Absolute Absurdity

The word “conspiracy” has a few meanings depending on how it’s used; likewise, it also has a few different connotations. It can be a verb used to describe joining a secret agreement to act in a hurtful or unlawful manner. It can also be used to describe a secret arrangement or plot. Both aforementioned definitions can generally be ascribed connotations of treachery, or mystery. Its final use is as a conspiracy theory, which is defined as the rejection of standard explanations in place of a belief that it was instead the result of a covert plot. As a study titled, “Stigmatized beliefs: Conspiracy theories, anticipated negative evaluation of the self, and fear of social exclusion” found, a social stigma is generally attached to conspiracy theories. While the use of the term conspiracy can be traced back to the earliest centuries of recorded history, it seems that even today the discourse surrounding conspiracies sees no end; ranging from the most skeptical minds to the most suspecting.

The All-Knowing-Knower of Nothing

In efforts to explain why some minds seem to reject the standard story, researchers have conducted various studies to explain what type of behavior, and what type of personalities tends to believe in conspiracy theories. One such journal by Hart and Graether, in 2018 finds that not only does it take a certain type of person to believe in conspiracy theories, the “distinct cognitive tendencies” displayed by such individuals can be used to predict whether or not they are likely to believe in such things. The research found that the most reliable indicator of a conspiracy believer was what they refer to as a constellation of traits known as “schizotypy”; which in short, is a theoretical concept in psychology referring to personality characteristics varying from normal dissociative, imaginative states and ranging all the way to extreme states of mind related to psychosis. These individuals, according to their research, differ in their pattern recognition tendencies in that they generally seek meaning or motive where there is none. While their research may look like more of an insult than anything, Hart adds that their research is intent to further the understanding of why some people are more attracted to conspiracies than others, and does not address strictly whether or not they are true.

Of course, the discourse surrounding conspiracies is not about whether or not they are true, rather it is about how often are they true. However the inherent flaw of conspiracy theories is akin to the fact that anyone can write a book, or draw a picture. In his essay Knitting Socks for the Beast: On Conspiracy, Jonathan Lethem compares conspiracies to a knitted sweater. The sweater relies on our hands and minds to create it. It is not real if not for our belief in them. And like a sweater, they begin to unravel. Beyond the outright limitless theories that “beg to be denied”, Lethem in the end concedes that society needs the paranoiacs and detectives in a balanced proportion, for without them society could be left in the dark.

A Two-Way Street

Not to say that there perhaps isn’t also an inherent flaw in the way conspiracies are viewed. That is, to say that to label anything a conspiracy is to discredit it, says David Coady who cites Sir Karl Popper as the man who gave conspiracy theories a bad rap. So bad is the view in fact, that Coady compares it to the label of heretics in the middle ages. This has the effect of discrediting an assertion merely because it implies conspiring particularly by an institution or of those in power. After all, a conspiracy theory is just that, a theory. This automatic assumption of falsehood given to conspiracies, Coady says, is just as much of a fallacy as those who irrationally dismiss them. In spite of the universal harm Coady says mainstream science positively imposes who generally concludes about conspiracy theorists in the words of a philosopher, “there is something wrong with how he thinks” (Cassam, 2015), people do conspire; they lie, and plot, some of us more than others.

A Silver Lining

After all some conspiracies turn out to be true: big tobacco knew cigarettes caused cancer for years, the government did poison alcohol during the prohibition, the CIA did get involved in a spot of drug trafficking, the CIA also did kidnap and conducted mind control experiments on people, the government was about to carry out terrorist attacks on its own people to justify war (only to be stopped by JFK himself), Watergate did happen, the government does spy on you.

So, when are they true? When are the biggest names in conspiracies actually right? Arguably the biggest name today, Alex Jones, has been the center of many controversial discourse over the years. To many, to describe anything Alex says as crazy is an absolute understatement. However some decide to look past the sort of superficial image that Alex has and instead look objectively at the things he says. Recently, Joe Rogan was one of these people. In his podcast, episode 1255 he had Alex on his show for the second time. In the podcast, which was so dense that Joe had to break out his “100% tobacco” to continue, Alex discusses everything from human-pig hybrids to interdimensional beings. Joe takes a stance that most would find reasonable, he surmises that Alex may use hyperbole but does not outright lie or say things that are unable to be fact checked. Of course, not everything Alex put on the table can be fact checked, but what can?

For starters, animal-human hybrids have been found to be completely viable and significant progress has been made. Possibly not in “man-bear-pig” sort of way (at least not yet) Alex insinuates in the podcast, scientists have however absolutely accomplished the feat of introducing human cells into non-human embryos.  These have all sorts of promise for the prolonging and repair of human bodies.

As for inter-dimensional beings, of course there is no proof that they are real. However, psychedelic users (more than LSD/acid) have long reported complex hallucinations along with reporting receiving information. Of course, they have also reported sentient beings that appear to even interact with the user. This is all based on the theory that certain psychedelics allow the user to open their eyes to an alternate universe. While the closest thing we have to evidence that government agents have used psychedelics to contact inter-dimensional beings is the CIA research project MK ULTRA, there has been research conducted with the goal of prolonging certain psychedelic experiences.

Continuing on the topic of MK ULTRA, the CIA’s at times illegal experiments into mind-control, there have been numerous testimonials of MK-ULTRA survivors discussing child kidnappings and organ trafficking, abuse, satanic ritualism, and here’s a kicker: child sacrifice running rampant in the military. Also terrifying is the recent research into 5G technology and its potential (and therefore potential to be weaponized) to affect the mind.

