Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

I set up my Twitter account way back in 2008. Sounds almost primitive now.

When I joined Twitter, it felt like a multi-theme cultural festival. There were people discussing music, cinema, food, costumes, poetry, creativity, philosophy, science, et cetera and sometimes politics, too. Sounds primitive.

But what really attracted me was the uncensored humour. A typical day on Twitter would start with motivation, discussions on headlines, some satirical trolling, food, fashion, movies in the evening, and, after a few drinks, a typical Twitter day would end with a satirical trend where everyone participated.

#DrunkTweets would often flash up in trending topics. People from all spectrums interacted freely. Also, the limit was only 140 characters. An idea, when restricted to fewer words, becomes sharper.

Every tweet, in 140 characters, was the essence of a central idea on which people elaborated. Blocking or muting was a rare phenomenon.

Of course, this was typical first world behaviour. Exactly like when the Jaipur Literature Festival used to be an elitist event.

Twitter then attracted the elite of Lutyens. Wherever elites go, media follows. Soon, media started reporting from Twitter. Not the news but the creative tweets.

The media would quote tweets of famous, but anonymous, trolls which summed up a major debating topic, in novel satire.

There was an informal competition between Twitterati as to who would write better to be quoted by the media.

Of course, there were opinions but the opinions didnt concern the common man: the common man wasnt concerned about Twitter. It was the test-marketing of the attention economy.

This created Twitter celebs or influencers. Racism, sexism, casteism, genderism and almost all kinds of bigotry, misogyny, insults and politically incorrect expressions were freely flowing, disguised as jokes. Whoever questioned them was labelled downmarket.

This is when a celebrated, has-been journalist coined the label Internet Hindoo for such downmarket people. This wasnt Hinduphobia. It was an elitist way of reminding Hindus that they were slaves.

Story continues

I had not heard the term Hinduphobic on Twitter till 2014. Instead of the Left or the Right wings, there was only the Who-Gets-More-Validation wing.

Shashi Tharoor was an undisputed star of Twitter as he could write well in English, flirt openly with famous lady journalists in India as well as in Pakistan. Since Aman ki Asha was a favourite theme on Twitter, he was kind of their brand ambassador.

But all complex English comes with an expiry date. One day, some conscientious journalist reported his most infamous tweet where he disparagingly referred to economy class as cattle class.

It became the first official political outrage where Sonia Gandhi had to intervene and he was forced to resign as a minister. This also marked the first instance of loss of power and destruction of credibility. By one tweet.

The media had tasted blood. They learnt two things: the power of Twitter in influencing domestic politics and that they could save money on grounds reporting by taking feed directly from Twitter.

Almost all media followed, including the regional media. Wherever the media goes, politicians follow. And vice versa.

Arvind Kejriwal used both very successfully to fulfil his political ambition in disguise of a social revolution against corruption.

The Congress became sceptic of Twitter as they had burnt their hands with Shashi Tharoors adventures with Twitter and saw Twitter a one of their opponents.

But social media visionary Narendra Modi, who was victimised by the media, saw it as a big opportunity. He understood that Twitter is nothing but a broadcaster of ideas. He used it to his advantage. Rest is history.

The platform not only empowered nationalistic leaders like Modi but also played a decisive role in Brexit vote and Donald Trumps victory. These victories empowered political slums -

the silent majority of small town, vernacular, middle class people, especially the young.

To be able to directly speak to a Shah Rukh Khan or a Cabinet minister or your favourite journalist or even criticise, troll or abuse them in full public display is a powerful experience. With the political slum questioning the political skyscrapers, elites of Twitter started getting rattled.

The accentuated left-liberal world was now shown a mirror by the vernacular right. Thus began a war. A real war where people started losing their reputations, jobs, fame, status. And political power.

Twitter power became political currency.

On the Twitter of 2008, strangers used to become friends; but in todays Twitter, friends are becoming enemies. In the pre-2014 world, there used to be tweet-ups, a social gathering of strangers who met on Twitter. I have been to many tweet-ups in many cities. Now even thinking about it is a nightmare.

A well-structured, systematic division was in place. The hunger for winning this war of words, insults, trolling and destruction of credibility, became the staple diet. Political narratives were dictated on Twitter. Everyone took their feed here. News channels started running debates on Twitter trends.

Today, there is no exchange of ideas, no dialogue, no appreciation. Only narratives. Political wars are won by narratives. Narratives are created by ecosystems. Its a war of ecosystems. Twitter loves this war. History has revealed that Wars only help the powerful. In this case, the Big Tech. Let me explain.

In a globalised world, governments dont create ecosystems. Ecosystems control governments. The United States is the best example. In a digital world, whoever controls the algorithm, controls power. Algorithms give them the power to influence minds, politics and policies. And hence, commerce.

In a globalised world, Big Tech is fighting for global control. This is evident in their vision for the future. At the World Economic Forum last year in Davos, Switzerland, the agenda was focussed on The Big Reset.

What is this Big Reset? Its nothing but to give more control and power to globalisation against local, nationalistic interests who want to preserve and protect their national culture and economy from global invasion.

