When Will My Reflection Show... - How My Critey Sense Has Been Dialed Up

          Did you see what I did there with the title?  How I played with the word "reflection" and its two meanings?  It was equivocation.  This is just one of the few examples of how critical thinking has managed to creep into my life without my knowing it. Ever since I have embarked on this second quarter of critical thinking, my awareness (of the techniques and fallacies) have been  dialed to 11.  Everywhere, especially in the media, I see techniques being used that we talk about in critical thinking.  From now on, I am going to reference "media awareness" as "critey sense," similar to Spiderman's "spidey sense."
          Based on other reflections I have read, it seems that many of my classmates think that they consume more media now than they did before.  This is where I differ.  I believe that I have always consumed a large amount of media, even before this project, but because of the tools that this class has given me, my critey sense has been heightened. I have become more sensitive to fallacies, and the techniques used by media outlets to get consumers to persuade themselves.  I have always consumed a large amount of media, but now, it is easier to notice where I have become a victim to advertisers.  Succumbing to advertising techniques does not even have to apply to an actual brand that is selling a product.  A perfect example of this can be found in Amos Karlsen's blog post about Lars Anderson and holes in his logic about archery.
          Knowing everything that I currently know about advertising techniques, I am now much more conscious of how advertisers are trying to get me to convince myself something.  One of the coffee shop discussions we had in the Latin America unit, was about identity.  A possible conclusion about identity that we came up with (if I remember correctly) is that identity first originates from what others think about you, and if you believe those things that are told about you.  This is where advertising and media comes in.  Advertisers can only do so much to convince consumers, but ultimately, the true convincing is how the consumer convinces themselves- if they convince themselves that the advertiser's claims are false and refuse to be persuaded, or if they convince themselves to consume to product (or idea) that is being portrayed.
          This is why being an educated consumer is very important.  It is easier to see through the (often) lies that advertisers feed us, thus weakening the voice of advertising and making it easier for us to convince ourselves if we really want to consume the product or idea.
          One of the most surprising things that I've learned from keeping this blog is that super heroes have way more messages that are being conveyed, you just have to dig a little bit into the history of the production, writers, and film makers.  A good portion of my media blogs were centered around superheroes and the message that are conveyed by them.  It just takes a little digging, and the messages are clear.
          Truthfully, I don't think any of us will remember the specific details of critical thinking.  Five years from now we will not watch a commercials and whisper to ourselves "red herring," or "glittering generalities." The only person that would actually still do that would probably be Mr. Starace.  However, if we remember the main points of this semester, on how to be better critical thinkers about our consuming.

When critical thinking, healthy skepticism is key

Abducting People for Fun!

          Since this is my last blog post besides the reflection, I am going to come around full circle and end how I started off.  My first official post was about prank videos and how they are getting more and more extreme, even to the point where they are illegal, but they rationalize this by calling it a "prank" or "social experiment."
          I just watched this video this past weekend, where a a man pretends to be an uber driver but "abducts" them.
          The prankster's intentions were correct, as all social experimenters' are. He wants people to be more careful about how they go about entering a stranger's car. Harmless, right? Wrong.

1. He takes advantage of how drunk and disoriented the passengers are.
          Before he starts his spree of abduction, he speaks into the camera and directly stated that "people are gonna be getting out of the clubs and and the bars, and they're gonna be a little tipsy." If we know these people's attention are not at their capacity, shouldn't we expect them to not be as careful? If we really wanted to test how safe a person would be when entering an uber car, there should also be tests during different times of the day, and in different areas.  Although many people who use ubers, usually take one at night during this setting, it is not impossible to find people who called an über that are not drunk.
          Logic aside, taking advantage of how drunk someone is breaks a few of the pillars of character;  respect, and Hobart for sure (I don't have my handout wth me at the moment, so I don't know if there are more, but I will know it for the final.

2.  The prankster breaks the law.
          This dude willingly admits that he abducted the people that got in his car, shown by what he titled the video.  Regardless of how long he kept them in his car, or whether or not he let them out, abduction is abduction.  He straight up broke the law to make a video that is entertaining. This directly breaks the "Uncle Ben" philosophy: "with great power comes great responsibility." If he has the power to distribute any message he wants, it should be the best massage possible, yet he is saying that breaking the law is fine, as long as you are filming it. Just because you're making a video, it doesn't mean that it is impossible to make one that is is entertaining AND follows the law.

3.  He puts a band-aid on a flesh wound.
          As in my previous post, many pranksters use the line "it's just a prank" or "it's a social experiment" when things get out of hand. They think that just by saying this, everything is better. This prankster is no different. After he scares his passengers for a good 5 minutes, he tells them it's a social experiment, thinking that they will instantly be healed from ther brief second of trauma. After he tells them, he asks the passengers if they want him to actually take them to their destination. It seems that he is expecting them to say yes, as if they are now instantly best friends. Also, he justifies his action of committing a crime (#2) by relabeling the crime by calling it a social experiment.

