By Kayla Freeman, Contributor
Each year of university can feel like a new beginning, culminating in a gruelling session of final exams. Final exams are customarily used to test students’ comprehension of course material over the course of the semester. However, many students study for exams by cramming as much information as they can the week, or sometimes even the night before the final. This trend has birthed what is commonly dubbed ‘exam culture’. Habits such as pulling all-nighters and drinking excessive amounts of caffeine are shared on social media and amongst friends, sometimes in an attempt to justify these unhealthy behaviours. Promoting these behaviours amongst peers and friends by sharing your poor habits can cause students to believe that these practices are acceptable, or even commendable.
The realistic approach to approaching education, on social media and otherwise, is to understand the repercussions of these exam habits. Rather than shaming friends and followers across Instagram or Twitter, I opt to lead by example. Refusing to contribute or engage with this type of behaviour on the internet may dissuade friends from posting these habits online due to lack of engagement. Also, encouraging positive habits will hopefully have the same impact by influencing others to adopt improved means of coping during exam season.
After I finished my first year, I learned how to study for exams in a way that was not detrimental to my mental or physical well-being. Students are often overwhelmingly stressed during exam season, as due dates for final papers, projects and exams approach. This can lead to issues such as insomnia, anxiety and lower sleep quality. The stress felt during exam season can lead to poor sleep quality and push students to consume excessive amounts of caffeine.
It is easy to see that these habits that are built over the years of undergrad, or even high school, often translate into normalized behaviours that negatively impact both physical and mental health. I believe one of the biggest problems that students face today is that these poor habits are being shared across various social media platforms in an attempt to normalize them. Sharing your unhealthy habits can encourage others to follow these behaviours, which is harmful.
It is easy to see that these habits that are built over the years of undergrad, or even high school, often translate into normalized behaviours that negatively impact both physical and mental health.
Often, I see students compete on social media about who stays up the latest, who drinks the most caffeine or who buys the most snacks. When these mindsets are shared online, they become accessible and may incite a trend, leading others to partake or post similar photos or videos. Along with this, it has become increasingly common to see students indulging in unhealthy foods, easily accessible via UberEats or other delivery methods.
This can be dangerous, especially during exam season when these poor habits often are used as distractions from studying and can lead to a mentally and physically vulnerable state.
Overall, exam season is a time when students are most at risk in terms of their health. Rather than normalizing poor behaviours by posting about your unhealthy habits online, it is more beneficial for these behaviours surrounding studying to be called out and given direction. If we all begin to conform and assimilate to “exam culture,” it will simply lead to more harm for students.
During the upcoming semester, it is essential to address and confront negative habits that cause more harm than good. It is also imperative to understand personal limits, rather than conform to the habits of the crowd. Through knowing and understanding individual capacities, poor habits can be substituted for more healthy ones. Investing time in discovering new and improved coping strategies for stress management may encourage students to prioritize their health alongside studies and education.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Suad Alad, Contributor
cw: racism, sexual assault, transphobia
“Cancel culture”, also known as “call-out culture” is a form of social and real-world boycotting of a public figure who has done wrong by an individual or a group of people. Typical celebrities and public figures that contribute to acts of social discrimination such as racism, misogyny or homophobia are so called “victims” of our “toxic cancelling”. Many argue that the existence of cancel culture is harmful and it only discourages people to grow from their past mistakes.
I, however, argue that while the intentions of cancel culture are displayed during public scandal, the entirety of cancel culture as a concept doesn’t exist. I believe that it’s only in its first stage of existing. And this first stage is not nearly as prominent in today’s society nor is it as effective in “ending people’s livelihoods” as it is often made out to be.
While I agree that there are celebrities that have had their careers ruined due to actions they have made in the past, I wouldn’t say that public figures are “victims” of this boycott. Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, two men who have commited countless sex crimes, are examples of celebrities who have been publicly cancelled and sentenced to jail for their crimes. However, two examples are not enough to prove that cancel culture exists.
If we’re going off the idea that cancel culture is once a public figure has offended a group of people, their careers are ruined and they aren’t ever allowed to change, then more than half of Hollywood and the public leaders of the world would be jobless and hated by the masses. However, this is not the case. In fact, there are many public figures who publicly defame and maliciously target groups of marginalized people whose careers have yet to be destroyed.
