[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
When it comes to texting, there are two kinds of people: those who reply right away, and those who don’t. I’m a pretty strong advocate of the former. I like to think replying in a timely manner, particularly when someone needs something from you, is the courteous thing to do. Sometimes, however, that isn’t the case.
As much as I hate the archetypical teenager who’s glued to their phone in literally every family movie ever, it used to be a fairly accurate representation of me. I had a friend who lived on the other side of Canada, and since visiting each other was out of the question, our favourite form of communication was through iMessage. We loved talking to each other so much that we texted each other constantly throughout the day. We dreamt up fictional universes, shared our insecurities and when one of us wanted to rant about something, the other one of us was always there to listen.
I became so absorbed that my parents made a rule prohibiting phones at the dinner table. In retaliation, I would sneak away to the washroom, just so I could text her back. Whenever I smiled at my phone, my parents would know it was her. “What’s the hurry?” they would ask, chiding me. “Why can’t it wait?” It was never that I couldn’t wait. I just didn’t want to.
Although I had every intention of carrying through with our connection, transitioning to the demands of university was too much for me to juggle. My friend proved less than understanding to this change. If I didn’t reply, it meant that I didn’t care. Any response that took longer than 10 minutes was too long. One-word sentences like “nice” were disingenuous; “lol” seemed unengaged. We agreed to stop using “lmao” in our conversations because it seemed too “passive aggressive.” “Okay” meant things were not at all okay. They became words we used when we wanted to hurt each other–to make the other person doubt themselves.
I became antsy checking my phone dreading the exact moment she’d text me good morning. I started making excuses, desperate to find anything that could explain my inevitable lapses. I was taking a shower. I forgot to charge my phone. I passed out for a nap because class had exhausted me. I was exhausted — but not from class, from talking. Even the mere sight of an alert would give me bouts of anxiety.
Our friendship had no happy ending. The more we argued, the more I drew away. My friend went off to university herself the following year, and she got caught up in her life, much like I had in mine. The damage we had done to each other, however, was irreparable. It was impossible to part amicably, to check in every once in a while. So we cut all our ties.
Deleting her as a contact was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, and knowing I could never reach out to her again made me feel incredibly alone. But it also helped me realize that texting each other constantly had been neither normal nor healthy. Texting was meant to be a convenience, not a hindrance. We shouldn’t have gone out of our ways to put texting first, and we should have never come to depend on each other in the way that we did. Life came first. When you were busy, the people you texted were supposed to understand.
I still get anxious when people don’t reply to me quickly, and the truth is, I could spend a lifetime worrying about why people take their time to reply. I always consider the possibility that people are making excuses, because I kept on making them myself. I always wonder whether I’m being exhaustive, because I felt that way so often trying to keep our conversations going. I’ve become hypersensitive to cues that indicate people are unhappy with me through text, because I was always expected to recognize the signs without ever being explicitly told.
Worrying, of course, does me no good. I remind myself of that every day. I tell myself to remember why I’m friends with people in the first place, because of their personalities and not because of the way we choose to phrase our texts. I tell myself to remember that if someone has an issue with me, I have to trust they’ll take it up with me in person. Texting isn’t meant to be a replacement for talking. If there’s something important to be said, then we have to speak up about it with our phones down.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
We’ve all heard the criticism regarding social media — that, as a generation, we’ve lost the art of conversation and are too self-absorbed and caught up with our social media accounts to connect with each other. I have to disagree. Social media is not inherently restrictive and isolating; it is the way that you choose to use it that determines how you connect with the outside world. You could just as well isolate yourself by immersing yourself in a novel or movie, so why does social media have such a bad rap among older generations?
Contrary to popular belief, we have not lost the art of conversation, we’ve simply come up with new ways to engage in it. I have a few friends who are international students and use platforms like FaceTime and Skype to communicate with family abroad. Just because the conversation occurs through non-traditional media doesn’t mean we shouldn’t embrace the fact that we are able to stay in touch with people miles away.
Even class assignments make use of social media to improve productivity. Think of how many of your Facebook groups are dedicated to schoolwork. Organizing meetings in person is not always feasible. Of course, in-person interaction is a different experience and does help you form bonds with people you may otherwise forget about after the course is complete. However, the reality is that a commuter student, for example, would benefit from an online meeting through sites such as Facebook or Google Hangouts as opposed to altering his or her schedule. Rather than try to find a different time and potentially cancelling meetings altogether, social media provides flexibility for everyone involved.
