engl 187

In April 2012, Stephen Marche submitted his essay "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?" to The Atlantic. The story was quickly picked up and distributed, leading experts to claim that social media was ruining the lives of billions worldwide as they grew lonelier and more isolated from everyone around them. He ends with a dramatic claim that although Facebook offers a connection, it is "not the same thing as a bond," this connection is not always a good thing, and we should fear the loss of our ability to ever casually disconnect from others again. 

Marche is probably someone who isn't invited to very many parties, most likely because he misses the invitation on Facebook. He bases his argument around the fact that Facebook itself forces users to constantly curate their self-image, presenting themselves in a way that will be deemed acceptable to the most people, gathering more "friends" and making more connections along the way. This is, apparently, the downfall of humanity.

The essay itself is filled with statistics and quotes from authors all arguing that Facebook is the new form of keeping up with the Jones', where you must be slightly happier/better/richer than the next person on your newsfeed. Somehow, all these authors (who genuinely appear to fear what this advent of technology will bring) fail to grasp the point that everyone who is on Facebook must also exist in the real world, where they will talk to real people. Sure, not everyone on your Friends list is actually your real life best friend, but you at least know them. And that whole "connection is not the same as a bond" business? Nobody is expecting it to be. Nobody truly believes that having a conversation over Facebook is as fulfilling as talking to someone in real life. However, in many cases it may be the only option. For soldiers overseas, families across countries, or kids away from friends in college, Facebook provides an easily-accessed way to maintain the bond that already exists. It isn't always possible for people to see each other face-to-face--something Stephen Marche seems to have forgotten. 

Nicki Minaj's most recent lyric video, "Only," was released on November 7. It quickly garnered criticism online for how many of the images and concepts in the video appeared to clearly be based off the Nazis, where Nicki as Hitler is their powerful leader.

For someone with no knowledge of world history, it makes sense. "This man led armies and changed the course of the world." For someone like Nicki, who has been known to talk and rap about how she's powerful, the concept of a video where she is placed in a leadership role is not out of the question. But...did it have to be Hitler? 

To use such imagery simply for the sake of a lyric video seems insensitive at best and nasty and downright disgusting at worst. To minimize the memories of pain felt by millions of people and their descendants in this way (not to mention the inclusion of Drake on the track, who is also Jewish) is about as disrespectful as possible.

What concerns me is the fact that this must have passed various levels of approval before being created. Nobody spoke out at any point? The artists, Nicki herself, even Vevo or YouTube? I find it very hard to believe (or to understand how) this video received multiple forms of approval before actually being posted, and how it remains unedited at this point. 

After the release of Lena Dunham's book Not That Kind of Girl, the Internet exploded with allegations of abuse from a story she had recounted of exploring her younger sister's genitals. Dunham reacted poorly, claiming that she was disgusted by the fact that her words could be twisted in such a way. Sure, it's possible that if this were an isolated incident (which, to anyone reading news sites, it appears to be) it wouldn't necessarily be called abuse, but it was not in any way isolated.

Dunham's book chronicles her repeated and continued abuse of her sister. At one point she describes bribing her sister into letting Dunham kiss her or do her makeup, delivering bad news in an attempt to further gain her sister's trust, and literally describing her actions as "basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl."

(x) 

Dunham later describes how she gained pleasure from making her sister beg to share a bed with her, and then, as a teenager, proceeded to masturbate next to her sister in bed over a period of years (x, x). This is, apparently, "within the spectrum of things" she did-- meaning Dunham is aware that she acted in a predatory manner towards her much younger sister for an extended period of time, and somehow expects her actions to be taken as quirky and 'just something kids do' (x). Well, Lena, it's hard to have your childish actions excused as a teenager.

Grace Dunham has replied to these allegations, saying that she feels she should be allowed to decide what is harmful to her. I agree, but it's impossible to ignore that these actions are textbook examples of (at the very least) horrific emotional manipulation and should not be ignored. Survivors of abuse have spoken out about how Dunham's actions crossed the line between child's play and abuse, and many of them are disgusted by the fact that Dunham was much older than her sister and continued to manipulate her for years after she was a child. 

What is trolling? According to the Encyclopedia Dramatica, it consists of baiting others on the Internet by pretending to believe in a certain set of ideals or concepts (often racist or sexist in nature), starting fights with others who disagree with those concepts. However, the distinction between trolls and people who genuinely believe in these concepts is that because trolls claim to not actually believe what they're saying, they are somehow excused from any blame. Right.

Trolling is not new by any means. The term originated in the 1980s, with a definition in the Oxford English Dictionary appearing in 1992. The social meaning of the word has changed with the Internet, evolving as its users grow and increase in number. While the original trolls may have simply existed to post controversial opinions in online forums, the expansion of the Internet has allowed them to broaden their territory, and trolling today is often linked with the harassment of grieving families or celebrity figures.

But is there a purpose in fighting trolls? Are they really as big of an issue as some make them out to be? According to two recent studies, trolls show signs of sadistic and antisocial behavior, as well as indicators of narcissism and psychopathic traits. When one considers how some famous cases of trolling include a man who wrote abusive and obscene messages on the memorial pages of dead teenagers and other individuals emailing photographs of a mutilated girl's body to her grieving family, this isn't hard to believe.

While it may not be worth picking a fight with an anonymous poster on the Internet, it would be difficult to tell any family who had recently lost a loved one to simply "ignore" the pain they are being put through at the twisted will of another. The United Kingdom has taken this a step further by including social media postings in the Malicious Communications Act, leading to jail time and bans from social media sites for actions that have impacted others negatively, and have recently discussed increasing possible jail time from a maximum of 6 months to up to 2 years.

In the wise words of a forum moderator, 

Some memes are stranger than others. One of these is the 'Hot Choclety Milk spider', a drawing of a spider offering a cup of hot chocolate.

Although strange, this image has gained thousands of notes and many spinoffs, spread only through its perceived humor.

Another recent meme is that of the Madden Giferator. This meme stemmed from a creation by Electronic Arts allowing users to create gifs based off the newest version of the popular Madden football games. Unexpectedly, this led to an outpouring of unrelated gifs.

While talking to some of my friends recently, the topic of 'bi erasure' was brought up as we discussed the television show How To Get Away With Murder. I didn't know enough about the concept at the time to really join the discussion, but after doing some research of my own, I felt that it was something that should be discussed.

The concept of bisexual erasure argues that people who identify as bisexual are often denied this label by society, being told that whoever they are interested in at the time defines their sexuality (for a bisexual woman, being interested or dating a woman would make her a 'lesbian'; for a bisexual man, dating a woman would make him 'straight'). This discussion stemmed from the mention of two male characters on How To Get Away With Murder who had briefly mentioned a previous relationship, but while one character appears to identify as gay, the other claims their 'relationship' was, in fact, a mistake due to their youth and denies any chance that he could be gay or bisexual. 

This is not the only time bisexual erasure has occurred on television. TV Tropes has created a list of various occurrences on popular television shows such as Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Archer, Criminal Minds, and Glee among others. While some argue that this exclusion of bisexuality is beneficial as it allows for the increased inclusion and acceptance of openly gay characters, others believe that without including bisexuality as an accepted orientation, the inclusion is limited and cannot be considered genuine.