In fact, there are many public figures who publicly defame and maliciously target groups of marginalized people whose careers have yet to be destroyed.
Jordan Peterson, a professor and clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto, is what the far right describes as a man who says it how it is. He does many talks on the dangers and toxicity of political correctness and believes that freedom of speech is under attack by the left. However, many of Peterson’s supporters use his arguments about freedom of speech to justify their refusal to call trans students by their preferred pronouns, and to endorse or promote oppressive rhetoric without backlash.
Many U of T students disagree with Peterson’s transphobic ideologies and some have petitioned for him to be fired. If cancel culture really existed, someone like Peterson would lose their job in an instant. Not only does Peterson still have his job, he appears at many events across Ontario at universities to discuss how freedom of speech is in great need of protection. By giving Peterson the platform to express this harmful narrative, universities are essentially enabling Peterson and telling marginalized students they don’t matter to the administration. McMaster is no exception to this. Peterson gave a talk at McMaster, despite student protest, in 2017.
Former President Patrick Deane of McMaster defended the university’s decision to have Peterson come speak about political correctness stating that taking opportunities to listen to someone speak, even someone one might “vehemently disagree with” is a crucial part of education. He felt that for this reason, excluding Peterson, or any controversial figure, would be an unjust decision, even though one of Peterson’s main topics of focus is the protection of transphobic rhetoric.
What many people fail to acknowledge is what the actual purpose of cancel culture is. It does not exist to end the careers of innocent people, nor does it exist to not accept the fact that people can change. It exists to hold people accountable for actions that are inexcusable, and its intentions are to let people know that in the future, the same sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. And this sort of accountability rarely occurs.
What many people fail to acknowledge is what the actual purpose of cancel culture is. It does not exist to end the careers of innocent people, nor does it exist to not accept the fact that people can change. It exists to hold people accountable for actions that are inexcusable, and its intentions are to let people know that in the future, the same sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. And this sort of accountability rarely occurs.
Even our Prime Minister isn’t expected to own up to his problematic past, no matter how harmful and racist it may be. Just this past October, Justin Trudeau was recently under fire for having taken part in forms of black and brown face in his college years, which came to light during the Canadian 2019 Federal Election. Although Trudeau did publicly apologize for his racist actions, he barely acknowledges in his apology that they were racist. He more so plays it off as a dumb mistake he made as a teenager.
Many black and brown Canadians took to social media to express their disappointment in both Trudeau’s actions and his apology and for a short period, his numbers in the campaign polls dropped. Nevertheless, mockery of racialized people did not seem to affect Trudeau’s career. Despite his racist past being exposed so close to voting day, the public backlash he faced clearly wasn’t enough for him to experience genuine repercussions since he won and will serve as Canada’s prime minister for another four years.
I won’t deny that the intentions of cancel culture are there and that for a short period of time, the public tries to hold public figures accountable. I also won’t ever see this as a bad thing. But intention and trying to hold someone accountable doesn’t mean anything if the consequences don’t follow through. We are in the very midst of having cancel culture become real and it could be a good thing if demonstrated correctly. However, the perception that cancel culture is “toxic” and “discourages people” to change only allows room for transphobes and racists to avoid owning up to their past, but to completely ignore it. And it is important to remember that there is nothing toxic about calling out prejudice when it occurs.
If racist people can be presidents and prime ministers and white supremacists can still make a decent living and function within society without repercussions, then it’s safe to say that cancel culture is nowhere near close to existing. At least not in the way we think it does.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
How a librarians’ union helped communicate municipal politics online
Over the summer of 2019, an unlikely McMaster-affiliated Twitter account garnered an online following at the height of municipal conflict.
As tensions peaked around the police and the city's response to attacks at the 2019 Pride celebration, an unexpected source pierced the flurry of commentary.
The McMaster University Academic Librarians’ Association, a certified bargaining agent for academic librarians, provided sharp analysis of the Pride events through its Twitter account.
Tweets ranged from public information to scathing critique, but all provided context to the collective confusion and anger around the city’s failure to protect Pride attendees and the subsequent inaction from city officials.
The Association’s critical analysis provided an alternative to divisiveness while city officials and people were listening. Retweets and likes reached hundreds as calls to action were echoed through the Twittersphere.
Not the disembodied voice of the library, but rather a collective call to action.