I’m not advocating that all contact be limited to social media, because that would really limit our communication. Face-to-face interaction ensures that body language is visible and can be interpreted. It can be difficult to get the same intuitive understanding of how someone is feeling through emojis and text. Despite the fact that video chat is available, it is certainly not perfect. While it is important to be able to communicate effectively in person, why shun technology that works in favour of those who prefer to convey their thoughts through a different medium? Social media not only offers a platform that can accommodate busy and conflicting schedules, but it also serves as a comfortable space for people with more introverted personalities who might prefer to communicate online. At the same time, what social media allows us to share with others is probably one of its most innovative and valuable aspects.
Contrary to popular belief, we have not lost the art of conversation, we’ve simply come up with new ways to engage in it.
We all know what it’s like to have an indescribable experience. When I try to describe my summer vacation to my friends, I tend to repeat how amazing, fantastic and wonderful it was, but those words hardly capture the experience accurately. Social media platforms like Snapchat and YouTube take words out of the equation and make experiences shareable without overusing clichéd terms to attempt to explain them. Conversation is important, and contrary to popular belief, millennials do engage in it. Yet, the traditional conversation is not always the best way to communicate. Social media gives us the means to communicate beyond words and to share experiences as they happen rather than after the fact. At the end of the day, social media does not hinder conversation if it is used appropriately. Rather, it connects us with people in unique and valuable ways and enhances our experiences of the world as we share them with people across the globe.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Once spread solely by word of mouth or reviews on Yelp, food culture is now built upon a foundation of hashtags and Instagram posts. Restaurant-goers discover new places through geotags on Instagram, making up their minds based on the way their friends post photos of their food. In the past, many paused before meals to be thankful for what is in front of them – today, we use that time to take pictures of these meals.
Food is perhaps one of the few things on earth that is universal. Since the beginning of time, the consumption of food has been social, and today’s trend of posting photos of our food on Instagram reflects this very human desire to share our meals with other people. To many, the practice may seem useless and silly: what’s the point of making a fool of yourself at a restaurant or taking any time at all to take a picture of food when you can just eat it?
Whether you partake in food photography or not, it’s important to recognize that this is an interest that has been integrated into our technologically-advanced and media-driven society. You may be someone with this hobby, you may be someone who despises it or you may fall in between as someone who does not participate but appreciates nice photos of delicious food (that’s me). Opinions aside, most of us would be compelled to double-tap an expertly crafted photo – food or otherwise – on the ‘gram.
Natural lighting
Good lighting makes a photo. People who over-do their food snaps are the ones who apply various filters to the original photo in attempt to salvage a dull, lifeless shot that was captured under bad lighting. When done correctly, natural light is the only filter you need. And remember – no flash, ever.
Find the angle
You can add a lot of interest to your photo solely by the angle from which you take it. Certain dishes would look striking when photographed from a birds-eye view, while others (like a detailed, tiered cake) may look best as a close up. Don’t hesitate to take a couple shots from various angles to see what works best.
Subtle edits
If nice, natural light is nowhere to be found, consider downloading editing softwares like VSCO cam and Afterlight. These apps allow you to mess with variables like exposure, saturation and enhancing or reducing shadows or highlights. Nobody wants to see a picture of your burger drenched in the Valencia filter on Instagram; customizing your photo with subtle edits will enhance it rather than make it tacky.
Bold colours
Play around with colours. The best food pictures are ones that feature an interesting contrast of different hues. Try pairing duller and brighter tones, or incorporate bright colours that pop out. Place orange wedges next to resplendent red pomegranate seeds. Throw some lime-green edamame beans over a bed of purple kale. It’s difficult to make a piece of brown, charcoaled steak look enticing.
Resist perfection
If you’re taking a slice from a cake and a few crumbs fall onto the tabletop, don’t clean it up! Some disorder and mess adds charm and can make the photo more lively, just like the berries scattered across the table in this photo. Meticulously arranged photos can end up looking unsettling, lifeless and even sterile.
Eat your food
The most important tip, and one that people often forget, is to not wait too long before eating. It may be enticing to position and re-position your plate over and over again in order to get “the perfect shot.” However, no shot is worth it if the dish in front of you ends up melting or getting cold! While food photography can be an interesting hobby, food should ultimately be a feast for your tastebuds.