Perhaps most seemingly fictional is Alex’s constant references and claims regarding ESP and parapsychology. Which surprisingly has been the topic of interest to more than just paranoiacs and tarot card readers. One such institute was actually the CIA-sponsored Stanford research institute who speak of reported successful experiments in ESP, specifically in remote viewing.

Furthermore, it was no secret, at least to the CIA that the USSR also looked heavily into the subject. Who along with the CIA speak of reportedly successful experiments in (get this), psychokinesis. In one experiment, a woman was able to completely separate an isolated yolk from an egg.

Conclusions

Perhaps conspiracies get a little worse of a rap than it deserves, or maybe the topic deserves just as much skepticism as it gets today. Perhaps the truth is like the saying goes, lying somewhere in the middle. Maybe those who entertain them get a little more flak than they deserve; people like, dare I say, Alex Jones might get worse of a name than he deserves. Of course we must entertain the idea completely opposite of the skeptic. Maybe it is what the superhero and villain in all of us would hope, as J. B. S. Haldane puts it, “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine”.

Works Cited:

Blakemore, Erin. “Human-Pig Hybrid Created in the Lab-Here Are the Facts.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 26 Jan. 2017, news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/human-pig-hybrid-embryo-chimera-organs-health-science/.

Cassam, Quassim. “The Intellectual Character of Conspiracy Theorists – Quassim Cassam | Aeon Essays.” Aeon, Aeon, 17 Apr. 2019, aeon.co/essays/the-intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists.

Coady, David. “In Defence of Conspiracy Theories (and Why the Term Is a Misnomer).” The Conversation, 8 Nov. 2018, theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories-and-why-the-term-is-a-misnomer-101678.

“Commission Dossier.” Committee to Support the ITNJ, itnjcommittee.org/why-the-itnj/commission-dossier/.

Fields, R. Douglas. “Mind Control by Cell Phone.” Scientific American, 7 May 2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/.

Gallimore, Andrew R., and Rick J. Strassman. “A Model for the Application of Target-Controlled Intravenous Infusion for a Prolonged Immersive DMT Psychedelic Experience.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 30 June 2016, http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2016.00211/full.

Hart, Joshua, and Molly Graether. “Who Believes in Conspiracies? New Research Offers a Theory.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 25 Sept. 2018, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm.

LaMothie, John D. “CONTROLLED OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR.” Cia.gov, http://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000100120001-9.pdf.

Lantian, Anthony, et al. “Stigmatized Beliefs: Conspiracy Theories, Anticipated Negative Evaluation of the Self, and Fear of Social Exclusion.” European Journal of Social Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 5 June 2018, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2498.

Lethem, Jonathan. “Knitting Socks for the Beast: On Conspiracy.” The Paris Review, 5 Nov. 2018, http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/11/05/knitting-socks-for-the-beast-on-conspiracy/.

“NEWS REPORT ON RESEARCH PERFORMED BY STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON ABILITY TO VIEW LOCATIONS REMOTELY.” Cia.gov, http://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080011-2.pdf.

Rogan, Joe, and Alex Jones. “Joe Rogan Experience #1255 – Alex Jones Returns!” YouTube, YouTube, 27 Feb. 2019, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5yh2HcIlkU.

Buzzfeed- 18 photos of men crying that challenge gender norms (http://www.buzzfeed.com/lauragallant/18-photos-of-men-crying-that-challenge-gender-norms)

Now, more than ever, the floor is open to discussion on social equity. Whether it be #Blacklivesmatter, #Metoo, or #Loveislove, people are speaking up against the oppression that has suppressed the minority figures of the populous for so many years. These people have spoken up about their short comings society provides them, but as the topics are further explored, heads are being turned toward the current head of the table to listen, support, and analyze the struggles our society still holds. In the essays, “Roles of Men with Feminism and Feminist Theory” by Brian Klocke, with supporting evidence from Alison Jagger, an author, professor, and pioneer in introducing feminism to philosophy, “Teaching Men to Be Emotionally Honest,” by Andrew Reiner, a published author and writing and cultural studies professor at Towson University, and “Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Empathy and Forgiveness” by Loren Toussaint, professor of psychology at Luther College, and Jon R. Webb, professor of psychology at East Tennessee State University, the topic of men focused feminism, and the issues therein, to aid in feminist theory and equity, is thoroughly explored.  To accompany these factual based, or scholarly sources, on a similar topic, a TED Talk by Justin Baldoni, a series actor and often type casted as “manly” shares his opinion on “Why I’m done trying to be ‘man enough’.” These sources have catered toward the idea that in order to develop a greater societal gender equity, we must first build a more empathetic and humanist society that is aided by male-focused feminism. 

“Broken” Masculinity

 We were told since we were children that bullies derive from hidden insecurities. Bullying against differences, bullying against minorities, bullies taking their hidden insecurities and manifesting the accumulated shame into projected anger—especially in men. “Sexism negatively impacts men by forcing them into a hyper-masculinity which engages high-risk behavior and limits their emotional expression as full human beings. “ (Klocke, Nomas.org) To the women in the room, this is not an allowance for men to create these negative, stereotypical spaces, to the men, it is a call out. Sexism can also be a man suppressing another man. Understand that you are expected to withstand these hyper-masculine values. Your awareness is crucial to its antidote.

This high-risk behavior and limitation of emotional expression inhibits men from exploring their true feelings and allowing for a single outlet—anger. It takes teaching to counteract thousands of years of tradition to “Man-up”. “Despite the emergence of the metrosexual and an increase in stay-at-home dads, tough-guy stereotypes die hard. As men continue to fall behind women in college, while outpacing them four to one in the suicide rate, some colleges are waking up to the fact that men may need to be taught to think beyond their own stereotypes.” (Reiner 590) For it is men that feel the most, and society conditions them otherwise.