According to Myron Groover and Abeer Siddiqui, the president and vice-president of MUALA, respectively, libraries have long been places for activism.
The union was formed nearly ten years ago by just over two dozen librarians across McMaster’s campus. The union has since grown to around 30 members. Still, they remain a relatively tiny bargaining collective compared to the university’s giant administrative apparatus.
One of the few unions in Canada with a membership solely of librarians in the country, MUALA provides a unique space for librarianship and politics to meet. Its members come from different communities in Hamilton and all have individual stakes in political conversations. Not only are they union members or professional librarians, they are first and foremost members of the community with unique identities.
Groover sees union members as having professional skills that lend themselves well to political organizing, while still fundamentally being community members who have a stake in municipal politics.
“We also have members who are affected by the discourse around queer people and racialized people in Hamilton. It’s not just that we’re trying to do something benevolent from afar for the community, these are issues that touch our members’ lives as well.”
Groover also sees similarities between the philosophy of public librarianship and the organizing work of the union.
“I don’t see a tension between the work we do in the union to support the people that live in this community with us and the work we do professionally to support students on this campus and the broader public to whom we answer. Those are different functions but they complement one another,” said Groover.
Public and academic libraries are central to the communities in which they reside. In Hamilton, public libraries offer social services and support. At McMaster, the academic librarians are dedicated to the well-being and scholarship of students and staff. But beyond that, libraries are one of the few open spaces. There is no entry fee to a library, there is no time limit and there is no cost for its services. This is rare in our contemporary moment, where the drive towards privatization seems inescapable.
If libraries are truly to be public spaces, then the politics of communities in which they are situated are necessarily a part of the work that they do.
“If we think of ourselves as community spaces and as public spaces … politics doesn’t stop at the library doors. People’s lives don’t stop at the library doors.”
While librarianship is founded on the principle that information should be accessible to all, this is a complicated task. Libraries do not exist as apolitical places, and sometimes they themselves can create or perpetuate harm in the communities they serve. Just like any field, they are imperfect institutions, certainly not above criticism.
Siddiqui explains this complexity.
“A lot of times librarianship, especially in the context of archives, a lot of that history was kept by people with privilege for people with privilege,” said Siddiqui.
It is the task of librarians today to recognize this history and work against it. Yet, some libraries take the opposite approach.
The Toronto Public Library recently came under fire for renting out a space to a third party event feature a speaker who opposes transgender rights. Some support the premise but not the message, saying free speech should come first.
Despite accusations of hate speech, Vickery Bowles, the city librarian for the Toronto Public Library, held firm in their decision to let the event organizers rent the space in an interview with the CBC. Bowles said that the library is committed to its democratic values and offering a safe space for everyone, including trans community members, although actions say otherwise.
There is a tension in the field of librarianship over how to facilitate public, safe spaces. While our neighbours in Toronto have been criticized for being removed from the political realities of their community, McMaster might model an alternative.
Of course MUALA represents academic, not public, librarians, but the purpose of these institutions are still largely the same. The contrast between the Toronto library and MUALA is stark.
In June when Cedar Hopperton, a transgender activist and anarchist, was arrested, MUALA weighed in and supported Hopperton on the grounds of free speech
It is easy for libraries to forget their political roots, but MUALA works to remember them.
“Well I think for one its absolutely the right thing to do . . . but I will also say that part of union work is that one day we will absolutely be seeking solidarity from our community members as well, and it would be foolish of us to expect that without ever providing some of our own,” says Siddiqui.
Using Twitter as a tool for solidarity, the librarian’s union shows one way of thinking about collective action for the future. The union provided analysis of an important issue for their community, while also working to ensure equitable working conditions for themselves. Not just altruistism, MUALA shows that union work can rally entire communities for collective action. Librarians are knowledge preservers, working to inform the public in 140 characters. With topical tweets, memeing and more, MUALA is where cyberspace meets labour organizing.
[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]
[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.
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sonia Leung
Last week Essena O’Neill made waves by condemning social media. The young model deleted most of the photos on her Instagram account and changed the caption of those that remained to reveal the arduous process required to create the seemingly effortless posts. While many have heralded Essena’s move as a bold statement about social media, she has drawn fire from other social media celebrities, who cast doubt on her intentions (Essena created a website/online store that is supposed to be inclusive) and defended social media. Most notably, critics argued that social media was not to blame for Essena’s predicament, rather it was her own weakness of character.