Photo Credit: Desserts for Breakfast
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
With the Oscars fast approaching, we are closing in on the one-year anniversary of Patricia Arquette’s controversial comments on wage equality for women when she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. For the uninitiated, Arquette basically made the mistake of sounding like she was unaware of what intersectionality meant. As you can imagine, the Internet tore her apart, tweet by tweet, thinkpiece by thinkpiece. While the discussion that spurred from this snafu was mostly beneficial, it also brought up the question of why we were so critical of the actress.
Patricia Arquette was a relatively unknown actress prior to her Boyhood fame, and not particularly associated with the feminist movement. Yet the Internet was quick to tear her down for being anti-intersectional. Overnight she lost a lot of favour with the public, but was this justified? Nowadays, celebrities have to select their words carefully, even in overwhelming moments such as when you win the most prestigious award in your industry. There is no room for human error. Just ask Meryl Streep, who recently made headlines when she responded “we’re all Africans, really” to a question about her ability to judge films about a culture that she didn’t have a lot of experience with. In her full response you can tell she meant well, but undoubtedly made a mistake. Not even one of the most adored actresses in America could rebound from that.
With one slip of the tongue, these actresses joined a list of “problematic faves,” which includes mainstay staples such as Chris Brown and Kanye West. They become guilty pleasures, and we feel the need to justify why we like them and their work.
The issue here isn’t whether the celebrity’s comments that make you go, “Uh oh,” are valid or not, but rather why we expect them to be consistently politically correct. Some make the argument that celebrities wield an influence over the public and are seen as role models, which in turn means they should be held to this high standard, but frankly that’s not their job. An actor’s job is to make great movies. A singer’s job is to entertain the masses with their music. They are not politicians or people well-versed in all social issues. They should not be expected to be shining examples of political correctness and social advocacy.
https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/697199554807099394?lang=en
When Kanye West tweets, “BILL COSBY INNOCENT” we don’t need to tear him down and boycott his music. We don’t need to feel bad listening to The Life of Pablo. He’s an imperfect person, but so is pretty much everyone else, and you are friends with a fair share of these imperfect people in your daily life.
Don’t get me wrong, it’d be nice if they were, but it’s almost impossible. The A-lister who has come the closest is Beyoncé, and that feat is as much a product of her character as it is her management team. Even in a progressive institution such as McMaster, it’s easy to find someone who unintentionally said something stupid.
[Celebrities] should not be expected to be shining examples of political correctness and social advocacy.
There is a purpose and place to be politely critical, and the thinkpieces that arise from poorly worded statements are important in highlighting the subtle ways oppression operates in our society. Making a meme or sending out a mean tweet, however, is not the right thing to do. Think of it this way: if your friend made a problematic comment, you wouldn’t put them on blast on social media.
In the world of celebrities, we often forget that they’re real imperfect people. Just because they’re famous and successful doesn’t mean we can be assholes when they say something that can be interpreted as offensive. While the impact of problematic comments is undeniable, the intent behind them is what determines whether we write a polite thinkpiece about it as opposed to boycotting their work. It seems silly that in the twenty-first century, there is still a need for articles where the take home message is to be nice, but seriously, just be nice.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Like many other stressed students in my life, as of late I have been finding solace in procrastinating on Yik Yak, an anonymous Twitter-esque app restricted to your area. This all started when my roommate shared one of the most unbelievable Yaks I had ever read. There’s no refined way of putting this: the anonymous poster had stuck an everyday object up an unmentionable body orifice and decided to consult the Yik Yak world for advice on how to have it removed. My first question wasn’t how said item was lodged in said location (I think most of us could figure it out) but instead why the user decided to consult Yik Yak for medical advice. After spending most of my nights scrolling through endless Yaks, I’ve come to the conclusion that anonymity brings out the Internet troll in all of us, and I wonder, is it possible to get a troll to give you reasonable advice?
As much as I appreciated the guidance, I think I will pass on approaching him naked.
So, I Yik’ed and I Yak’ed and I asked a few questions. For someone who has been trying to get into yoga for the longest time, I thought I could get some advice on increasing my flexibility. Innocent me was simply looking for some stretches, but apparently the only things people wanted to advise me about were difficult sex positions. Well, I figured, if this was the advice that Yakkers were sending me, maybe I should ask for their help with the first step — resolving my non-existent love life. When asking how to hit on the attractive guy in my tutorial, the quality of replies was lacking. As much as I appreciated the guidance, I think I will pass on approaching him naked. At the expense of my dating life, I’ll elect to keep my dignity intact. Thanks for trying, anonymous Yik Yakker.