 In a National Institute of Healthy Study, study done by Toussaint and Webb, they found that “Many boys, especially early and middle adolescents, develop deep, meaningful friendships, easily rivaling girls in their emotional honesty and intimacy. But we socialize this vulnerability out of them” (Toussaint and Webb, Ncbi.gov).In so being, we must reteach what men so innately feel.  Similarly in Baldoni’s TED Talk, he goes on to say, “Another man holding him accountable to create a safe space for him to feel and the transformation was instant” (Baldoni, Ted.com). The men exploring these topics in their writing and speech are bringing awareness to this to create a solid foundation for support. This foundation will be the catalyst to support the women and other minorities suppressed. Love yourself to love another.

The Male Feminist

So why should men care? The human experience. Yes, it seems like a rather mundane supporter, but the empathy to another’s experience is to greater understand your own. The relationship of healthier emotional expression in men and greater empathy for other is seemingly irrelevant. However, Klocke and Baldoni continually explore the correlation. Klocke frequently addresses this topic in his short essay, “Although I believe that men can be pro-feminist and anti-sexist, I do not believe we can be feminists in the strictest sense of the word in today’s society. Men, in this patriarchal system, cannot remove themselves from their power and privilege in relation to women. To be a feminist one must be a member of the targeted group (i.e a woman) not only as a matter of classification but as having one’s directly-lived experience inform one’s theory and praxis “ (Klocke, Nomas.com). Use your greater heard voice and your newfound emotional expression to be the assisting and understanding voice to another. However, one must tread carefully as to not negate another’s experience and be correctly informed. Share feelings and understanding of existing human experience. Truly listen.

Accidental “Meninism”

The line is fine within the patriarchy, men’s activism cannot be the main focus, but rather the aid from which fuels to feminist liberty. This freedom from the success of the feminist theory will give men the social freedom and women the proper equity the human experience is entitled to. “The men’s movement should not be separate from the women’s movement but instead become a segment under the larger feminist movement. In this way men would not be taking center stage in yet another part of women’s lives allowing a slightly more subtle form of domination to continue” (Klocke, Nomas.com). Klocke makes a point to tell men not to silence the voices of those they are standing up for. Feminism is not their fight to win, but rather theirs to aid. Baldoni similarly states in an instance he experienced with his wife, “I would just cut her off mid-sentence and finish her thought for her. It’s awful. The worst part was I was completely unaware when I was doing it. Here I am, doing my part, trying to be a feminist, amplifying the voices of women around the world and yet at home, I am using my louder voice to silence the woman I love the most”(Baldoni, Ted.com).

So, let the women be the Rocky in their own stories. The authors of these texts were created to draw attention to a seemingly unending issue.  To find a possible resolution. Men, “Man-up” and listen to support the strong women in your lives. Do not let your bigger voice silence hers. Silence the voices that are not letting her truly speak.  Let women live in a world where they do not have to stand up and say #Metoo, just so that they seem believable. Teach the boys to have love for themselves and others and create the empathy they so innately craved in their youth. The human experience to care for yourself and others. Listen. Protect. Love.

Works Cited

Baldoni, Justin. “Why I’m done trying to be ‘man enough’.” Ted Talks, (www.ted.com/talks/justin_baldoni_why_i_m_done_trying_to_be_man_enough), 2017.

Klocke, Brian. “Roles of Men with Feminism and Feminist Theory.” National Organization for Men Against Sexism, (www.nomas.org/roles-of-men-with-feminism-and-feminist-theory/), 2013.

Reiner, Andrew. “Teaching Men to Be Emotionally Honest.” They Say/ I say, edited by Birkenstein, Cathy, Durst, Russel, Graff, Gerald, W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 589-595.

Toussaint, Loren and Webb, Jon R. “Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Empathy and Forgiveness.” The National Center for Biotechnology Information, (doi: 10.3200/SOCP.145.6.673-686), 2005, pp. 673-686.  

Evan Clauss

           In America the debate about gun control seems very clear.  One side wants gun regulation which includes background checks, age limits, and bans on certain guns.  The other side wants gun legislation to remain largely unchanged or even weakened. To the casual observer in this debate it would seem like a very clear “cookie cutter” debate.  This is not the case however. The debate on guns in America and regulation on guns goes much deeper than simply one side wants more control and one side wants less. The debate on guns goes back to the founding of our country and what rights mean the most to our citizens and which historical values remain important to Americans.  This debate is a battle of America’s most prominent values including small government vs big government, authoritarian vs individualists, and the rights of an individual vs the rights of a group.

The Background

           Typically, liberals, or those who lean left of center, wish to ban guns or increase regulations.  Many left leaning states, counties, or towns have no problem enforcing bans on certain guns such as the AR-15 or certain handguns they have deemed “unfit for civilian ownership”.  Under the guise of “keeping guns off the streets” they have successfully installed, what many would consider, and authoritarian government. This is why the debate about guns is such a hot button issue for many voters, gun regulation by definition means a stronger and more powerful central government.  Not to say that is a bad thing, but for many Americans small government and individual freedom is their “hill to die on”.

The Debate

Guns are in the news everyday.  It seems like once a week there’s a mass shooting.  The news people hear and read about gun rights certainly has an effect on what they view as an effective solution to the gun problem.  Typically people seek the news that they want to hear, and in the case of gun control that is no different. Most republicans or people that believe in less restrictive gun control will read a news source that agrees with them.  It goes the same way for Democrats or people who want more gun control. The news is just an echo chamber for your own beliefs but it is important to see what the underlying argument for or against gun control is. Both sides of this argument will use the appeals to try to sway people into believing they are correct and both sides are very effective at it.  Sources that call for more gun control use pathos masterfully  get their point across.

