A question I've been asking myself a lot lately: why are so many online commenters so embarrassingly sycophantic? I've always viewed comments sections as a place to attempt to say something that somehow adds something to the discussion. That needn't always be serious -- though in some instances it probably should be -- but it should go beyond what simply liking a post conveys. There's no need for shallow "I agree with this!" and "Thank God for you, poster!" -type remarks. I mean, I guess they might make the OP feel even better, and probably the folks posting them are motivated by some hope of being "seen" by either the OP or others. And on occasion I'm guilty of these motives as well; I've definitely made empty approval noises on Sirena content and squee'd a little when one of the Sirens gave them emotional reacts. But when they're commenting on the posts of celebrities and popular figures and comments number in the hundreds and thousands -- and when they're not saying anything -- it seems unlikely that their comments will attract any attention whatsoever. So why? But I guess it doesn't take much effort to write, "This was masterful. SO MUCH TRUTH!" so it's not like they're wasting much time shooting their shot for a lil' pat on the head. (more...)

Since last night, I've been pondering the relationship between expectation and hope -- specifically, the (limited, but perhaps not insignificant) extent to which hope implies expectation. Usually, when "philosophical" thoughts along these lines pop into my head, I'm able to throw Google some search terms and find several academic articles or essays that more or less explore what I'm thinking in the direction I'm contemplating. Often there will be a specific name for that philosophical problem; occasionally it's even one with which I was once familiar but have forgotten in the years since my study.

Not so with expectation vs hope. There are, to be sure, a number of pieces in which the two concepts are examined and contrasted, but I'm not seeing any (yet) that seem at all in accord with my thoughts on the subject. Many of these articles seem to be evaluating the concepts in a career/commercial context; the ones that seem more aligned with my thoughts in terms of context (those with a medical/psychological perspective) still, perhaps understandably, aren't approaching the subjects in the manner of my thoughts. (more...)

So I visited Field of Screams in Lancaster County, PA, last night. As haunts go, it was comparable to other attractions incorporating multiple attractions in terms of quality, though it had a few standout areas -- I particularly enjoyed the multi-floor setup of the Den of Darkness (one ground-level area resembled a frontier saloon/brothel; toward the end there was attic area populated with all manner of creepy dolls), and the layout of the Nocturnal Wasteland was impressive though the theme was kinda weak. (The green light/fog combination they employed to give the visual impression of wading through a toxic swamp was brilliant, though.)

And there was one part that left me especially cold, though that's less the fault of the haunt itself than the actor. And it's not an uncommon thing. (I mean, I wouldn't be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time it happened -- I haven't been to a million haunts, and not every haunt affords the opportunity for it -- but I could certainly buy a current Marvel Legends figure at a local comic shop markup.) Nearly every time I pass through a redneck cannibal area and the actors can interact with patrons, an actor singles me out to make a crack about "dark meat" or some other reference to the color of my skin. Last night the area was loud and the guy had wrapped his arms entirely around my head, so his speech was muffled, but I think he said, "Papa Ray looooves black meat." Ha ha ha. (more...)

So I'd linked the Vox article and included the accompanying text in a couple of places on social media, but I wanted to make sure I had a record of it here in my own space as well. (While I don't expect I have any regular readers these days who'd be inclined to weigh in, feel free to comment if you come across this whenever and have thoughts!) So here's the link to the Vox piece, and here's a Huffington Post article containing screencaps of the comments that have landed him in hot water. My post intended to initiate discussion and/or opinion sharing is below:

I'm curious to hear folks' thoughts on the Kyle Kashuv controversy. (I've included the Vox link because it gives a fairly comprehensive overview of the situation and includes abundant links to further information and assessments, not because of the particular viewpoint expressed here -- though I am in agreement with the author's sentiments about identity politics.)

For my part, I don't have a strong opinion about Harvard's decision -- I wouldn't have been outraged had Kashuv retained his admission, nor am I pleased that his admission was rescinded. Still, I acknowledge the difficult position in which the university was placed and I can imagine why rejecting Kashuv ultimately seemed like the better option. (Among other things -- and barring some demonstrated growth and insight that I haven't gleaned from reading several months of the kid's Twitter feed -- I don't know how favorably his peers would have responded to him on campus. I imagine at best he would have been a decidedly polarizing figure, and I'm not sure a student like that is a positive addition to a campus community.)

In any case, I'm sure Kashuv will be fine in the long run, and I hope that his stated contention to do better wasn't contingent upon the Harvard situation's resolving in his favor.

So, not a novel gripe, but I continue to be annoyed with people who decry the rise of "identity politics" when they really mean that they're frustrated at being made to consider issues involving people who are not them.

Another not-novel sentiment: I'm really sick of Bill Maher. I admit that I used to kinda like the dude, and in any case I found his show worthwhile -- I mostly could've done without the "comedy" bits (some did land), but his New Rules weren't entirely lacking in insight and the panel discussions were generally informative exchanges. What I especially liked about Maher there, though, is that he often seemed aware that he was the least informed participant in those conversations and therefore served less as an active interlocutor than a moderator whose goal was to prevent the content from getting too esoteric. He'd say something like, "Whoa, this is a comedy show! A little context for the viewers at home," and then the panel members would explain what they were talking about so that the conversation was more accessible to someone who wasn't a policy wonk or a political insider. Since I was really watching the show for those exchanges -- and since during those moments I sometimes found myself confused (and I generally try to keep abreast of political news) -- I appreciated Maher's input there all the more. (more...)