Intellectual Used-Car-Salesman Voice

It's crazy, right? Yesterday YouTube was all about cat and music videos and all of a sudden: YouTubers. I don't even know where they all came from but when I noticed them many of them already had a celebrity kind of status. And by now, being a YouTuber is already seen as an upcoming new profession. Which might not be as surprising considering what being a YouTuber is really all about: they are entertainers. Those are the kind of people who'd like to be on television, be it comedian, advertiser or sports commentator - and YouTube has provided them a platform to show their more or less DIY-style videos. If you're lucky you might become really famous by building a strong fanbase that buys literally everything you've ever touched and getting in touch with the right promoters co-op partners...

Doesn't sound that bad, does it? Everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame and just about everybody enjoys the freedom of creativity. Okay yeah, no. They don't. The problem with giving just about anyone a chance to put their work out there is the sheer number of competitors. And this in turn results in people copying each other, pitting one against the other and being so driven by this need for success that they actually forget that they wanted to have fun being creative. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in for this sort of open platform thing, but the sad truth is that it's never that easy.

You know what's really interesting? Many YouTuber have naturally adapted a certain way of talking without actually being that aware of it. A linguist from the University of Pennsylvania called that way of talking "intellectual used-car-salesman voice", hence the title. And I love that description so, so much. Actually, once you pay attention to it you really start to notice that many English-speaking YouTubers are quite similar - not in their accents really, but mostly in the way they pronounce vowels... and in the way they behave. Lots of elongated vowels and variations in the volume of their voice in combination with very strong hand movements. Those are actually quite the same techniques a performer uses. Makes sense, doesn't it? Just stiffly sitting there, telling some story... Few people would really watch ten or more minutes of that. In the end, it's the same as everywhere else: In most cases it doesn't matter what you do - it matters how you do it.

#Activism

Everybody knows them: hashtags. Originally coming from Twitter in its current form a hashtag is used to categorise and label topics and groups of interest thus allowing users to search for what really sparks their interest. By now those tags are used all across social media because of its usefulness.

For one, as I said, it provides a tool for organisation. Researching (whatever it might be) something is much easier if relevant "sources" mark their content as belonging to that category with a hashtag. 

Of course, it's a system of give and take - as always. Those sources do not tag their content for the simple purpose of being nice. They want their content to be seen, to be found. And by making it easier to be found, their popularity rises, of course. To generalise it: hashtags makes it easier to connect for users. Be it a connection between consumer and brand or be it between individuals discussing something - which already brings me to my next point. What's so great about social media is that it's so easy to meet new people but hashtags also make it easier for us to find like-minded people. If, for example, you are interested maine coon cats you might feel inclined to type #mainecoon into the search bar and - surprise! chances are you'll find a lot of people showing pictures of or talking about maine coons and you might get in touch with some of those people. Awesome, right? But there's much more to using hashtags for discussions than being a cat lover.

Some time ago I was talking about #CampusRassismus, a sort of social media campaign started by the PoC Hochschulgruppe Mainz and of Frankfurt that is meant to provide a space of discussion and to share experiences of PoC facing racism in Germany - and across the world. Their campaign has spread on Twitter and even bigger newspapers have talked about it. And again the power of social media is shown - and that there are so many forms of racism in Germany that are so conveniently ignored by many. I think it's great that social media helps spread opinions, voices, experiences that, in this case, have really shown that everyday racism is not just some coincidence, there's a pattern and that it should be talked about. It's important to note that this hashtag campaign is especially meant for those facing racism in order for them to share their realities - and this should be respected at all costs. But still, there are so many trolls weighing in on that discussion, be it complete stupidity or real intent to hurt and attack people. It's sad and aggravating that such a discussion platform is misused and actually abused by trolls - which is not only disrespectful but also harmful. But unfortunately this is also part of social media. 

Anyone can weigh in on a discussion - which is a blessing and a curse all at the same time.

Eff off, Spotify

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about ads in class but I still want to bring up that topic again. But instead of talking about how ads are personalised for the individual or how clickbaits are pretty much everywhere I’d like to talk about the seasonal adjustment of ads.