“without the weapons of mass murder, 50 New Zealand worshipers would still be alive; 17 Parkland, Fla., schoolchildren and staff members would still be alive; nine Charleston, S.C., churchgoers would still be alive; 11 Pittsburgh congregants would still be alive; 58 Las Vegas concert goers would still be alive; 26 Newtown, Conn., first graders and adults would”

Kristoff

 This style of reporting allows people who support gun control to “bury their head in the sand” and makes the case for banning guns even stronger. The “buzzwords” used by supporter of gun control also are used to inspire fear whether regardless of what the facts say. The tone used in this article paints gun owners as the bad guys. It’s impossible to convince someone that you should be able to own a “weapon of mass murder” and referring to certain guns as such is an attempt by the author to minimize the argument gun owners put forward.  Any argument for owning an AR-15 is unwinnable if your opponent views the gun as a “weapon of mass murder”.

In addition to labeling AR-15s weapons of mass murder, gun control supporters have another popular technique to try to rally support for their cause.  They paint gun owners with the same broad brush. While suggesting more gun control that many people oppose the writer of this piece said this:

What he said was perfectly reasonable. And it would seem that no reasonable person, regardless of their stance on firearms, would have issue with any of it”

Glanton

By suggesting that no reasonable person could oppose these gun control measures, the author is clearly saying people who do not want gun control are not reasonable. The author also makes the point that the ranks of gun control opposers have been filled with racists as well as bigots.  This holier than thou attitude allows those who support gun control to dismiss any argument made against gun control by being convinced that the person is unreasonable, racist or a bigot.

After reading or hearing any opinion on gun control it can be difficult to figure out exactly the underlying message of that piece as well as the previously unforeseen consequences of the suggested action.  The supporters of gun control want a bigger and more controlling government but they sell it by using pathos and other techniques to make it less obvious that they want to restrict individual freedom. Their use of pathos is the “sugar to make the medicine go down”.  Reading this article they call for several steps to reduce gun violence including, more background checks, a federal registry, red flag laws, laws that dictate how your gun is stored, and limiting the amount of guns someone can buy.  

All of this is said to reduce gun violence, and it may, however the underlying theme is abandoning the rights and freedoms that this country was founded on for an updated model of freedom. All of these suggestions require more regulations, more laws, and the tradeoff to that is less freedom.  The supporters of gun control value the safety of the group more than they value the rights of individuals which is a fairly new idea in American politics. This piece is very subtle when it comes to talking about restricting rights because they are discussing guns. However when you apply what they are suggesting to another topic, such as automobiles, it becomes very clear.  Imagine if someone suggested regulating how you can store your car, how many cars you can buy, background checks for buying cars and so on. The true message of the piece is much easier to decipher when you apply it to something else.

From across the aisle there is the viewpoint of less gun control or no more changes.  The main themes of those articles are just as difficult to find but under closer examination they reveal themselves.  In this article the main ideas behind most gun control movements are dissected and discussed.  The writer uses the appeals to support his viewpoint.

“Banning all semi-automatic guns would endanger lives”

Lott

 The writer is using pathos to appeal to the emotions of the reader and supports it with data to form their argument.  This articles theme is more freedom. The writer does not want the government to have more power, he believes it already has enough.  This viewpoint runs parallel to the traditionalist “god given rights” viewpoint. This article is written by someone who values our historic rights and does not want to change them.  This seems to be the theme of most people who oppose gun control. They value individual freedom and less government more than they value what the gun control supporters typically call “the right to live” and a broad, powerful government.  

When combined the rhetoric of those who support gun control is overwhelmingly filled with name calling and heartbreaking appeals while the opponents of gun control stick mostly to facts and data.  All of this debate can be boiled down into one simple question, that’s prevalent throughout the entire discussion, that all of us should ask ourselves.

Do you want the government to tell you what to do?

Works Cited

Glanton, Dahleen. “Racism and the Gun Rights Movement: Too Close for Comfort.” Chicagotribune.com, 29 Jan. 2019, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-guns-racism-20190128-story.html.

Kristof, Nicholas. “10 Modest Steps to Cut Gun Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 May 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/opinion/texas-shooting-guns.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.

Kristof, Nicholas. “New Zealand Shows the U.S. What Leadership Looks Like.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2019, http://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/opinion/new-zealand-gun-control.html?rref=collection/timestopic/Gun Control&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=collection.

“March for Our Lives: Gun Control Ideas Sound Good, but Are Deeply Flawed and Won’t Save Lives.” Fox News, FOX News Network, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/march-for-our-lives-gun-control-ideas-sound-good-but-are-deeply-flawed-and-wont-save-lives.

One of the most polarizing topics in today’s world of social media and entertainment is that of feminism. Echos of this controversy are heard in discussion of comics, video games, TV shows and movies alike. As more films begin to dip their toes into the waters of female empowerment, there has been both expected and unexpected push-back. Most recently, the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel, has sparked new fires within this debate.

A lot of the push-back for female-led films is made up of online keyboard warriors under the comfort of anonymity. Although the general rabble and misunderstandings do have a place in this conversation, the real discourse comes from those who have already more or less adopted a feminist worldview. These conversations take into account the nuance or lack thereof in the feminism of Captain Marvel, as well as how that feminism plays out in the real world. While some believe that Captain Marvel‘s feminism is resonant and powerful, ushering in a new type of female empowerment, others argue that Captain Marvel is not as ground-breaking as it is cracked up to be. As the world moves ever forward, humanity must continue to reevaluate the role of female empowerment and examine how and where it fits today.

