Lots of people, myself included, have called Donald Trump racist. I think that's reasonable, given his statements on Mexicans and policy statements about Muslims. Though to be honest, I'm not sure he himself is racist. More accurately, he doesn't mind saying racist things if it makes him popular. I really doubt he believes in anything but himself.
But on the race issue, I've been interested in how non-whites have reacted when they aren't the ones in the crosshairs. For instance, Asian-Americans are one of the few minorities that Trump hasn't insulted, but they are largely Democrat and getting more so, with a particularly poor opinion of Trump.
Jewish-Americans have been solidly against Trump, despite never being directly targeted. One person online explained that Jews never get behind such movements because they know that even if anti-Semitism isn't mentioned at first, it will be along soon enough. Essentially, it's principle of the First They Came... poem. And indeed, although Trump himself doesn't do it, a number of his supporters have targeted Jews.
And then there are African-Americans. There have been lots of stories marveling at their lack of support for Trump. He's scored literally zero among blacks in some state polls, and some national polls have him in fourth, with the meager support of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson edging-out Trump. And yet, Trump hasn't really attacked them. I mentioned once that he'd be in trouble if he overtly attacked them, and he has indeed avoided it. His you-have-no-hope-might-as-well-vote-for-me plea was pedantic, but groups have forgiven him for more than that. Although I've heard no one spell out the philosphy of Blacks on this, I'm guessing they see it the same way as Jewish Americans: when someone stakes their career on satisfying White America's worst impulses, they know where that's heading.
So that explains why Trump's attempts at outreach to the African-American community have fallen flat, even if they are about as sincere as he gets. I've seen many people online explain that Trump's appearances at Black churches is done for the benefit of Whites: to win the election, Trump needs the support of not just hard-core racists, but also hypocrites who like his fearful message but don't want to think of themselves as racist. So seeing Trump palling around with Blacks at a church will convince them he isn't so bad, and thus you can vote for him and not be racist. And this was underlined recently when Trump visited a Black church on Sunday, then called for nationwide stop-and-frisk the next day, thus nuking any African-American support he might have built up. So this strategy of tiptoeing around racism may win over more whites, but it isn't convincing anyone else.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Burger Time With A Computer
When I was young I - like many children - didn't like mixing foods. One way that manifested itself was that I preferred my hamburgers plain, no mustard, ketchup, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. Well actually, I was okay with cheese.
Even though that's usual for kids, it caused some problems. For instance, my parents liked to put onions in the hamburger patties. I'm not sure why, I guess they saw it in a magazine it something. But I hated it. A hamburger is the simplest food there is, so adding in something I didn't really like just made it unappetizing. Of course - as with so many things parents do - I later realized it was actually not too bad an idea.
The other casualty of my dislike for mixed foods was McDonalds. Most kids love McDonalds as much as pop-culture programs them to. But their assembly-line burgers with their blur of condiments were just gross to me. Sure, over time I got used to food with a variety of flavours. Now I have relatively few foods that I hate, and no alergies or religious restrictions, so I don't really think about the ingredients of anything I order. If I order a fast food burger, it doesn't even occur to me to hold any toppings.
Anyway, it's taken a while, but here's how far I've come: Today I used McDonalds' custom burger kiosk. And there were several levels of irony.
It was kind of fun, bashing pictures of food on the touchscreen, trying hard to look like I know what I'm doing. But more than anything, it was one of rare points when I honestly felt like I'm living in the future. Yeah, I'm using a computer to order at McDonalds; I'm George Jetson. That's why it seems futuristic. So many of the really mind-blowing changes in our society are totally new concepts, rather than a modern spin on old things. Like you never saw Facebook in science fiction. It never occured to anyone because it's not like anything that was around then. But ordering fast food is something that's been done for decades; doing it in a gratuitously-modern way is just how I envisioned the future.