So after seeking out guidance from an anonymous social media source, I’ve learned that comments on Yik Yak are for the most part made in good spirit, even if the content does not answer the question at hand. Despite unhelpful advice, I will say that some comments did make me laugh, and maybe that’s enough. Even though they say laughter is the best medicine, the exception is if you have lost something up where the sun don’t shine — when faced with that problem, please, for the love of god, seek out a doctor.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Following a three-week long election period, the race for MSU President has finally come to an end.
After Sarah Jama’s reinstatement into the presidential race and the retabulation of votes on Friday, Feb. 5, Justin Monaco-Barnes remained the winner of the 2016 presidential election. Jama came in second overall, and Jonathon Tonietto fell to third place.
Justin Monaco-Barnes is now officially the MSU President for the 2016-2017 year. Some highlights from his platform to look forward to in the next year and a half include: his promise to print cheaper courseware through Underground, work towards sustainability at McMaster and efforts to continue addressing sexual violence on campus. The Silhouette interviewed Monaco-Barnes for our Feb. 4 issue which can be found on our Issuu page.
Sarah Jama was initially disqualified due to charges of misrepresenting expenses to the Elections Committee and a severe violation of “bad taste.”
The Elections Department released the minutes for the Jan. 28 post-election period meeting alongside the appeal decision. Following Bylaw 10 of the elections process, disqualification was briefly considered for Monaco-Barnes, Gill and Tonietto as well.
To counter the claim that she spent $500 on her website, Jama presented evidence that her campaign website was designed by a volunteer on her team who is also a co-founder of a website design company. Jama chose to display his logo on her website to promote the volunteer’s company as a sign of gratitude for his volunteer work. However, Jama told The Silhouette that she was still fined for not including her website designer as a part of her core team.
Jama’s campaign was also fined for a controversial retweet by one of her volunteers of an anonymous account that accused another candidate of sexual assault. The CRO acknowledged, as the candidate herself posted on her Facebook page, that Jama took quick action to delete the tweet and remove two members from her team.
The retweet played a significant role in Jama’s initial disqualification. However, as stated in a press release by the MSU, following their deliberations on Feb. 5 the Elections Committee decided that the tweet did not significantly affect the integrity of the election.
With the end of perhaps the most contentious MSU election in nearly a decade, we can all go back to forgetting about student politics until the Student Representative Assembly elections in early March. See you then.
Photo Credit: Michael Gallagher/ Production Editor
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Saad Ejaz
Are Canadians more polite than Americans? A new study conducted by two McMaster researchers claims that there is some truth to the stereotype.
The study analyzed over three million geo-tagged tweets in Canada and the United States between February and October 2015. Removing words such as “a”, “the” and “to”, the researchers sorted the remaining words into word clouds, with the words that are more commonly used in the middle in larger text, while less commonly used words on the sides in smaller text.
Based on the word cloud, the most common words in Canada’s word cloud include “great”, “amazing”, “beautiful” and “favourite.” Other prevalent but less commonly used words include “awesome”, “nice”, “praise”, “congrats” and “enjoy.” There were no offensive or questionable terms in Canada’s word cloud.
Meanwhile, the American word cloud was the complete opposite. Negative words such as “hate”, “hell” and “damn” were favoured more by Americans, along with other profanities and racial slurs that have been blurred out in the graphic. Other less commonly and mildly negative words used include “tired”, “annoying”, “hurt”, “bored” and “dumb.”
The two Ph.D. candidates Daniel Schmidtke and Bryor Snefjella explained that their interest started with the question of border regions. “We thought that this was very interesting to study linguistically […] you have two places that are very close together and you have language differences at a border,” said Schmidtke.
The pair began their work by compiling a large amount of raw text and used different linguistics and computer science techniques to cut out words.
“Nicely, one reason we get such a nice crisp result is that this particular statistic we are using is good at both correcting the relative proportions — there are more Americans than Canadians — and helping with some of the tricky things such as word frequency distributions,” said Snefjella.
Schmidtke and Snefjella have both analyzed a number of different border regions. These include East and West Germany, Scotland and England, Netherlands and Belgium, the U.S. and Canada. They mentioned that they have not seen such a distinct difference in language as between the U.S. and Canada. “I think what’s most interesting is that we evaluated a number of different border regions … and you only see this divide in positivity in the language with Canada and the US in this particular way,” said Snefjella.