The Feminism of Captain Marvel

Captain Marvel is undoubtedly a feminist movie. The very first official trailer for the film was praised for its clever word play showcasing the word “HER” fading into “A HERO.” A lot of noise has been made about the film as it is the first with a female lead in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Coming after 20 previous films, many boast that it’s about damn time. Although there are many amazing female characters already present in the MCU, none of them have had their own solo origin story. Captain Marvel is paving the way for the next era of superhero movies, which will hopefully include more female-led films.

Eliana Dockterman’s article for Time magazine entitled “How Captain Marvel Breaks the Superhero Mold” praises Captain Marvel for its altered approach to the female superhero. While acknowledging Wonder Woman as the first largely praised successful film with such a hero, she points out that because of this it had to be approached carefully. Wonder Woman could not be too polarizing, one way or the other, and the result was a “distinctly feminine hero,” complete with skirt and heels, a male love interest, and ideologies and displays of peace that were “awe-inspiring, not frightening.” What Captain Marvel does differently is allow its hero to be messy and more flawed. The character’s costume shows no excess skin, very reminiscent of something her male counterparts would don, and her attitude and mentality is more in line with those counterparts as well. Carol is unapologetic in her strength and wit. Because of this Captain Marvel is allowed to have bigger character flaws, and come off as not immediately and universally likable. Captain Marvel shows its audience of young girls that they too don’t have to be universally likable.

Where some writers expressing similar viewpoints can feel like they do not acknowledge or give full credit to the female-led films that have come before Captain Marvel, Dockterman excellently and eloquently does just this while also explaining how important Captain Marvel is. Separating the films and explaining how each had their own unique struggles, in no way does Dockterman come across as dismissing previous films, and this really helps to strengthen her claim.

Gathering quotes from the writer of the Captain Marvel comics (from 2012 and onward) Kelly Sue DeConnick gains Dockterman ethos, providing evidence that this is what Captain Marvel the character is intended to be. Additionally the incredible pathos of another female hero for young girls, this one dressed as nonsexual as possible, is reflected everywhere across social media in others who share the sentiments of Dockterman. In her words, “Captain Marvel represents a break from those walking clichés. That’s crucial because girls and boys need more female role models onscreen.” Providing more representation on screen can help shape the industry of film and allow more female-led films to be made.

Internet Backlash Against Captain Marvel

What Dockterman’s article only touches on, Alex Abad-Santos fully analyzes in his article entitled “How Captain Marvel and Brie Larson Beat the Internet’s Sexist Trolls.” Writing for Vox, Abad-Santos brilliantly and succinctly synopses the online backlash that Captain Marvel received before its release.

Perhaps one of the most important insights of Abad-Santos’ is how this backlash has been experienced by other films before. Films like Star Wars: The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, as well as the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot received similar backlash for their choice of more diverse casting. He states that “this kind of backlash consistently erupts when women and non-white characters are at the center of Marvel Studios superhero flicks or other cinematic franchises with long, less-diverse histories.” Abad-Santos claims that the coverage and handling of the Captain Marvel controversy has learned from these past discrepancies, and successfully guided the conversation more toward the film itself and its message.

The language used to describe those behind the backlash can be seen as demeaning, but every article in which the people that review bombed this movie are discussed refers to them as ‘sexist trolls,’ and other similar names. For the most part this is rightfully so. The only danger with reducing all of these people down to such labels, even when they may deserve it, is that it can cause the discourse to halt. Instead of diving into the psyches of these (mostly) men who have such a problem with the idea of feminism and diversity in film (and in general), they are further ex-communicated from the masses. What is often lacking within this debate is examinations of the misconceptions about feminism, as many on the other side tend to think all feminists hate men. In reality, prejudice against men is just called misandry. If the Internet ruckus says anything useful, its that confusing feminism for misandry may be something that the feminist movement needs to clear up in the years to come.

The Concern for All or Nothing Feminism

Monica Castillo’s article for the Washington Post stresses an important issue the Captain Marvel controversy has manifested. She chose to title her article as “Hesitating to go see ‘Captain Marvel’? Then you must be a bad feminist.” Immediately her title, much like an Onion headline, highlights the absurdity of its claim. This type of immediate logos sets the tone of Castillo’s article.

A major concern of people who may not have enjoyed Captain Marvel, or just weren’t particularly interested in it, is that if they speak their minds they will instantly be labeled as sexist. Of course, just because one doesn’t like Captain Marvel doesn’t mean they are automatically sexist. Castillo laments, “As a critic and feminist, I don’t like being told I will have to love this movie by default because it’s led by a strong female character.” Monica Castillo’s main claim is that Captain Marvel should not have to be treated as the end all be all of women in film, just as Wonder Woman and Star Wars before it should not have been. One could even argue that this viewpoint is reflected in Captain Marvel itself, when the title character finally tells her gas-lighting former comrade Yon-Rogg “I have nothing to prove to you.” Putting the success of all women on the shoulders of one superhero film is absurd, and Castillo does well in highlighting the concern for taking such all or nothing sides in the discourse on feminist films.

Loss of Subtlety and Depth

Jess Joho from Mashable had another important point to consider. In her article “Captain Marvel’s Shallow Take on Feminism Doesn’t Land,” Joho highlights the issues she had with Captain Marvel‘s plot and why she thinks it does more of a disservice to feminism. While she acknowledges that some scenes are emotionally impactful, she still found the film to be lacking upon deeper contemplation. She states that it “stinks of corporate-mandated female empowerment,” and the focus on it being the first female-led MCU film has allowed real character development to be stunted. Joho highlights the potential dangers of teaching young girls that they have to be like boys to be strong. “Captain Marvel is at its most empowering when it forgets to applaud itself for being Marvel’s first movie with a solo female lead,” and when lead actress Brie Larson is allowed to play off of other actors in quieter scenes.