The Big Reset wants to reform capitalism because the current form of capitalism is broken as its not sustainable, it creates inequality and requires infinite growth with finite resources.

It is believed that the market and local governments cannot be trusted to behave in order to make this world a better place. If the world does not move towards global rights (as dictated by Big Tech) and global control of useful ideas, it will lead to a catastrophe. Therefore, the world should be controlled by uniform vision and policies, even at the cost of local concerns, aspirations and visions.

The Big Reset wants to control the way we think and behave, for a larger good. Which means it must be allowed to dictate policies of nations for the global good. Globalisation does not anymore mean the interconnected nature of the world economy, it simply means more centralised global thinking and decision-making.

We are moving towards a world where The Big Reset shareholders will control how a nation should grow food, distribute and consume it. How their resources should be used for global good. They want uniform consumer behaviour. For which consumers have to discard their current beliefs, tastes and choices.

A global reengineering project is in place. This is possible by creating doubt and stimulating fear and anger towards everything local with the help of algorithms controlled by Big Tech.

Twitter holds this power of influencing minds. Its algorithms are designed in such a way that they subvert all the goodness and greatness that exists in societies and trend any flaw to prove that the local system is rotten and must be torn down. (some references taken from @gummibear737)

Ideology, culture and consumer behaviour are also a matter of habit. The algorithms are created to change such habits and get more people to get addicted to their global agenda and, eventually, become true believers of their manifesto.

Anyone who doesnt subscribe must be shadow banned or suspended. If you think this is a fantasy, please listen to a 3-hour, 25-minute-long Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey, co-founder and CEO of Twitter, Vijaya Gadde, global lead for legal, policy, trust and safety at Twitter, along with an independent free-speech activist and independent journalist Tim Pool.

Here you can hear Jack confessing that Twitter is indeed tilted towards the left-liberal ideology and Vijaya Gadde informing that they do not have any clear-cut mechanism of censoring posts. She says that only a few hundred people screen millions of reports for Twitter abuse every day: an impossible task.

According to her, to understand what is abusive in a local society, they hire a team of local experts. All these local experts are only from one spectrum of political ideology the left-liberals. I wont be surprised if these so-called local experts are disguised as fact checkers and free speech activists.

Free speech is being weaponised and used against the opponents of this Big Reset.

The current clash between the Government of India and Twitter is the manifestation of the same politics. For the GoI to ask social media platforms to comply with regulations is how things should be done in the age of cyber/info and a possible bio-warfare. Its common sense.

But Twitter is trying to convert a legal issue into a political battle which is nothing but a reflection of the current political reality. The fight is about who is going to have more control.

Instead of compliance, Twitter is trying to use its algorithms to propagate this as an 'attack on free speech' and flag contrarian views as manipulated media. This strategy had worked successfully in influencing American presidential elections. Trump lost. Both the presidency as well as his Twitter account, forever.

Twitter thought that this would work in India too. Twitter assumes that by manipulating public outrage in their favour they can corner the Modi government which is firefighting its fast plummeting ratings amidst the COVID crisis.

Obviously, when Modis image is at its lowest, an attack on free speech narrative would sink it further.

But India is not the USA and Modi is not Trump. For India is not a believer of objective truth like the Christian world. India is a profounder of subjective reality.

This is manifested beautifully in a 70s classic movie Deewar. In this Amitabh Bachchan movie, written by the genius duo of Salim-Javed, Amitabh Bachchan, playing a smuggler asks his younger brother, Shashi Kapoor, a police inspector, Who is listening to me a brother or a police inspector? To which Shashi Kapoor replies: As long as a brother is speaking, a brother is listening. When a thief speaks, a police officer will listen.

So far, the government of India used to behave like a forgiving elder brother. For the first time, by issuing a befitting public reply to Twitters falsehood, in the same Twitterati language, the Government of India has shown spine and has taken Twitter on. For a change, like the Deewar scene, its clear who is a cop and who a thief.

If you want to understand who is the thief here, please ponder upon why Twitter algorithms promoted Capitol Hill siege as an act of domestic terrorism, but when exactly the same kind of siege took place at the Red Fort on Republic Day, it was promoted as a 'democratic dissent'.

Every other opinion is flagged as manipulated media. Because the manipulated media has the power to flag everything else as manipulated media which is not part of The Big Reset.

Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri is a national award winner filmmaker, bestselling author and a public intellectual.

DONT MISS:

View original post here:
Twitter politics and The Big Reset: Its all about gaining global control - Yahoo Canada Finance

A.J. Foyt is still here, 86 years young, still crusty, still interesting, still armed with strong and sometimes politically incorrect views on racing and life. I found him where he can be found every May, in Garage A-1 in Gasoline Alley at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Nearby, there is the cacophony of noise from work being done on A.J. Foyt Racings four 500 entries, including a replica of the livery from his first-ever Indianapolis 500 victory in 1961, which will be driven by J.R. Hildebrand from the 22nd starting spot. Joining Hildebrand on the grid are A.J.s drivers Sebastien Bourdais, starting 27th, and Dalton Kellett, starting 30th (veteran Charlie Kimball did not qualify).