Let’s face it: I’m way too cheap to pay for music. I rarely ever buy some tracks unless I really, really, REALLY love that artist. Yeah, I’m not too proud either but I’m trying to be honest here. Be that as it may, I mostly use the free version of Spotify to listen to music – which in turn means that I have to regularly listen to all kinds of ads in between the songs. It doesn’t really bother me as long as there is some variation instead of the same ad being repeated over and over again. Those ads are more or less personalised as well (even though I highly doubt that I get those promos for Justin Bieber’s songs due to personalisation, but oh well) but it’s only logical to promote summer playlists in – guess what – summer and Christmas playlists in winter. But what really made me laugh out loud around Christmas was when all those fitness ads started appearing.

At first, I was seriously confused hearing several fitness ads in a row (4 different fitness ads in about 15 minutes). What are you getting at, Spotify? Seriously, f- you. But then it dawned on me: it’s not only Christmas time but New Year’s Eve is also right around the corner – and with it a whole lot of New Year’s resolutions. And one of those is the ever so famous resolution: “I’m getting really ripped in 20XY!”

Thanks to that, most fitness centres see a ridiculous increase of customers – only to see it drastically decrease around February and March. So much for that New Year’s resolution. No wonder, most gyms only offer one or two year subscriptions. And really, it does make sense to launch those ads around Christmas with all those delicious but fatty and sugary meals, preying on people’s self-esteem and food guilt. Not that it’s nice or fair, but I see where they’re getting at: “motivate” (or guilt-trip) people to sign in at a gym or fitness programme, they’ll lose interest after some time but you’ll still get your money from them.

Now that I think about it, I’ll come back to my initial statement (being sort of glad I’m too cheap to pay for that stuff): F- you, Spotify.

Representation Matters - A Lot

Turn on the TV. It's not only highly likely, it's near damn a matter of fact that the first person you'll see is white. Coincidence? Of course not. It almost never is.

White is seen as the standard, as what's normal. So is being hetero and cisgender (your gender identity is the same as the sex you were assigned at your birth). Everything else that deviates from that so-called "norm" is different, is an Other. Some"thing" to throw in some diversity. By marking everyone non-white non-hetero non-cis as "exotic", "something else" media naturally makes them outcasts.

We'd rather not admit that we find it hard to differentiate between our reality and the one media portrays but it really is. We get that there are no dragons in real life but when it comes to the more subtle topics such as representation our mind tends to get clouded, to remain ignorant.

There are so many different kinds of people apart from that white hetero cis person but in most cases (almost all) their existence, their reality, remains unacknowledged. Sure, you get some fancy sidekicks like the funny black best friend or the quirky lesbian but that's it. Usually they are reduced to stereotypes which undermine their existence, validity, their uniqueness as a person. Why is it always the white person that gets real character development, whose feelings are portrayed like those of a real human? By ignoring all that potential of stories about real people different from that damned "norm" with real problems we create an alternative (white) reality in media which does not correctly portray the world as it is.

It is important to properly, accurately represent all kinds of people in the media because it shows that they are real, that their feelings and experiences are valid, showing them as they are: real people who are part of our society that should be acknowledged instead of conveniently ignored.
(Fun fact: This would make it so much easier for people who do not know this sort of reality to understand, to become more sensible. Of course, this should not be the main aim of it all but it would sure be a nice side effect.)

But most importantly of it all: it matters most how people are represented. A cis director casting a cis actor for a transgender role will never truly grasp and show the reality of a trans*person. Let the people who are actually living that live portray it. (Yes, I'm looking at you, The Danish Girl)

#CampusRassismus

Just a short note:

The amazing people at PoC-Hochschulgruppe Mainz will be showing an interesting example of Hashtag activism in order to highlight all those aggressions and racist patterns PoC are facing at universities. Here's a link to the Facebook event. Show your support.

Praised be the White Hetero

Hold on, the Angry Queer Feminist™ is at it again.

As much as I adore Matt McGorry for his acting and support of feminist ideas (his Twitter gives me life), I felt quite stumped after reading the following headline shared by ZEIT ONLINE: "The Feminist Celebrity of the Year könnte zum ersten Mal ein weißer Hetero werden." There are so many things that are just plainly wrong with that article, I find it hard to get a good starting point.