While this is an important insight, to judge a Marvel movie on its depth may not be the best call. Seeming to address this, Joho does add “I hate holding [Captain Marvel] up to a level of scrutiny we’d never hold other equally OK Marvel movies like Ant-Man up to.” Similarly to Monica Castillo, Jess Joho anxiously awaits the day when one film is not the deciding factor in an entire discourse on representation in cinema.

Feminism’s Role Today

Today, the only people truly against feminism seem to be those small but loud minority groups that resort to review bombing and angry YouTube comments. Although due to their loudness they must still be addressed, the true conversation around feminism has moved to the different ways in which feminism manifests itself. While of course representation and female empowerment are important, some argue that not all forms of it are as commendable as others.

Reviewing films is in many ways a subjective experience. For some, Captain Marvel and its feminism came off as too on the nose or misplaced, while others found that it genuinely moved them to tears. The point of the discussion is not to decide whether this film is good or not – ultimately, that comes down to the individual. However, it is important to ask how feminist values manifest and what they say about society now.

When stripped down to its very core, the film is about more than feminism and representation. Like the superhero films before it, Captain Marvel aims at connecting its audience to its larger than life hero. Before being blasted by a Tesseract-powered space-plane engine, Carol Danvers was a bad-ass in her own day-to-day life. It is reconnecting with her humanness at the climax of the film that ultimately allows her to break free from her captors. When the Supreme Intelligence tells her “Without us, you’re only human,” Carol replies with “You’re right.” The following scenes showing Carol at various stages of her life having fallen and getting back up is not just a show of female resilience, but of human resilience. Good representation connects all viewers on the most basic level of human empathy, and as Carol Danvers gets up once again to face her former ally Captain Marvel tells its audience that to be human is to fall down and have the courage to get back up. This message is important not just to young girls and women but to everyone. Whether that message resonates is another story.

Works Cited

Abad-Santos, Alex. “How Captain Marvel and Brie Larson Beat the Internet’s Sexist Trolls.” Vox, Vox Media, Inc., 11 Mar. 2019, http://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/8/18254584/captain-marvel-boycott-controversy.

Captain Marvel. Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck. Performances by Brie Larson, Jude Law, Annette Bening. Marvel Entertainment, 2019.

Castillo, Monica. “Hesitating to Go See ‘Captain Marvel’? Then You Must Be a Bad Feminist.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 7 Mar. 2019, http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/07/hesitating-go-see-captain-marvel-then-you-must-be-bad-feminist/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b2c7754409f9.

Dockterman, Eliana. “Why Captain Marvel Is Unlike Any Other Superhero.” Time, TIME USA, LLC., 4 Mar. 2019, time.com/5541824/captain-marvel-different-superhero/.

Joho, Jess. “Captain Marvel’s Shallow Take on Feminism Doesn’t Land.” Mashable, Mashable, 9 Mar. 2019, mashable.com/article/captain-marvel-feminism-female-superhero/#WvgtqOmd0gqt.

Leishman, Rachel. “The Emotional Impact of Captain Marvel Still Has Us Tearing Up.” The Mary Sue, The Mary Sue, LLC, 18 Sept. 2018, http://www.themarysue.com/emotional-impact-of-captain-marvel/.

Peris, Sebastian, and Sebastian Peris. “First Reactions To Brie Larson’s ‘Captain Marvel’ Hit The Web.” Heroic Hollywood, Heroic Hollywood, 20 Feb. 2019, heroichollywood.com/captain-marvel-first-reactions/.

Technology is the discovery and creation of connections between things, often within a set of rules, in an efficient, easy, low cost, high yield way to achieve a specific function of the way things are organized. Science and technology can solve, create and innovate many problems and opportunities. But technology has both advantages and disadvantages. It is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. Leo Tolstoy once said. Blind faith in science is no different from ignorance. This sentence undoubtedly shows the attitude towards science and technology that human beings should have in modern society. But it backfires. In fact, what we see today is a kind of inexplicable enthusiasm for new technologies. We only pay attention to the new ability of new things, but ignore the negative impact of technology on society. Some costs may be necessary for the development of human society, but we should also calm down while evolving and define the true meaning of science and technology after the correct treatment of nature and culture.

Much of the debate about technology revolves around substitution and elimination. But does the emergence of new things really have the ability to replace or eliminate existing things? In his article, Nicholas Negroponte eloquently said that “The Physical Book Is Dead In 5 Years.” Historically, any kind of historical progress has not been the result of pure technological progress, nor has electronic books. Digital technology and the Internet have certainly greatly boosted the production and use of e-books, but historically, technological progress has meant only opportunity and possibility. In the history of books, the invention, use and promotion of printing were undoubtedly revolutionary. But this revolution in production technology does not mean a revolution in reading behavior. In the case of e-books, this digital advance appears so far to be little more than a way to supplement, rather than change, human reading habits. Clearly, what Nicholas Negroponte was saying in his article and interview was an over-obsession with technology. He even listed Kodak, in order to proof his opinion. Although this evidence does support his view, but it does not support the future of e-books and printed books in the same way. Because this example is something that has already happened. We can’t accept this way of proving that his prediction is what’s going to happen. Such a view is undoubtedly blind, at the same time, this view is not acceptable to readers. In short, by death he does not mean that paper books will die, but that they will gradually be replaced by e-books. E-books are born with the development of technology. So its argument is actually to support the replacement of old technology by new technology.

