My first Youtube video

How to fake your death online through the eyes of Zizek

Higher quality version available on Vimeo.

An analysis of how suicide, amateur online video production, and the notion of the ‘reality of the virtual’ can come together with the help of such intellectuals as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Albert Camus, and Slavoj Zizek.

Bibliography

Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of The Metaphysic of Morals. Chapter 2 retrieved from: http://www.bartleby.com/32/603.html

Mill, John Stuart. (1859). On Liberty. Chapter 5 retrieved from: http://www.bartleby.com/130/5.html

Camus, Albert. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus. Chapter 4 retrieved from: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/camus.html

Zizek, Slavoj. Lecture: The Reality of the Virtual. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5b_Q_KOGqE

Video Footage retrieved from Youtube in Order of Appearance

“Mrnick1990 commits suicide live on camera!!!!” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciWP-zjeRdQ

“Suicide on Webcam” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE-aBIaUSVg

“Sad Real Suicide” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlsk19DdYgs

“Faris Suicide!” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uA2Rd1hBYg

Fla. Teen Commits Suicide With Live Web Audience” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhCH9mt0Pow

Advertisements
Published in: on February 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm  Leave a Comment  

The citizen’s war. (6) (video 2)

The latest ramping up of violence in the neverending Israeli-Palestinian “war” has been accompanied by a different type of media coverage according to Strangelove.

Palestinians used handheld cameras and cell phone videos to show the horrors of war they were experiencing.

Rather than consuming the pro-Israel corporate media story that is well known to dominate U.S. airwaves and news print, people had the option of hooking into Youtube or other public internet video sites to view what Palestinians were recording on their own.

But how reliable are these videos? From a skeptical viewpoint, not very. The following video is labelled as showing Israeli war crimes. People lie in the street wailing in agony. But all we are shown is the result of some explosion, not the source. Admittedly, if it were an airstrike, this would be hard to do.

Detractors commenting on the video claim that this was not an Israeli attack, but an accidental explosion on the part of Hamas. Who are we to trust? Online video does not help the viewer at all as long as we do not know who the source was, when it was recorded, where, and so on.

Additionally, this video, if it is even legitimate, was very difficult to locate on Youtube’s servers. Strangelove’s statement that citizens have alternatives to corporate media stories is true only insofar as citizens behave independently of their TVs and seek out amateur war coverage online. Its an argument which requires empirically tested backing.

Raw amateur footage:

Al Jazeera footage:

The media coverage of a separate attack during the same conflict is very different. We see the Israeli airstrike occuring. Death toll statistics accompany images of bodies on the streets. The source of the coverage and the clarity of the video lends legitimacy to the occurrence. Its a much more convincingly crafted story.

My point is that online amateur war coverage still has its limits. It is not nearly as prominent, reliable, or well done. We can be glad that alternatives exist, but we should not over estimate their power.

Published in: on February 1, 2009 at 8:22 pm  Comments (1)  

The Normalization Thesis and a new musical invention. (5)

Normalization in the context of market ideology is the draw for people to retain the status quo by buying into capitalism its and bottomless-pit purchase, get bored, purchase more cycle. Its about being a good consumer and not asking subversive or analytical, (god-forbid critical!) questions.

C’mon! Just be normal! Why shouldn’t you love watching the same hockey game over and over again? Don’t fall in love! Love doesn’t exist. We have something that will take the edge off your hormones. What’ll it be? Booze or porn? Why not both!

Woody Norris has invented hyper-sonic sound. People usually tell him “Cool, but what’s it good for?”

Hyper-sonic sound is to the speaker what the laser is to the lightbulb. Hypersonic sound doesn’t dissipate in all directions, but is focused in a straight line.

For the first time people will be able to listen to true stereo sound. The speakers you’re used to let sound from the left channel into your right ear. With these new puppies you’ll be able to aim the separate channels at each ear and neither will interfere with the other.

Nevermind the long term effects of aiming what is effectively an ultrasound at your cerebellum.

Or nevermind that this new invention has already been appropriated into capitalism’s value system. Not much escapes the normalization thesis these days.

Nevermind the non-economic uses for this invention. The U.S. military is already using it to communicate with its troops on the ground to better annihilate the enemy, er… human beings.

Norris says pretty soon you’ll see it in malls, grocery marts and big box stores. Waiting in line to pay you’ll suddenly step into the sound zone without knowing it. The speakers will lock onto you and you won’t have a chance. Who doesn’t want to be entertained while waiting in a long line? And nobody else can hear what you’re watching.

Norris claims he’s creating silence at the same time as advertising foofaraw, as anyone can take another step and they’ll be free of the hyper-sonic soundwaves.

But lets not kid ourselves. All Norris is selling is one more new way to grab people and shake a few more coins out of their pants pockets. He’s in it for the money. He says so himself.

Published in: on January 31, 2009 at 6:28 am  Leave a Comment  

Feminism is for Fridays: online misogyny. (4) (video 2)

A lot of information is coming our way these days about women in society.

Strangelove has pointed out that for the first time some women are out-earning and out-graduating men. I look around me, and at least for the University of Ottawa, I can’t argue there. The majority of my Communication classes have more women than men.

Contrary to what feminists predicted, there is gender parity on the internet. Strangelove argues that its close to 50/50 on Youtube.