Hard to believe, he said with a laugh. When I first started driving here (in 1958), I was sleeping in my car. Then I rented a basement in Speedway for $10 a week.

Read more from the original source:
'I'm still A.J.': A.J. Foyt's semi-filtered thoughts on his first Indianapolis 500 win, the good old days and... - The Athletic

To anyone who will pay attention, I recommend the late comedian Bill Hicks.

So many people say that we sorely needed the wit and insight of George Carlin in 2016 and still need it in the years since.Thats not something I can disagree with though, given the opportunity, I will argue that weve needed Bill Hicks even more.

Related: Tennessee enacts law allowing youth a reasonable accommodation to avoid trans kids

While he knew he was dying, he served up the most vicious takedown conceivable of so-called reality TV.

Okay, many of us today properly deride the cancer that is that part of our culture. But Hicks offered that takedown in 1993 well before it metastasized and ate a generations collective brain.

He also offered an interesting take on the previous years Rodney King Riots (as well as the trial that preceded them, though thats a different matter entirely, and a take that includes some decidedly politically incorrect language). In a pre-internet world, Hicks hopped on a plane for a trip from L.A. to London, arriving in the latter having no clue as to the carnage that began in the former just after his flight left.

His description of the newspaper headlines he saw when he got to Heathrow? L.A. Burns to Ground.

His comedy routine recollection of his first thought upon seeing the headline? He must have left a lit cigarette back at his west coast apartment.

I too was on a journey as L.A. was burning.Nothing that fancy, though and certainly not trans-Atlantic.I was driving through the backwoods of east Texas, headed towards Little Rock, Arkansas to attempt to peddle some artwork at a sci-fi convention.

But instead of hanging around at the convention during the weekend, I ventured north to make some more artwork photos of other backroads that Id not yet seen in states Id never set foot in.

Missouri, Tennessee, KentuckyAnd Illinois the state I find myself a resident of almost three decades later.

Granted, over the course of less than two full days, I didnt have a chance to get very far into Illinois. Where I now live would have to wait for a few years; instead, I just made a quick jaunt into the decaying town of Cairo, known for not much else than being the sentry at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.

I was well into adulthood, but ultimately I was still the frightened little kid from Texas whose father repeatedly spewed tales of the inherently evil and poisonous nature of everything north of where he was born (southern Arkansas). Such rants often included mention of what he branded as a diseased industrial cesspool but what most folks call the Ohio River (and the less of what he had to say about Illinois as a whole the better).

But, when I drove across the Hwy. 51 bridge over the Ohio, I didnt die. I didnt develop boils. I didnt join the Communist Party. I didnt turn trans; I was born this way.

All I did was look to the south and see two really big batches of water becoming one even bigger batch.Its still a pretty cool sight; if youre ever in the area, I recommend taking a peek at it even if you need to detour a bit.

And all throughout that weekend, I felt alive. As for my cheezy, crappy art that I was headed back to Little Rock to check on? Well, to no great shock, I didnt sell squat. Ive gotten far more use out of the photos I took that weekend.

And thats in addition to the now-sometimes-fleeting remembrances of just feeling alive.

In a very real sense, you can draw a straight (no pun intended) line from my rambling adventure that weekend to the very fact that you are looking at my words right now. Later that summer I drove out to California though only to Needles (cue Three Dog Night); the summer after that: San Francisco (and another sci-fi convention attended by people who had the good sense not to buy any of my crappy sci-fi art); the summer after that: Canada (cue Leonard Cohen); two summers after that: England (cue Blur). Now, as Bill Hicks did, I had help from a plane to get across the pond but once there when I wasnt on foot I was on wheels on the left side of the road.

May 1992 was one small part of my coming out of a shell. It took a bit longer for me to get up the courage to begin the transition process, but it is not hyperbole to say that one would not have happened without the other.

Likewise, I cant imagine my ever going to law schoolAnd then after that moving from Texas to MinnesotaOr from there to Iowa

Or from there to Illinois and an often stressful (yet never dull) career Id have never had and a really cool colleague Id have never met had things not gone the way they have.

But all of this is not merely reminiscing about a few days I took off from work 29 years ago; nor is it just a shout-out to a colleague at my present-day job.

Its something Im doing to distract myself from so much else of the present day some of it personal that gives me the weepies on occasion and something that some will say is political, though it is anything but.

This signage mandate from Tennessee does a bit more than make me cry: This facility maintains a policy of allowing the use of restrooms by either biological sex, regardless of the designation on the restroom.

True, it is just businesses and government buildings that must obey the sign-wearing edict.

Now.

Your guess is as good as mine as to when Tennessee politicos decide to put the display burden not on the certain places that have restroom facilities but on certain people who might need to use those facilities.You shouldnt need a Ph.D. in history to see what this Tennessee law is a precursor to.

So, no, this is neither reminiscence nor shout-out.