The relationship between old and new technologies is not only the relationship between e-books and paper books, but also the update iteration in artificial intelligence and automation. “with the development of technology, automation will gradually replace some manual jobs, ” Mr. Lee said in an interview. He mainly proposed that robots will replace the basic labor force first. The application of automation in various industries will bring long-term impact to traditional industries. According to the author’s prediction, drivers, inspectors, waiters and other industries will be replaced by robots first. Combined with the level of technology in our society today, we can really feel the possibility of this prediction. But this is not absolute. Ultimately, automation is a product of technological progress. The product may put some people out of work, but the technology is innocent. Therefore, the discussion of science and technology should start from the consequences of the development of technology. That is, the advantages and disadvantages that new technologies will bring to us after their birth, instead of blindly predicting whether new things will replace old things. Lee’s views in the interview were not as absolute as Nicholas Negroponte was.This way of speaking is with his own thinking about the uncertainty of technological development.This way of speaking is very appealing. This not only allows the reader to feel that his point of view has been considered, but also the reader’s doubts he also considered. Although no one can predict the future, combined with the achievements of the development of science and technology in the real world, his views can indeed make readers feel more empathy.

For these new technologies that have been born, we need to view the development and collision of old and new things objectively from a neutral position. Believe that human natural selection is in line with the needs of The Times. But for those not technical, we Will how to treat and choice, and this is a difficult problem, Anthony Sessa expressed in his article“Apple ‘s AR Glasses in his article Will Replace Your TV,” no restrictions on the size and site of AR headset Will Replace the traditional TV, this article was written by the author according to the data more, for example, a called Ahmad Nazree cool augmented reality helmet are slowly starting to enter the market. Therefore, although the content of the report has some authenticity, it does not have much practical value. This also gives the reader a sense of substitution at the beginning of the article. This is a common but persuasive way of writing. This article lists some facts, such as developed AR products. It is more effective to prove the author’s point in this way. However, the author only gives the data in the article, not the user experience. Whether a technology product can be promoted depends largely on the user experience. This argument, only from one point of view, can not fully convince the reader to support his point of view, so it is wishful thinking.

In the article Teachers vs Technology: Can Technology Replace Teachers? The author first assumes the scenario after technology replaces the human teacher, and then makes various comparisons to get the pros and cons. For example, although children no longer need to go to school, but children lose the opportunity to make friends, the machine can not provide humanized education like a teacher. The author has already had his own argument for this proposition – that is, the machine cannot replace the human teacher. As the author explains in the article, the connection between people is crucial to learning behavior. The existence of the school is not only to teach students knowledge, but more importantly, through the contact between teachers and students, students can experience some experiences outside the textbook. Although this is an outdated proposition, because this proposition has already produced results, the author still expresses that new technology does not replace all traditional things. The author used the way to ask questions when expressing opinions. This allows readers to combine their experiences to compare the author’s point of view, which is more likely to resonate with readers.

Through these articles, I think their unified focus is whether the current technology development is completely correct. In some industries, machines can never replace labor. Such as teachers, doctors, libraries, art. Because the machine has no mind. The emergence of high technology will only make people’s lives more efficient and convenient. It cannot completely change certain aspects of human society. Not all inventions are qualified to replace humans. When we talk about what technology can bring to humans, we should also consider which technology can make us lose. For example, the unemployment rate, the proportion of property, and the subject of human society are still human. Not all humans need all advanced products. Traditional culture is not in contradiction with modern science and technology. We can neither promote the development of modern science and technology at the expense of the disappearance of traditional culture, nor can we ignore the development of modern science and technology to protect traditional culture. Only by adhering to the two wings of modern science and technology and traditional culture can we create a brighter future for the development of the entire human race.

Work Cited:

Reisinger Don. “A.I. Expert Says Automation Could Replace 40% of Jobs in 15 Year.” The Fortune. 10 January, 2019. http://fortune.com/2019/01/10/automation-replace-jobs/

Fedena. “Teachers vs Technology: Can Technology Replace Teachers?”Fedena Blog. 4 May, 2018. https://fedena.com/blog/2018/05/teachers-vs-technology-can-technology-replace-teachers.html

Sessa Anthony. “Apple’s AR Glasses Will Replace Your TV.” Augment. 19 April, 2018. https://medium.com/augment-the-world/apples-ar-glasses-will-replace-your-tv-f1c055abf10f.

Mims Christopher. “Predicting the Death of Print.” MIT Technology Review. 23 August, 2018. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420329/predicting-the-death-of-print/

By: Sebastian Lechuga

In today’s drug society, there is a huge controversy whether or not the U.S. should continue to pursue the idea of legalizing marijuana throughout the country.   Marijuana was first introduced to the American public in the early 1900s from the people of Mexico during the Mexican Revolution war.  However, after the Marijuana Tax Act in 1931, Marijuana became illegal everywhere in the U.S.  Now, there are 15 states that currently have marijuana outlawed, while 10 states have decided to legalize it.

Many people are still shadowed from the stereotype that think smoking marijuana is horrible to consume, and have reasons to think so.  However, as research is continuing on, people are discovering the joyful wonders marijuana brings towards people.  Marijuana is continuously being legalized in other states, as governors of the US are realizing there is little harm that comes from the green leaf.  For that, I strongly believe that weed should be legal everywhere because it is safer than other drugs, it helps people sleep at night, several successful people have admitted smoking it, and is useful for medical purposes.  