The gender wage gap has stagnated at 22.2 per cent according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Why don’t we hear about the wage gap in the media? It could be because, according to Strangelove, 70 per cent of journalists and 90 per cent of film makers are men.

But its important to not obfuscate other issues by focusing solely on the plight of women in the U.S., which many would argue does not match up to the plight women face internationally in some Islamic countries. Additionally, racial minorities can be just as damning in the workplace as gender.

Vicky Lovell’s (Ph.D) study on Jobs and Diversity in the Communications and Media Sector revealed that the wage ratio for whites versus minorities was very similar to that of men versus women. In the Wired Telecom industry “white men’s earnings are more than 27 per cent higher than minority men’s, and white women’s more than 31 per cent higher than minority women’s … white men earn 30 per cent more than white women, and minority men earn 34 per cent more than minority women” (p.17).

But there is a men’s rights activism rising alongside the newly unabridged female voice on the Internet.

Youtube users like ArgusEyes point out that in certain cases, men are more oppressed than women, specifically from a legislative point of view. I do not agree with all of his points but I will say that in every argument neither side is always completely correct.

It certainly appears that Feministing has removed his response videos, which were not derogatory or offensive to women. Although he might have made incorrect arguments, in the absence of a reason as to why she removed his videos, we should not assume that she was indeed avoiding debate. Perhaps she saw no reason to allow amateurism on her channel. Or there might be a history between these users that we are not aware of. We could fault Feministing for using ad hominem against those she rightly opposes for using ad hominem. Although, her use of it might be intentionally ironic.

Stereotypes and false generalizations usually contain some truth or no one would listen to them. Thus, although ArgusEyes may have a point when he says that breast cancer research receives disproportionately more funding than prostate cancer research (when both kill as many people), or that men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes, we should not be so quick to cry “oppression against men is worse!” but instead try to understand why these things are so, and look for other minorities who are being oppressed as well.

Indeed I have always interpreted feminist argumentation on its best merits and seen it as a force for equality. Getting our undergarments in a knot over which gender is treated worse is a fatuous exercise. Equality for both genders should be the highest goal.

~

ArgusEyes’ blog: http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2008/05/10/men-are-more-oppressed-than-women.aspx

Feministing blog: feministing.com

Vicky Lovell. Making the Right Call: Jobs and Diversity in the Communications and Media Sector. Retrieved from: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C364.pdf.

IWPR. The Gender Wage Ratio: Women’s and Men’s Earnings. Retrieved from: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf.

Published in: on January 29, 2009 at 9:18 pm  Comments (2)  

The Superbaby Syndrome (1)

Aldous Huxley has rolled over in his grave.

The Youtube user ‘sociallyskilled’ is in the process of posting videos of her children, including video of an unassisted birth, and her youngest child learning to use sign language and sing Abba songs.

Strangelove correlates this with an American desire to create the super baby. Indeed, there is a superbaby syndrome in the US and Canada, but it’s not the babies who have the disease. It’s the parents who are ill.

Before, reading to your child and playing classical music were the rumoured methods of giving your infant a headstart in the world. A little Sesame Street didn’t hurt either. Recently, new video games and electronic toys have begun to emerge, targeting infants as consumers and promising improvements in early childhood cognitive development.

The V Smile, from Vtech - www.vtechuk.com

The V Smile, from Vtech - http://www.vtechuk.com

But, as Strangelove reminds us, there is no evidence to show that these products have improved the cognitive development of children.

Indeed, I would suggest that they have much more to do with a parent’s needs, wants, and desires than improving a child’s life.

Lawrence Kutner, Ph.D, agrees. He suggests parents should beware of “overpriced and overrated “development aids” that appeal more to your emotions than to your child’s.”

Kutner makes light of the “ludicrous claims made by people who take parents’ money under the pretense of turning their babies into geniuses.”

Some ludicrous claims from Vtech's V Smile

But the subject is a serious one. Why do parents want to give their babies a headstart against others?

Strangelove argues that the competitive and ordered society we live in motivates these parents to one-up others so that their children can get the best jobs possible.

But I would add a few things to this line of reasoning.

Videogames, electronic toys, and TV shows for infants are the new babysitter. When parents don’t have enough time to pay attention to their children but don’t feel bad sitting them in front of a screen because some company says it will be good for them we are breaching dangerous ground.

These products make a parent’s job easier. When a parent uses these products, they are reinforcing the power of the screen over their child’s life rather than spending time with their children, showing them affection, and holding and caring for them.

Isn’t anyone concerned that the screen might have the opposite of the intended effect? The last time I checked the best way to ensure your child will be socially adept was to hold it, pay attention to it, and genuinely care for it.

Karen Schmidt and Jeffrey Cohn found that the more a mother and infant shared positive responses with one another, the better that child would be at social interaction later in life (p. 12). Ignoring one’s child or depriving them of human interaction has negative consequences for social development.

Instead of creating super babies, we are creating screen-hungry consumers and more time for parents to spend on their blackberries.

~

Sources:

Kutner, Lawrence. The Superbaby Syndrome. Retrieved Jan. 26 from: http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/beware-the-superbaby-syndrome/

Karen Schmidt and Jeffrey Cohn. (2001). Human Facial Expressions as Adaptations: Evolutionary Questions in Facial Expression Research. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. Vol 44:3-24.

Published in: on January 27, 2009 at 4:01 pm  Comments (2)