When Essena O’Neill first felt the pressures of social media she was 12 years old. Six years later, she had amassed over half a million followers on Instagram while still considered a minor.
To hold a minor to the same standards as adults similarly navigating social media for commercial purposes creates a discrepancy through unjustified isolation. Critical responses to Essena giving up social media equated social media to a sandbox where everyone plays together. In such rebuttals, the common theme likened communications technology and social media to tools — poor results would only come about if the user of such a tool fails to use it well.
There is more to this story than the relationship between technology and its user; O’Neill was a young girl who walked into a network of existing businesses benefiting from a system they put in place. The basis of the business model used by virtual ventures like Facebook and Instagram involves the engagement between the user and their platform — we become the eyes for their advertising. Regardless of how well versed she may have become in marketing techniques, O’Neill entered the industry under the universal pressures youth face to find validation among their peers, never having undertaken paid work, to be offered compensation in return for her search for approval.
In this advent of the digital era, who can honestly say they have never felt a “like” or “favourite” as something that transcends the screen? This instantaneous feeling of validation became all consuming for O’Neill, but this is not an isolated case of a user abusing their access to social media. This is symptomatic of a greater cultural ailment to seek societal approval, an idea itself that is packaged and sold particularly to susceptible youth. Like O’Neill says, “Everyone wants to feel valued and love.” This penchant for acceptance becomes maladaptive when we quantify it with “likes” on Facebook or Instagram, or when we enter into a contest against an unrealistic standard we hope to upkeep to maintain that quantification.
But who sells us these unrealistic standards? Who is behind the idea of a perfect life that O’Neill and so many other Instagram models and YouTubers strive to embody? These are questions that reinforce the importance of understanding that a system is in place entrapping people like O’Neill into thinking they are selling something when they are just another customer buying into a pre-packaged, Valencia-filtered idea of happiness. It’s a terrifyingly effective means of mass distribution, this commercialized pursuit of happiness. At some point in the case of O’Neill, her universal desire for validation and acceptance became exploited and instead of using social media as a tool, she became a tool in the toolbox of corporations — something she would not understand until it had taken an emotional toll.
Flip the coin. Clearly, O’Neill has realized the artificial nature of virtual validation — what remains unclear is how long she has known this, and whether she is being sincere in her intentions. There are few things that media loves more than a pretty face, and they include controversy and a redemption story. O’Neill has come to represent the subversion of an idea that, as a collective, we love to envy and equally love to hate. In her refusal of the “perfect life” she once lived, those half million Instagram followers and so many others can validate their suspicions around an idea they subscribed to that seemed too good to be true and reassure themselves about their own lives that might not be considered up to par.
This too, is an excellent business model, and while O’Neill entered into the industry as a child, she is now a businesswoman in her own right.
"I know you didn't come into this world just wanting to fit in and get by,” she writes. "You are reading this now because you are a game changer.” I can’t help but be cognizant of how much this sounds like a pitch when coupled with the new website she’s launched, letsbegamechangers.com. Is social awareness the next product to be sold under the pretense of authenticity with pre-determined parameters?
What O’Neill seems to be doing, consciously or unconsciously, is reinforcing a general trend of social activism reduced to a bandwagon that has too much to do with personal morality and loses sight of the issues at heart. She is repackaging self-worth with social awareness and redefining her image without unpacking her implication in the system. At the core of it, not much has changed. She was the “cool girl” selling the “cool life”. By becoming the new face of authenticity, she is still the “cool girl” selling the “cool life.”
Which narrative do you and I believe: a genuine and exploited girl exposing a corrupt industry, or a young business woman who knows that even artificial sincerity tastes sweeter after a lie? And what does that say about us?
[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: Takhliq Amir
Within hours of the news that Liberal candidate Justin Trudeau was elected as that new Prime Minister, the reaction of the country and the world began to pour in. After approximately ten years of Canadian politics headed by Conservative leader Stephen Harper, it was understandable that the majority win by a previously third-ranking party would make news.
What was slightly less expected, however, was the focus of the new attention. It wasn’t really about the new policies that the Liberals are promising to introduce, or even the fact that we finally said goodbye to Stephen Harper. In the U.K.’s Daily Mirror, the headline read, “Is Justin Trudeau the sexiest politician in the world?” An Australian news website wrote about Trudeau as “Canada’s new, incredibly good-looking prime minister,” describing him as a “super hot new leader.” All across social media people began to comment on his slim physique, his adorable family, and his beautiful wife.