“You only see this divide in positivity in the language with Canada and the US.”
The study gained worldwide attention almost overnight, which was a huge surprise to Schmidtke and Snefjella. “I think it just seems to hit a nerve in general. I knew it would be of interest to people but not of such huge public interest,” said Schmidtke.
Schmidtke and Snefjella work in linguist Victor Kuperman’s lab and the Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship at McMaster University.
This logo and visual identity analysis will focus on the analysis of campaign colours, logo shape and design, layout and use of photography. To keep the analyses fair, the cover photo from each candidate’s Facebook page is being used as the central design feature, with some mention of other elements in their physical branding.
Sarah Jama
Colour: Orange
While colours can have many meanings, in North American society, certain colours have grown to have more associated meanings than others. Orange is often linked to freshness — think of the actual citrus fruit and its refreshing connotation. Jama’s choice to use orange is reflective of her emphasis on innovation and bringing new, inclusive ideas to campus. In Canadian society, orange is also tied to another association: socialism. Jama’s shade of orange is the same as that of the New Democratic Party, an unsurprising choice given her emphasis on equity and her slogan, “Students united; a place for everyone.”
Logo: Unity Triangle
Jama’s logo has two main elements, shape and content. The logo itself is a triangle, the strongest shape used in design. Its strength comes from the fact that any pressure placed on the shape will be evenly distributed across all three sides. The content of the logo is three ambiguously diverse arms and hands, united. Together these two elements create the image of strength in unity.
Layout: A hint of MSU familiarity
If you’ve ever seen a promotional cover photo for an MSU service or event, this layout is probably very familiar to you. The central call to action in the larger right-most rectangle, and supplementary contact information in a left-hand, narrow rectangle are two staples for MSU promotional branding. Jama’s branding isn’t the only one reminiscent of MSU materials, and it definitely isn’t the most similar one.
Jonathon Tonietto
Colours: Yellow, purple
Tonietto has an unexpected colour palette compared to most of his competitors, who are sticking to conventionally popular darker tones and minimal colour mixing. Yellow, often associated with sunshine and summer, gives off a youthful, friendly vibe, which works well given Tonietto’s outgoing personality. The yellow also matches one of the symbols of his campaign, the “this is a good sign” sign that has been on his person at all times and used as his hashtag. Purple on the other hand gives off the opposite association, one of age and wisdom. It’s a more regal colour that is a technical compliment to yellow, and tones down the vivid nature of the rest of his campaign theme.
Logo: The Toni vector
The strongest element of Tonietto’s logo isn’t the graphics; rather, it is the actual tag that is attached to it, “TONI16.” Whether it was intentionally a play on “KONY2012” or not, it still rolls off the tongue nicely and feels simple and familiar. The logo itself uses an easy sans serif font that lets the focus fall on the vector cut-out of Toni’s face. It isn’t complicated, but it ties in Tonietto’s appearance without an obvious photo.
Layout: Kept to a minimum
Much like his colour scheme, Tonietto’s layout is different from most. It does not have any contact information, which is a bit of a letdown, but it is eye-catching at the least. It is much simpler than that of other candidate’s, but it still gets the point across.
Devante Mowatt
Colours: Tie-Dye
Mowatt’s colour scheme is one of a kind. Looking back on previous presidential campaigns, there have been a few candidates who worked with a rainbow or tie-dye colour palette, but Mowatt is the first in a while. Tie-dye is fun and funky and relates back to an era in time that led to open-mindedness and social change and progress. According to details on his website, the tie-dye was inspired by the university’s previous “colour”— multi-coloured plaid. Overall the tie-dye gives off a relaxed vibe in an otherwise buttoned-up race.
Logo: Balloons and stars
Mowatt’s logo is hard to notice at first, as it isn’t quite front and centre on his posters or other promotions, but it is there. It is a little yellow star attached to a tie-dye balloon. It includes the obvious colour element of his campaign, but other than that, the symbolism isn’t too clear. Balloons in general have an element of freedom, so for those who have seen his logo, this could be an associated meaning.
Layout: Familiar places
His promotions don’t seem to follow an obvious theme in terms of layout, but the use of photography of iconic McMaster locations is consistent. It seems to be trying to create a familiarity without using direct styles from pre-existing university branding.