            As mentioned earlier above, Marijuana has been growing popular in the American public due to the amazing things it does for people, and how safe it is for people to consume it.  Ever since, marijuana has been publicly known, not one person has died from an overdose, unlike other drugs such as tobacco, and alcohol.  In the article, “This is Why Marijuana should be Legal Everywhere”, by Renee Jacques, she says, “Ever since marijuana has been known to mankind, not one single-account of death from overdose has been recorded.  On the other hand, in 2010, 38,329 people died from drug overdoses.  Sixty percent of those were related to prescription drugs.”  It is publicly known that overdosing from weed is entirely impossible.  In order to overdose from smoking weed, a consumer would need to smoke 1,500 pounds in a time span of 15 minutes which cannot happen.  Every year, more and more people are starting to smoke more weed because of how safe it is for the human body compared to other drugs. 

            Another reason why weed should be legalize is because it benefits users more hours of sleep at night.  In the marijuana world, there are two distinct strains that have different purposes.  The two strains are sativa, and indica.  In the article, “The difference between Indica and Sativa.  Do they Matter?” written by The Plant, they point out the differences between the two strains.  They state, “The real difference between today’s Indica and Sativa plants is in their observable traits during the cultivation cycle.  Indica plants tend to grow short with thick stems and broad, deep-green leaves.  They also have short flowering cycles, and grow sufficiently in cod, short-season climates.  Sativa plants have longer flowering cycles, fare better in warm climates with long seasons, and usually grow taller with light-green, narrow leaves.”  Not only do these two strains look different, but it gives the consumer different effects while smoking it.  Sativa strains make the consumer happy, and more energetic.  Indica makes the body calmer and more relax which is why people would consume the indica strain for bed at night. 

In recent years, scientists are discovering that marijuana is used to help treat various conditions that people have.  People are now starting to make medical marijuana, and are selling them at local dispensaries.  In the article, “Medical marijuana FAQ”, it defines it as, “Medical Marijuana uses the marijuana plant or chemicals in it to treat diseases or conditions.  It’s basically the same product as recreational marijuana, but it’s taken for medical purposes.  The marijuana plant contains more than 100 different chemicals called cannabinoids.  Each one has a different effect on the body.  Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the main chemicals used in medicine.  THC also produces the ‘high’ people feel when they smoke marijuana or eat food containing it. Cannabinoids- the active chemicals in medical marijuana – are similar to chemicals the body makes that are involved in appetite, memory, movement, and pain.”  Cannabinoids helps people who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, reduce anxiety, reduce pain, it kills cancer cells, and controls the nausea that occurs from the cancer chemotherapy.   

Marijuana just doesn’t help people with mental illness, but it also provides great relation for your muscles.  Steve Kerr, a professional basketball coach for the Golden State Warriors, admitted that he has used marijuana in the past to help recover from his recent knee surgery he suffered from.  Another figure in the NBA that has notably smoked weed is Stephen Jackson.  Stephen Jackson played for a long time with several teams, and some can agree that he had a great career.  He truly believes that the NBA should make athletes decide if they want to smoke or not.   In the article, “Stephen Jackson Says He Smoked Marijuana Entire NBA Career, Details Usage”, by Alec Nathan, Stephan states, “I think they should take it off.  Of course,” Jackson said.  “Why not? … I smoked my whole career.  I had smoked my whole career.  I had a hell of a career—didn’t miss no games.  I ain’t going to say it helped.  But as far as coming down after the games, relaxing, it helped.  Before the games, nobody can play high, especially in the NBA.  It’s a high level of competition, and guys are great, so nobody can play high, but after the games, guys need to come down and relax, because it’s a physical sport” (Nathan).  Smoking weed helped Stephen through his career, and I’m sure many more athletes are doing the same. 

Even my own dad as admitted using marijuana for the same purposes Steve Kerr and Stephen Jackson had.  Now, my dad in no way was a professional athlete, nor was he an athlete at all, but he told me that he consumed marijuana because his work was very physical, and he complained for having a lot of aches in his muscles.  He talks a lot about his back right now, and he can’t really do anything physical for long periods of time because of it.  However, after a long day of work, “a pearl” he would say, always helped him recover to get ready for the next day at work. 

Marijuana has been viewed so poorly and unfairly for too long of a time, especially throughout the United States.  Marijuana has forever been known as a “gateway drug”, and is the main argument for people deciding not to smoke it.  That statement is complete false.  “As Scientific American points out, the studies that show people who use marijuana first before trying other drugs is correlation and not causation.  People who gong on to use harder drugs also tend to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol before trying the other substances plus with our current stigma on pot only people who are predisposed to being a ‘outlaw drug user’ are going to smoke pot” (Jacques).  Marijuana has been proved over and over, that it is okay for it to be consumed by users from all around. 

Marijuana would continue to have its haters, however with the immense research that is currently being done, hopefully people can see or realize the joy it bring to us and to the rest of the world. 

Works cited

Jacques, Renee. “This Is Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Everywhere.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 7 Dec. 2017, http://www.huffpost.com/entry/marijuana-legalization_n_4151423.

Lava, Neil. “Medical Marijuana FAQ.” WebMD, WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/medical-marijuana-faq.

Nathan, Alec. “Stephen Jackson Says He Smoked Marijuana Entire NBA Career, Details Usage.” Bleacher Report, Bleacher Report, 5 Jan. 2018, bleacherreport.com/articles/2752464-stephen-jackson-says-he-smoked-marijuana-entire-nba-career-details-usage.

“The Real Difference Between Sativa vs Indica.” Weedmaps, 25 Mar. 2019, weedmaps.com/learn/the-plant/difference-between-indica-sativa/.