This is, to an extent, understandable. Trudeau is seen as an easy-going, energetic guy. From ski-instructor, to teacher, to boxer, he has held a variety of occupations that have not only showcased his athleticism but also his amiability. From taking selfies with little kids to making burgers and pizza, Trudeau has developed a strong connection with the people of Canada simply by appearing to be just like everyone else. However, the Conservative campaign focused not on Trudeau’s looks, but on the question of if he was ready for the role of Prime Minister.
While the election may have been won, the future is really the time when his decisions will define his leadership. Instead of focusing on his looks, the country and the world needs to focus on his politics.
Based on his party’s policies, for instance, a Liberal government would be more interventionist on economic matters. Their proposal to invest up to five billion dollars annually in additional infrastructure spending leads to running budget deficits over the next three years by taking the currently balanced budget to one that would run a deficit of nearly ten billion dollars before being balanced in 2019-20. Additionally, critics have argued that it could lead to “chronic deficits” that Ottawa would not be able to handle and decreased future tax cuts. However, a deficit of around ten billion dollars represents merely three percent of the federal budget and 0.5 percent of GDP. Regardless, we can absolutely say that the conversation on economy is infinitely more vital than one on his looks.
The Trudeau government has also decided that Canada will be withdrawing from the American-led airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, instead focusing on international peace operations with the United Nations that involve providing humanitarian aid and military resources to train local forces in war-like regions. Trudeau has further promised to allow 25,000 Syrians refuge in Canada by the end of 2015, a move that would cost $100 million. On another note, the Liberal government will be increasing the maximum Canada Student Grant for low-income students to $3,000 per year for full-time students (a 50 percent increase) and $1,800 for part-time students. It will further introduce a plan that requires students to repay their student loans only after they have begun earning at least $25,000 annually, thereby addressing issues surrounding student debt.
As a student, the Liberal policy regarding student loans matters. As a citizen of Canada, the future of the Canadian economy matters. As a human being, the role of the Canadian government in the war in Syria and the refugee crisis matters. So while “Trudeaumania” may have taken over the country, it is imperative that it remains temporary. Sure, while the Daily Mirror may arguably be right about the young Trudeau having “luscious brown hair, [and] spellbinding eyes” we have to keep in mind that his good looks will not dictate his political leadership.
Mr. Trudeau may have won the election, but the question of how he moves forward is one that everyone should keep in mind. Our focus needs to be on what it really means to have real change, not a handsome leader. The world needs to give the younger Trudeau a chance by seeing and believing in him as the true leader of Canada.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Bianca Caramento
The Silhouette
There exists an age-old philosophical problem. It goes like this: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The question asks us if reality exists, regardless of whether or not someone is there to perceive it.
Instead of unleashing my inner philosophy nerd, I’d like to draw a parallel between this classic thought experiment and our current society. That being said, I encourage you to look up the forest debate, if mind-blowing philosophy suits your fancy.
In the digital age, it is common to share our lives online, as a means of connecting with friends, family, and so forth. Whether this is done through rants for our opinions, statuses for our relationships, or photos for demonstration, social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram make this form of sharing possible. Some might say we have developed a need to broadcast our lives through these media outlets.We take photos of our meals, vacations, outings, and the occasional good hair day.
But why?
To show just how clean we eat, how cultured we are, how much fun we have with our friends, or as outlets for vanity?
It seems we post our lives online to validate whatever aspect of ourselves we deem fit. Whether Facebook shows it or not, that hangout was still fun, that meal was still gourmet, and that exotic scenery still took your breath away. So why depend on others’ recognition of those experiences to fully appreciate them?
Contrary to the tree in an empty forest, most of us would concede that the reality of our existence is not threatened if we aren’t plugged into social media.
However, I suppose this was not meant to be a philosophical problem, as much as a social critique. Perhaps critique is too strong a word; observation is more like it. I have noted the growing tendency to divulge our lives via social media. This being the case, I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with sharing our thoughts and experiences with others on the worldwide web, so long as we do not depend on the recognition of others to validate our unique reality in this crowded forest called ‘life’.