Mike Gill
Colours: Green, black
Every year will have at least one MSU presidential candidate dawning the tried and true combination of green and black. Green has two iconic associations, sustainability and money. They’re both great things to subtly promote to the student body, so it’s no wonder it keeps being used. Gill’s branding is particularly reminiscent of Jacob Brodka’s 2014 campaign for MSU president. The use of black is associated with power and mystery à la business suits and covert operations. They are two meanings that could also work in Gill’s favour, whether intentional or not.
Logo: Layered triangles
Going back to comments made in Jama’s logo analysis, Gill also makes use of design’s strongest shape, the triangle. It’s unclear what the shape is supposed to represent other than strength, but for the most part it is quite chic and on most of his visuals, it doesn’t come across as distracting or unnecessary.
Layout: That beloved MSU touch
Brodka’s 2014 campaign isn’t the only thing Gill seems to be borrowing from. Like Jama, his cover photo design is very reminiscent of typical MSU layouts. It’s unsurprising for both of them, as they have both been involved in multiple MSU services, but Gill borrows more from MSU branding than Jama. The primary font, Gotham, is also the MSU’s official font. He features the acronym “MSU” in its official font, which doesn’t technically break rule 4.23 of presidential campaigning (“Material may not possess any logo(s) of the MSU”). Overall it is a strong design, but its MSU-esque qualities could provide students with a certain sense of trust and give him an advantage over his peers who are following less familiar layouts.
Justin Monaco-Barnes
Colours: Navy, grey
Monaco-Barnes is sticking to a known-to-win colour scheme among presidential candidates, a combination also used by Ehima Osazuwa’s winning 2015 campaign. When thinking of blue, images of the sea and sky often come to mind, leading to an association of calmness and tranquility — two fair associations with Monaco-Barnes’ stoic personality. It’s popular use in political campaigns around the country, and the globe, also hint to confidence and professionalism.
Logo: Stand-alone name and slogan
His logo isn’t so much a logo as it is a slogan. His “#bethechange” quotes Ghandi, which for most people, brings to mind a positive association. His choice to use his name and slogan as his logo is a smart decision instead of trying to create a visual logo that could be lacking in substance. Like Gill, Monaco-Barnes is also using Gotham, the MSU’s favourite sans serif, as his campaign’s primary font. It’s hard to blame either of them for this choice, since it is a nice font, but like the comments made in Gill’s layout analysis, seeing “MSU” written in its typical font can be misleading to students, but can give Monaco-Barnes added support.
Layout: Simple but strong
The layout used in Monaco-Barnes’ campaign is probably the strongest from a design standpoint. It has a clear visual hierarchy and includes important details without being too heavy on content. His visual identity works well to tie together photos and text, having his name and face front and centre will work well in getting passers-by to notice his promotions. It has a strong association with other MSU promotions without using direct logos from their previous campaigns.
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Kyle MacDonald
I am white. When I work on my family’s genealogical records or listen to the folk music that links me to my far-flung relatives, I immerse myself in the stories of white people, but I do not know of anyone who would claim that these are racist practices. We should all be able to engage with our origins and identities.
Unlike these practices, the White Students Unions that have recently surfaced at a number of Canadian universities , including McMaster, are not so benign. The idea of whiteness does not provide a valuable framework within which to understand oneself or the world; rather, it perpetuates violent and divisive untruths that we need to scrub from our discourse. There are better ways to discuss and understand European identities. These White Students’ Unions should acknowledge the lies on which they are founded and disband immediately.
I am not going to retell the history of racism, which has been told many times by people far more qualified. Let it suffice for me to say that white people as a group have little in common that is worth preserving. My ancestors and their countrymen created the notion of whiteness in order to set themselves above their neighbours, for the express purpose of subjugating people of colour by force of arms, in order to carry out the exploitative missions of empire and slavery.
When groups of white students try to create “white spaces,” the standard response is that every space is dominated by white people. This is true, but it misses a point that must be resolved if the whiteness movement is going to die: to white people, common spaces don’t feel white, because being white doesn’t feel like anything. To be white in North America feels largely as it should feel to be human: free to go where one wants and say what one thinks, without fear of violent exclusion. We are numb by design: white people are free to be individuals in public, not forced to represent our nationalities or ethnic groups, precisely because racism designates white as normal. As a result, we are able to forget where we come from.