It is none of that.It is pure fear.

Fear of what this new law is really saying. For it says nothing about protecting anyone.

Instead, it is an aspirational statement of national enforced conformity: a statement that a certain category of people a category to which I belong should stay in our place. They say that I should never burden respectable jurisdictions with my presence. They say that my cis colleague and I should never have had the opportunity to work together as equals and that future trans women and cis women never will.

True, the new law could not reach back in time to criminalize my use of public accommodations in Tennessee 29 springs ago even if I had by then transitionedBut I have wandered through the state on a few occasions since transitioning.

And, make no mistake, the people who put this law into force are telegraphing to the world in no uncertain terms that if they could criminalize us ex post facto, they would.

And they are telling me that, should I get the urge to drive down to Texas later this year for my moms 90th birthday, Id better not have the temerity to take a route that goes through Tennessee.

And they are telling us all so much more.Theyre telling us what they think of us.

We fail to believe them at our peril.

Read more:
Tennessee is telling LGBTQ people we aren't welcome. It's time we listened to what they're saying. - LGBTQ Nation

Discover just what that plan is when Stratagem with Alan Partridge, a live stage show starring the award-winning Steve Coogan tours to the Edinburgh Playhouse next Spring.

Love him or loathe him, there's no escaping Coogans Marmite creation. Over a multi-decade broadcasting career, this 'wonderful and surprisingly well-read man has brought delight to millions his words. And now, in a country riven with discord and disease, Alan is touring the land with a message of hope.

Described as a live stage show that promises to inform, educate and entertain in approximately equal measure, Stratagem finds Alan Partridge wearing a head-mic of the type favoured by TED talkers, market hawkers, TV evangelists, backing singers and carnival barkers, as he attempts to combine all these roles and more. He has a manifesto for the way we can move forward, a road-map to a better tomorrow, an ABC for the way to be.

Coogan is currently on location in the Capital filming The Lost King, which tells the true story of how the remains of King Richard III were discovered under a carpark in Leicester in 2012. Coogan plays the husband of historian Philippa Langley, who had a key role in unlocking the mystery.

Stratagem with Alan Partridge comes to The Playhouse on May 26, 2022. Tickets go on sale to the general public on Saturday, May 29 at 9am from http://www.atgtickets.com/Edinburgh

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

More:
Aha! Alan Partridge is heading to the Edinburgh Playhouse - The Scotsman

THE NEW LEADER of the Ulster Unionist Party has urged the DUP and Sinn Fein to keep the show on the road in terms of the powersharing government in Northern Ireland.

Days ahead of DUP leader Edwin Poots expected unveiling of his new ministerial team, and amid speculation over whether Sinn Fein will support the nomination of new ministers without a commitment over Irish language legislation, Doug Beattie said the Executive has to last.

There is also speculation that the next Assembly elections may be called before they are due to take place in May 2022.

It (the Executive) has to last, it has got to last for the people of this part of the United Kingdom, our Executive needs to keep going, Mr Beattie told RTEs The Week In Politics programme.

So theres an onus on the DUP, and there is an onus on Sinn Fein also to be generous with this because we are in a degree of instability, and they need to carry on and keep the Executive on the tracks until the elections in May next year.

Then in May next year people will be able to vote as to what way they want to go forward from that moment onwards. But the last thing we need is for the Executive to collapse, for there to be even more instability here in Northern Ireland.

Our people have suffered enough, its time politicians just held their ground, gave a little bit to each other, were a little bit more gracious and just make sure that we can provide for the people of Northern Ireland, particularly that we are coming off a pandemic which has absolutely decimated our lives.

The DUP and Sinn Fein really need to do a bit of mature politics here and just keep this show on the road.

DUP leader Edwin Poots with Ian Paisley Jnr Source: Brian Lawless/PA

Mr Beattie described a tumultuous couple of weeks in unionism but said the UUP had gone about their leadership handover in a very different way to the DUP.

We have done everything face to face with our previous leader and then we have gone out to the media and weve put our message across, he said.

We have done a smooth transition.

#Open journalism No news is bad news Support The Journal

Your contributions will help us continue to deliver the stories that are important to you

Unfortunately with the DUP it has been a bit more fractious and thats not good for Northern Ireland we need stability here more than anything else.

As for anybody who wants to come to the Ulster Unionist Party we are an open party, we are a welcoming party but its not a home for people who just have a different view, or want to come and settle in here. You have to share our vision for the future, you have to share our values.

But Ill not take anyone on board just as a home because they are disgruntled with the DUP.

Mr Beattie said he will speak to everyone, including the Irish Government, the EU and the UK Government.

Follow this link:
DUP and Sinn Fein urged to keep powersharing show on the road - TheJournal.ie

Friends & The Art Of Being Irreverently Iconic (Photo Credit: IMDb)

You would find plenty of warts about Friends, even at a casual glance. Its about guys and girls in a couple of New York City apartments theyd probably be hard-pressed to afford, given their economic conditions over most of the shows 10-year run. Their sole problem in life seems to be falling in and out of love. The storyline you got over a decade could well be capsuled into a two-hour Hollywood rom-com.

