/wo...ra-1201626691/

As of 2017, women comprised 13% of the active directors working, meaning 87% of them are male. Should 13% of the active women directors out there be given disproportionately 37% more work... just because of their genitals/gender identity? Just because, over better-qualified and far more numerous male directors? That's insanity.

You want more female directors, go and inspire more women to be directors. It's not a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Yes. A stink.
She described the all-male list of nominees as All-Male, and for some reason people are taking that accurate description as an insult.

Oh, stop. You know exactly what she was doing. She was using her platform to "bring attention to an important issue," ala Meryl Streep, et al, and you know it.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Oh, stop. You know exactly what she was doing. She was using her platform to "bring attention to an important issue," ala Meryl Streep, et al, and you know it.

Why so fragile, Andrew?
(Would you have preferred she'd gone the Brando route?)

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Why so fragile, Andrew?
(Would you have preferred she'd gone the Brando route?)

Of all people you are the last one to tell someone they are "fragile".