The Bipolarism in Macklemore's Songs

          In Latin America unit 1, we learned about the artists that played such a prevalent role in government; socially, economically, and politically.  The artists are the only ones that can fully represent the complicated Latin American identity, which is a contradictory relationship between two ancestries: conqueror and conquered. That got me thinking. Even though North America does not have the same identity crisis as Latin America, do we still have artists that play a large role in other aspects of life, specifically government?
          I immediately thought about my homeboy Ben Haggerty, otherwise known as Macklemore. I was introduced to this gem of a music artist in seventh grade, when Ethan Borg forced me an earbud and made me watch the music video for "Thrift Shop." Macklemore's songs can be really serious with a lasting message, such as "Same Love," "Other Side," and "Wing$." However he is also known for making songs about random stuff, such as "Thrift Shop," "White Walls," and his most recent, "Downtown."
          Unlike many rappers (if you can call him a rapper,)  the subjects that he raps about are not revolving around love, drugs, success, or anything else.  He tends to rap about very serious social and identity issues.  "Same Love" talks about gay pride. "Wing$" speaks of the problem with consumerism.  "Otherside" talks about drinking addiction. "Kevin" talks about his brother who died from drug abuse.  One song that caught my attention was "White Privilege II" which talks about the matter of black lives.  I guess what I'm trying to say, is that just how Drake differs from other rappers because his music revolves around love, Macklemore differs from other rappers because his music revolves around social issues.
          However, like I said earlier, Macklemore also has a bunch of songs that are about random stuff.  "Thriftshop" is literally about a shopping spree at a thrift store. "White Walls" is about Cadillacs, and how he always wanted one. "Downtown" is an anthem about mopeds.

          Musically, the un-serious songs are better.  I could/would definitely listen to "Downtown" for a solid straight four hours.  However, it is the serious songs that are going to make a bigger impact.
          Macklemore is shooting himself in the foot.  I can't be the only one who is unable to take his songs seriously; even with his songs that are supposed to be very serious.  Whenever I hear the name "Macklemore," I immediately think of "Thriftshop," not "Same Love," "White Privilege II," or the Kings player.
          Macklemore most likely does this because he doesn't want to be fully classified as a political artist or a protest artist.  For my term paper topic, I wrote about Fela Kuti, a Nigerian music artist that seemed like his efforts would succeed, but eventually failed in the end.  One of the factors that contributed to his failure, was that he was so invested in making politicized music and protest music, that his band members aBANDoned him because they were just tired of him going on and on.  This is probably what Macklemore is trying to avoid.  If he just releases music with serious messages, people with eventually stop listening to him, because they will see it as whining about the problem and not actually fixing it.  People sometimes just want to let their hair down, spread their Wing$, jump on their moped and cruise downtown towards the thriftshop.
          As confusing as it is that Macklemore releases songs that are pretty much opposites, it makes sense why he would do it.  He just needs to stay popular, so that when he does release the serious songs, there is still an audience.
  

          

       

Disney Played Me

         Monday was great.  I got to take an extra day to study for the Starace Latin America (that I probably screwed up anyway) and I also got some great deals at the Folsom outlets, thanks to the Memorial Day Weekend Sales.  One of the gems I found was this pair of Vans.
          JUNGLE BOOK VANS!!!  When I saw this, I immediately had to buy them.  Believe it or not, I actually have not watched the Jungle Book film; the original animation or the recent CGI film.  I bought the pair of shoes because this is my form of self-expression/rebellion/staying cool, or whatever you want to call it.
          In my opinion, I have a pretty solid line-up of shoes.  I have Star Wars, two animal prints, one with Selena Quintanilla, and now I have added a Jungle Book pair. I guess I'm not living with the "simple bare/bear necessities," but at least I have one for every day of the school week! *self high-five
          So what does this have to do with media and Merchants of Cool?  Disney, one of the major companies that controls air-time on TV, collaborated to create this pair of shoes and a whole line up (and also the Star Wars pair and line up.)  Vans feed off of teenagers or people that want to be "unique," so they collaborate with one of the major networking companies, to get what is considered "cool" on their shoes.
          Although it may seem nerdy to some, having Star Wars or Disney characters on your shoes is just another way that the major television networks influence our everyday life; if you purchase these items, or anything with their label.
          I also think it is interesting that whenever I slip on these Jungle Book shoes, I am in a way representing Kipling, the same man who wrote White Man's Burden.  #DisneyMadeKiplingCool