The show has been accused of body shaming, gay jokes and, lately, non-inclusivity, and its lead players of being sociopaths, unrealistic, philanderers and, at least one of them, selfish indecisive b***h.

Lifes like that, isnt it full of warts and often politically incorrect. Friends chose to show it all with abundant humour that never failed to be funny, serving the silly with a twist of the irreverent. Its the reason the show survived all of the above.

The May 27 special, Friends: The Reunion, underlined that the 17 years that have passed since the last episode aired in 2004 have been more than just about survival in fan psyche. The complete absence of any fresh on-screen activity on the part of Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler and Ross coupled with gossip about the actors that bring them alive, involving everything from Botox to drugs to inability handle fame only heightened the lure of the show, adding to the hysteria as it quietly kept building over the years.

In India, for the record, the unscripted special clocked one million views within hours across the country. For a country that had hardly found any representation in the fictional world that the show set up over a decade, thats a staggering statistic. Most social media reactions coming out of India, just as the rest of the world, have mirrored the sentimental frenzy that the show has built for itself. It shows the legend of Friends has only grown over 17 years cutting across demographic lines.

There is a pattern that pop culture follows. First comes the success, and only if the success sustains over a period of time does it pave way for an iconic stature. Notably, despite success, mainstream entertainment is often trivialised by those who look for finer sensibility even in what is meant to be served as mass entertainment. Friends did have to contend with as much during its decade-long run.

But the series faced a second problem the fact that it was a comedy. The genre finds an instant fan base but it is prone to get dated soon enough, too, because comedy is thought to lack the essential heft to be taken seriously in the long run as, say, political drama, or biographical and historical fiction.

It would be simplistic to say the series managed to survive these challenges only because it has doled out a brand of humour that was down to earth, and in some way or the other delivered the lessons of life. Even today, after having watched the show a zillion times, one doesnt exactly sit down to watch the odd episode to draw life lessons from Friends.

The secret for the show crafting and sustaining an iconic stature lies in the fact that it continues to make the nineties and the noughties look happier than they probably were. Add to that the youth factor, which never fails to appeal. It is something that continues to set apart Friends from every other commercial entertainer of its era that might have also been mega-successful.

With Lisa Kudrow resolutely over-ruling any chance of a Friends revival towards the end of the reunion special, the popular sentiment for the original series only grows stronger. It gives an added incentive for fans to romance what they have already seen many times. Kudrow and her co-stars Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer would be aware of the fact. If the shows slant at iconic irreverence ensures it will never go out of vogue, that is the casts ticket to television immortality.

Must Read: Friends Earned Whopping $1.4 Billion Over The Years But Can You Guess How Much Jennifer Aniston, Matt LeBlanc & The Cast Made?

Follow Us: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Youtube

See the original post here:
Friends: Body Shaming, Gay Jokes To Sociopaths, B*tchy Leads How The Show Turned Irreverently Iconic - Koimoi

POLITICS affects us all, but currently not all of us can affect politics.

The recent legislative moves to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote aim to change this.

The usual argument against lowering the voting age seems to be that 16-year-olds are simply too immature and ill informed to be granted the right to vote. However, through my experience in youth activism, Ive worked with teenagers who have presented to cabinet members, who have organised worldwide protests, and who have published reports in conjecture with the ESRI.

These 16 and 17 year olds are far more politically engaged than the average adult.

At 16 years old you can pay taxes, consent to medical treatment, begin to work and finish school, yet you are forbidden from participating in the most fundamental democratic institutions: voting for your leaders.

From student council members to the national executive staff of the Irish Second Level Students Union, 16-years-olds are integral to the political fabric of this country.

Well, almost integral, despite the fact that politically involved teenagers tirelessly work to improve our society, we refuse to let them vote. By doing this we deny them the political representation they deserve and effectively attempt to silence their voices.

Of course, there are some teenagers who have no interest in governmental affairs and this is understandable.

Why on earth should they care about the leaders they didnt choose? About the policies they didnt vote for? If we want our young people to become active citizens, it is imperative we let them vote.

Moreover, The culture pervaded by partisan politics and democracy as a whole means that elected officials cater to those who can vote. This makes sense if you dont get the votes, you dont get a chance to change anything. Unfortunately, this results in the needs of people who cannot vote being ignored.

The vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are seen by politicians as little more than a photo opportunity.

These teenagers have minds of their own and ideas of how to improve the country. Yet, until they are given the right to vote they will never be taken seriously.

Much of the issues that affect young people are decided by those who are far older than them. Take education for example, in 2018 Ireland spent only 3.5% of its GDP on education, the second lowest in the OECD. The government is able to invest so poorly in students because the vast majority cannot vote and therefore have very little political capital.

I worked on the ISSUs 2021 Senior Cycle reform survey and report. We received responses from thousands of teenagers who were astutely able to spot the flaws in the Senior Cycle System and how they could be improved. Yet, because 16 and 17 year olds lack the right to vote, their proposals and opinions are continually ignored.