First of all, why is his sexuality newsworthy enough to put it into the headline - especially since it's only mentioned in the headline but not in the actual article at all? Also, a quick google search showed that his sexuality was never really confirmed by him at all. He could easily be bi (see what I did there), pan, gay, asexual, whatever. Why does an author go so far as to assume someone's sexuality and thinks that it is important enough to put it into a headline? If you listen closely, you might hear me faintly ranting over my cup of tea about heteronormativity. Several queer centuries later and people still assume that being hetero and cis is still the status quo? What a time to be alive.

Plus, isn't it rather hypocritical to pit feminists against each other like that? Feminism needs all its different voices and opinions, its intersectionalism in order to provide a broad and complex and rewarding discussion. And awarding one special feminist ("The Chosen One") for their work seems rather forced to me. Wouldn't it be better to highlight the work of many different feminists in different areas? Wouldn't this do a better job at representing the complex and versatile field of feminist discussions instead of unnecessarily simplifying it for the sake of popular culture?

Also, it's worth taking a look at who else was nominated: Amandla Stenberg, America Ferrera, Laverne Cox, Margaret Cho, Rowan Blanchard, Shonda Rhimes, Tracee Ellis Ross, Viola Davis... and many more amazing women.
Is it really that revolutionary that a white man considers himself to be a feminist that he outweighs all these amazing people? Wouldn't it be a great sign to nominate and award one of these amazing Women of Colour? They've been fighting their whole life, always pushing borders of racial prejudices, actually living under the influence of oppression... But hey, let's nominate that white dude, he's pretty hot.

On The Trustworthiness of News

Most times we sort of have a feeling for what source can be considered trustworthy, sometimes we can't. Some argue that this "trustworthiness detector" might be influenced by the person's intelligence, even though I wouldn't want to generalise this. Personally, I think it has more to do with education and one's own interests.

Studies (especially page 7) show that it's easier for people with a higher education to differentiate what news source can be considered reliable. This could be explained by taking a look at their news consumption in general. Most people with a higher education are granted a more thorough understanding of politics and history which in turn tends to heighten their interest in these topics making them more likely to regularly consume news. And those who regularly consume news tend to know the bigger news sources better and get acquainted with their reporting style, thus unintentionally learning to understand what is considered good news.

What makes us believe that a news source is trustworthy, what makes news "good news"? 

Well, for one, it's that simple: fame and reputation. Most bigger papers such as the New York Times are well-known enough for people to know their name without ever reading them. But, as I already said some posts ago, even the bigger news sources are increasingly showing a tendency towards newstainment, towards "trashier" articles on soft topics. Which is at least partly understandable but I fear that it will damage their reputation in the long run. Which brings me to my next point: fame alone isn't enough to be considered trustworthy, reputation is what really qualifies a news source as good. The Bild, for example, is one of the best-known German papers but very few (educated) people would call their articles trustworthy and reliable because their reputation is that of a tabloid paper. While some political blogs may be lesser known, their reputation among the"initiated" makes them seem more reliable.

Knowing a news source, in turn, also plays a bigger role in how it is perceived. You could criticise that fame and knowing something is quite the same, but I'd argue that their is quite a difference between having heard of a news source and consuming it regularly, maybe knowing some names of the regular authors. By watching a news source over a longer time and consuming it quite often you will start to understand the paper's political attitude and will thus be able to determine when something has changed or does not fit the paper's overall image at all.

So after all, a paper's trustworthiness strongly depends on the people who consume it. A person who is not "media-literate" at all won't be able to tell the difference. And this so-called media-literacy strongly depends on the kind of education a person receives in my opinion. While school does not teach you how to consume critically (they tried but failed miserably, at least at my old school), it gives you the tools to analyse, to see it all in a broader context. Most of this happens subconsciously and there are many exceptions. A person might be educated but if they lack the interest for media and politics, they won't learn to consume critically (arguably you might refrain from calling them educated in that area because media literacy strongly depends on your own will to "study" it). Another person might not be as academically educated but have a strong interest for politics and is thus willed to learn more about media and news.

So, to make myself clear: when I'm saying "educated" I don't necessarily mean school education but what we like to call "self-study". Education matters, folks.