Despite the legacy of colonialism, European ancestry is not inherently shameful. On the contrary, I am proud of my roots from Ireland and Scotland to Poland and Greece. But I am proud of these places individually, because of my family’s small part in their rich histories, not because they are each mostly white. I have no German ancestry; as such, despite the whiteness of its population, I care about Germany in the same way that I care about Uganda or Thailand: as a historically and contemporarily important nation with a beautiful, complicated legacy that does not directly involve me.
Moreover, I am more Canadian than European. My father’s Scottish ancestors settled in Nova Scotia’s Margaree Valley. Some of my relatives still live there, an afternoon’s drive from Halifax. As a result, I am far closer in history to the eviction of Black Nova Scotians from Africville than to the recent Scottish independence movement.
The idea of whiteness not only obliterates the distinctions between groups of European descent, but also makes arbitrary, indefensible decisions about who is white or European. The truth is that Europe is a construction, like whiteness or like binary gender: useful perhaps for drawing a broad outline of the world, but always doomed to fail when examined closely, and in many cases completely useless even as a starting point. As far as the Mediterranean is concerned, the Danube, the Nile, and the Suez Canal all carry the same water and end up in the same place: as rain over Athens or Tripoli, no colour but that of the sky.
To those white students who feel alienated from their cultural identities, I urge you to ask your grandparents to tell you their stories. Read history books for context. Learn the languages of your ancestors. Learn to cook the food they ate. Sing their songs. Understand the strengths and the flaws of their worldviews. Reach out to other students and community members who genuinely share your heritage. Find ways to rejoice in its beauty together. Use it to make this campus more accessible to those whom racism works to exclude.
To anyone involved in a White Students’ Union: give your head a vigorous shake. Delete the Facebook group and acknowledge your errors. You won’t lose anything by sacrificing whiteness.
*After this article was written it was discovered that this trend was a hoax. Despite this, we still believe this article offers a unique perspective. For more information on the trend, see page 5 of our Issuu.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Emily Current
One of Facebook’s features is its “like” button, which is used to express appreciation for a post without actually leaving a comment. Now Facebook is giving us more options with new reactions — a heart, an angry face, a sad face, a smiling face, a laughing face, and a stunned face — introduced in Ireland and Spain.
As it is, people already press the like button complacently. You can see the likes on pictures and other posts accumulating into the hundreds, and then far higher for posts that get repeatedly shared. With the numbers of likes on posts growing so high, these likes become essentially meaningless. People have stopped noticing that their friends liked their picture, and started looking just at the number of likes they’ve received. The introduction of Facebook’s new reactions brings up the question of whether this will be any different. Take for instance the heart button. Realistically it will probably not end up being used much differently than the like button. If people really did care about a post they saw and wanted to express that to the person who made the post, then they would take the time and the effort to actually make a sincere comment about it. Facebook’s heart button will probably just end up being used by people who want to appear to be thoughtful and sincere, but who don’t really have anything they want to express. For the most part, it will probably be used as a gesture, just as likes are now.
The outlook for the “angry face” reaction doesn’t seem much better. Why would anyone actually need an angry face to express themselves on Facebook? Do we really want social media to give us an easy way to publicly show anger? This tool could be very easily misused. The angry face could be used to express an actual justified grievance, but it probably won’t be used in that way. If someone is genuinely angry, they’re not going to show that by clicking an angry face button on Facebook — they will comment. It is more likely that the angry face reaction will end up being used in a passive aggressive manner, with people clicking the button on someone’s post and thinking “there, now they know I’m mad at them” thus avoiding direct confrontation.
Like with the angry face and the heart, the problem with the sad face reaction is that it can’t actually genuinely be used to express the emotion that it’s meant to convey. The act of clicking a button is simply not enough of a gesture to have any meaning. If permanently introduced, the sad face reaction will probably dissolve into another empty expression of empathy.
As for the stunned face, the smiling face, and the laughing face, I suppose nothing bad can really be said about them. But on the other hand, nothing good can really be said about them either. They’re harmless but unnecessary additions that will most likely neither contribute anything to Facebook nor have any detrimental effects. They’re just new add-ons that people might enjoy using, but that aren’t really needed.
The introduction of Facebook’s new set of reactions brings up the question of whether buttons on social media should be a part of our daily interactions. The stunned face, the smiling face, and the laughing face aren’t really problematic, as people can use these reactions without having much of an impact. The heart and sad face highlight the issue of insincere emotions on social media, and the angry face is just asking for trouble. Overall, these new reactions are not an improvement to Facebook. They bring with them new issues to the already complex social media site.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