The future leaders of this country are 16 right now. However, if we continue to deny 16 years olds the right to vote, they will simply become disinterested in politics. This severely limits the pool of potential candidates for election and could lead to the eventual breakdown of our democratic system.

Irelands voter turnout rates are dropping, especially in European elections. Its incredibly frustrating to see adults squandering their chance to make a difference in their society when adolescents would love to to have this opportunity. Those aged 16 and 17 have a higher voter turnout rate than any other generation, with 75% voting and 97% saying they would vote in future elections. The patterns formed at age 16 will continue into the future. By allowing adolescents to vote we are creating a generation of active citizens. This will allow Irish democracy to thrive.

I have spent this article so far praising young people. However Im not going to sit here and tell you that all 16 and 17 year olds are highly politically aware and will use their vote maturely and responsibly. But lets be honest, there are a fair few adults that dont use their vote wisely either. In every election, some spoil their ballots or cast their votes for joke candidates. Its incorrect to argue that 16 year olds cannot be given the right to vote because they would use it irresponsibly when legal adults are exhibiting theat very behaviours.

If we are to create a generation of politically aware and active citizens we cant stop at granting 16 year olds the right to vote.

We also need to seriously improve the level of political education in secondary schools. Junior Cycle CSPE is seen as little more than a joke.

The Leaving Cert equivalent: politics and society is not available to all students. 16 year olds deserve not just the right to vote but also the knowledge on how to vote in a politically astute manner.

ABOUT THE ISSU

The Irish Second-Level Students Union (ISSU) is the national representative body for second-level school students in the Republic of Ireland.

The ISSU works towards an education system in which the views, opinions and contributions of students are respected and in which students are recognised as an official partner in creating an education that is centered around and caters best for students.

Excerpt from:
Cork teen: Why you should support the vote at 16 - Echo Live

Mythic Quest

#YumYum

Season 2 Episode 3

Editors Rating 3 stars ***

Photo: Apple TV+

In the first scene of #YumYum, co-creative directors Ian and Poppy are getting along well. But by the end of the episode, battle lines have been drawn, potentially to last the whole season. It seems, based on this episode, that season two could become more serialized than season one.

The StageGate meeting with Montreal is next week, and Ian and Poppy have little to present for the new expansion. After disagreeing on what direction to go in, theyve elected to each independently develop their own ideas. Since theyve separated, they havent been fighting at all but thats a temporary solution to a problem that isnt going away. David, triggered by the reminder of the end of his parents marriage as well as his own deems this stage the calm before the divorce.

Brad has a simple solution to their creative stasis: capitalize on the battle-royale fad popularized by games like Fortnite and Call of Duty: Warzone. But neither Ian nor Poppy like the idea, so they decide to work out of separate offices to buckle down with their respective teams. This doesnt go well for either of them, of course, because as we know, Ian and Poppy are better together than apart.

In this case, Ian needs someone to push back more on his ideas, a request that meek Phil from the art team cant grant. (It has to happen organically, like it does with Poppy, Ian insists.) He brings in Rachel as a substitute, hoping shell be her normal, indignant, annoying self and spark his creativity.

Poppy, on the other hand, needs the opposite. Ian had this way of stroking my ego and bolstering my confidence to the point where I felt like I could overcome anything, she admits early in the episode, unhappy with her new programming teams brutal honesty. Thats when Dana wanders in, hoping Poppy will help her learn to code. She calls her maybe the most talented programmer of our generation, inspiring Poppy to bring her in to stroke her ego, just as Ian brought in Rachel to crush his. Neither strategy works, and with nothing to show for all her sleepless hours at the office, Poppy is forced to resort to Brads earlier battle-royale suggestion. Ian finds this out right as hes approaching Poppy to reconcile, and the episode ends with the two erupting into an argument, their carefully calibrated ceasefire reaching its inevitable end.

The parallels to divorce in the temporary dissolution of Ian and Poppys partnership can be funny, but theyre also predictable, and basically a repeat of the joke just two episodes ago with David and Jo in the premiere. Its hard to know how seriously to take the final scene when the tone of Ian and Poppys fight feels more comedic than dramatic; this feels more like the ending to an episode-long joke than a true shit just got real moment. I couldve done without some of the more forced divorce parallels in this scene, like Poppy pointing out that we were on a break.

Perhaps jumping back into the dating game to distract him from his divorce anxiety at work, David gets on the dating apps this episode, to little success. After suggesting David present himself like a loot box from a game a package with a tempting exterior that hides the garbage inside Brad comes up with an idea to improve his online dating skills. He pulls up a Japanese dating simulation called Divorcee Dance Party to soft-launch David, tweaking everything about his conversational style that doesnt work. That means no food pictures or drink orders hashtagged #YumYum, and no wedding photos on his dating profiles. After ten exchanges with a sim woman without her rejecting him, theyll know Davids ready to date.

David does get there, eventually only to realize he was interacting with real people the whole time when Brad drops a curtain to reveal Sue, Carol, and Paul. (Were still a little light on the ladies at MQ, so Brad explains.) Sue offers an explanation for rejecting him: David, I just cannot imagine being the vessel to your seed. Does that make sense? Carol, who thought she was testing a new HR tool for sexual harassment training when she propositioned David, is even more cutting: David, I dont want to hurt your feelings, but I could not dislike you more or be less physically attracted to you.

Needless to say, David is dispirited. But in a sweet scene, Brad assures him that he was wrong to call him a loot box. They should be thinking of him more like a burlap sack: not flashy or fun at all, but the people who buy it really need it. Brad even went to the trouble of changing Davids profiles, and set him up on a date. Its a nice ending to a subplot that thrives by showing Brad at his best: helping people in the honest, unsparing way that only he can. Maybe hes capable of being the hero after all.

In the episodes final subplot, Jo secures C.W. an extension on the long-delayed final book in his trilogy by threatening his publisher with involving C.W. in the promotion of the film adaptation something the publisher definitely doesnt want, given his propensity for politically incorrect stories. Its a slight subplot, and not exactly the meaty material I was hoping F. Murray Abraham would get; this season, hes still more of a dirty old man stereotype than a real character. But its a smart touch for Jo to take Brads wisdom (In a negotiation, what you think is your greatest strength can actually be your greatest weakness) and flip it (C.W., youre my greatest strength!).

Im also a little skeptical of Jos examples of authors whose personal views hurt their movie adaptations. The Enders Game movie was a box-office bomb, but its unclear if that was related to the boycott; after all, Orson Scott Cards opposition to same-sex marriage has been well-known since the 90s. And is it really accurate to say that J.K. Rowling got canceled with a couple keystrokes?

David lures Jo into giving him attention by using a fishing metaphor for online dating. Jo involuntarily explodes, Oh my God, David, youre not dating, youre trawling for a death partner.

When Rachel apologizes again for screwing up Grouchy Goat, Dana insists this is just a temporary roadblock. I mean, we dont want to be sitting on this couch forever, right? she exclaims. We both got big dreams. Totally, Rachel replies, but based on her expression, shes not so sure. Will the gulf in Rachel and Danas respective ambitions pose trouble for the new couple?

When David makes the mistake of making a message way too long, the sim shows the woman approaching a hunk instead. Why would they animate that? David asks.

Its Always Sunny Parallel of the Week: Brad likens the team to seagulls who should be gorging themselves on the whale carcass that is battle-royale mode. When Poppy denies being a seagull, Brad replies, Not yet youre not. Not yet Im not? Poppy says. What is that supposed to mean? What, Im just going to turn into a bird? Later, Poppy caves and goes ahead with battle royale, becoming the bird. This all calls to mind, of course, the Gang constantly referring to Dee Reynolds as a bird.

Keep up with all the drama of your favorite shows!

Read the original:
Mythic Quest Recap: Calm Before the Divorce - Vulture

A view of an iceberg near South George island, November 18, 2020. Photo: UK Ministry of Defence/Handout via Reuters

As we grapple with Indias COVID-19 epidemic, we cant afford to lose sight of the larger crisis that lies in wait: climate change. Several voices worldwide, ranging from celebrities to academics, claim that the global collaboration observed to address the COVID crisis could help us prepare better to face the impending climate crisis. Although the collaboration achieved so far is undoubtedly a ray of hope to cope with a climate-affected future, we were reminded of a question by one of our students, can climate change be fundamentally addressed as long as the top 5% of the worlds population (or even a smaller fraction) can bail themselves out from the worst impacts of the climate crisis?

Drawing a direct parallel, when India is reporting the worlds highest daily cases of infection, and people here are fighting their battle to breathe, many wealthy Indians fled from the country in private jets paying ten times the regular fare, just in time before several foreign countries imposed a ban on arrivals from India.

This raises the obvious question of whether 5% of the worlds population could always be saved, be it from COVID or climate change? And more importantly, are we evaluating the situation correctly if we expect the same level of cooperation and concerted effort, as observed towards managing COVID, to combat climate change? The fact of the matter is that the uncharted pathways of COVID are much more fearsome to the top 5% of the worlds population than the threat of climate crisis. And howsoever politically incorrect this may sound, this sections active involvement in this capitalist neoliberal world does play a critical role in inducing cooperation on a global scale.

So comparing COVID and climate crisis is like comparing apples and oranges. Both share a first-order similarity: both are fruits, or both these crises are rather unprecedented global ones; there is hardly any further major similarity. The reason we are falsely equating the two is that both are bound to adversely hit every human irrespective of their human strata, at least in principle. However, there are some crucial differences.

Biological parameters of COVID-19 demand a massive global collaboration to end the crisis. COVID-19 is caused by a highly contagious RNA virus (SARS-CoV-2), which owing to its genetic makeup, can mutate quite easily. This ability to mutate is what makes it difficult to find a potent vaccine that can offer long-term protection against the virus. Thus, the key to fighting such a virus is to vaccinate as many people as concurrently as possible so that the virus does not get the scope to mutate and eventually get eradicated in the best manner possible. Although vaccines developed so far are found to be efficacious against all the new mutants (Brazil and the UK) discovered, it may not be true for all the mutants of the virus that are expected to emerge out of India.

Apart from this biological factor, it is always going to be difficult for anyone to remain unscathed from COVID-19. Being a respiratory virus, it is highly contagious, and the pathways through which it impacts are difficult to track and contain. In spite of this, the wealthy and the influential sections of the world are looking for a COVID haven. However, to think or plan for a COVID haven or a bio-bubble is a next-to-impossible task. Even when the BCCI tried its best to implement bio bubbles for the smooth operation of one of the worlds most lucrative sporting leagues, it failed.

On the other hand, a climate haven in principle can be planned as there are places that are least likely to be impacted by the climate crisis. This will surely include colonies on other planets or in space. Although experts opine otherwise and argue against the idea of a climate haven, the rich and the influential (the top 5%) of the world are already considering climate vulnerabilities while making real-estate investments. Moreover, the temporal spread of the impacts of climate change (generally over 50-100 year timescale) will always allow sufficient time to find a climate haven which is not possible during an imminent pandemic. The possibility of a climate haven deters the super-rich from contributing to a common goal, i.e., combating climate change. The impossibility of a COVID haven exposes this population to shared risks and makes them part of the battle the masses, and even middle classes are fighting.

A recent New York Times article says that despite the best-coordinated efforts and necessary support from the privileged layer of the global society, we witnessed a great deal of ineffectiveness concerning COVID vaccine distribution; the distribution also disproportionately impacted the poorer countries. It is a no-brainer that socio-economically marginalized populations are usually the most vulnerable section in any major crisis, be it a pandemic or climate change. People in power do acknowledge the need to safeguard everyone from COVID, find it hard to act ethically and rationally during such a humanitarian crisis. Letting go of private security or comforts for the public good has never been an easy task. Clearly, it is not the social collaboration but this dismal response to COVID that would be a precursor to how the world is going to respond to the impending climate crisis.

It shows that, if anything, the response to the climate crisis is going to be even less coordinated, and the resulting circumstances are going to be far worse as the richer sections and countries can always have the option to bail out. As they say, any pandemic or global crisis can only expose the fault lines present in the society and is going to magnify the existing vulnerabilities to a different order. The grim reality we are witnessing in terms of addressing the climate crisis can only be considered to be the tip of the iceberg, and the iceberg will fully emerge only when we are faced with the climate crisis.

Soumyajit Bhar is a PhD scholar at ATREE, Bengaluru. Kalpita Bhar is an assistant professor of philosophy at Krea University, Andhra Pradesh.

More here:
Of COVID-19 and Climate Change, One Is the Tip and the Other Is the Iceberg - The Wire Science

Pic: Edex Live

Husband: I have a question. Why did the chicken cross the road?Wife: Because the chicken behind it didnt know how to socially distance properly.Is it okay to say how to socially distance properly? Yes, it is perfectly correct. The phrase to socially distance is an example of a cleft infinitive or split infinitive. A cleft infinitive is a grammatical construction in which a word or phrase is placed between the particle to and the infinitive that comprises a to-infinitive. In the example above, the modifier socially is placed between the particle to and the verb distance. Old-fashioned grammarians say that it is wrong to split infinitives but modern grammar experts agree that cleft infinitives are acceptable. Henry Alford in his 1864 book The Queens English states that split infinitives should be avoided. Modern style guides do not speak out against cleft infinitives but advise writers to avoid awkward construction that might confuse the reader. Split infinitives are very common in spoken and informal English. Here are examples:I think everyone is free today. This evening is the best time to finally go to the beach.Jane called me a few minutes ago. She only wants to quickly talk to you.It is common to use cleft infinitive phrases in informal conversational English. Examples:to warmly welcometo suddenly noticeLets move on to another aspect of grammar called singular they. In Modern English, the plural pronoun their can be used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun instead of he/she and they can be used to represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite (for example, someone, no one, anyone or a person). Gender-neutral pronouns do not specify whether the subject of the sentence is male or female. Here is a list of such pronouns: they, them, themself, their, theirs.Look at these examples:Any candidate who wants to meet the Director should submit their (instead of his/her)applicationI think someone is waiting outside. They want to meet me. Ill talk to them for a few minutes.Lets move on to gender-neutral occupation words. Actor or actress? Look at the sentences below:Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut has tested positive for COVID-19. The actor shared her health update on social media along with a long note.Thalaivi actress Kangana Ranaut tests positive for COVID-19The term actress is outdated. Feminists and those who believe in equality say that it is not politically correct to use the word actress. If there is a distinction to be made, the terms male actor and female actor can be used. Ask any female actor whether she likes to be described as an actress. No will be her reply as she thinks it is an offensive term. Here are other politically incorrect terms: authoress, comedienne, manageress. Avoid using such terms and be politically correct.

Read this article:
English Blues: Here are a few grammar rules that we can now violate, find out how - EdexLive