The process was fairly easy. Though in retrospect, I would have expected an easier interface from McDonalds. It also wasn't as superfast efficient as you would expect from a collaboration between technology and the Western service economy. For instance, the machine had to tell me to get a locator beacon from the counter. (Okay, I'm not sure if that's what their called; I mean the thing that identifies who you are and where your table is.) I have to ask at the counter? That cancels the system's two biggest benefits: efficiency and not talking to people.
When the burger was delivered, it came on a rustic cutting board, with the fries in a precious little deep-fryer basket. It was like what you'd expect in a chain restaurant where you have to chose between sitting at the bar or grill. But on closer inspection, the cutting board was plastic. Oh, McDonalds, even in the future, you can't help but be McDonaldsy.
This is an interesting concept, and it could change how fast food works. I've always been interested in how McDonalds organizes itself for efficiency. At the tiny McDonalds counter we used to have in downtown Kitchener, you had a great opportunity to see how everything works, because most of the food preparation happened within ten feet of the counter. So you see them making the burger patties dozens at a time, watch the worker with the condiment gun firing at each open faced bun. And you see how they try to make the maximum number of offerings from the fewest possible basic ingredients.
But now, all they have to do is have the basic ingredients available, and leave it to the customers to figure out what things they want to create out of them. So maybe one day they won't bother trying to make up standard sandwiches. Instead of researching what people want and marketing it, they'll just concentrate on getting those basic building blocks to the restaurants as cheaply as possible.
(Only after typing "building blocks" did I realize they have created Lego-as-food.)
But I'm not sure that it's going to work out they way they intended. See, I never saw anyone else getting their custom burger. Sure, I was there well after the lunch rush (I wanted as few people as possible to watch me blunder through the process.) But there were still a lot of people going through, and many were using the self-serve kiosk, but it was mostly to order from the standard menu. So maybe this personalized, lots-of-choice isn't what people want from McDonalds.
They've been trying to cater to a sophisticated clientelle for a while. They're pushing coffee, they made nicer interiors, and suddenly all their restaurants look like they were designed by a Frank Lloyd Wright fanboy. (Speaking of which, if I have any readers in Pennsylvania, could you check on Fallingwater and ensure that it hasn't been turned into a Mcdonalds.) But I don't know if any of this has really changed the way people think about Mcdonalds. It's true that as I left after my meal, I noticed there was a Ferrari in the parking lot, which has to be a first. But mostly it was just people coming in and casually ordering standardized food, same as it ever was.
So perhaps they should embrace the way we see them. For instance, instead of the cheesy cutting board, here's my idea: develop a machine that prints out the burger containers and assembles them on the premises; you can upload your own designs, so your burger comes in a traditional container, but a custom one. That way, you're getting the fast food experience, but it's a modern take on it.
Even though that's usual for kids, it caused some problems. For instance, my parents liked to put onions in the hamburger patties. I'm not sure why, I guess they saw it in a magazine it something. But I hated it. A hamburger is the simplest food there is, so adding in something I didn't really like just made it unappetizing. Of course - as with so many things parents do - I later realized it was actually not too bad an idea.
The other casualty of my dislike for mixed foods was McDonalds. Most kids love McDonalds as much as pop-culture programs them to. But their assembly-line burgers with their blur of condiments were just gross to me. Sure, over time I got used to food with a variety of flavours. Now I have relatively few foods that I hate, and no alergies or religious restrictions, so I don't really think about the ingredients of anything I order. If I order a fast food burger, it doesn't even occur to me to hold any toppings.
Anyway, it's taken a while, but here's how far I've come: Today I used McDonalds' custom burger kiosk. And there were several levels of irony.
- McDonalds, that paragon of standardization, is betting their future on personalization
- I get to choose my topings at McDonalds, 40 years after I could have used the opportunity
- Given the choice, I put lots of weird stuff on it
- I voluntarily added onions.
It was kind of fun, bashing pictures of food on the touchscreen, trying hard to look like I know what I'm doing. But more than anything, it was one of rare points when I honestly felt like I'm living in the future. Yeah, I'm using a computer to order at McDonalds; I'm George Jetson. That's why it seems futuristic. So many of the really mind-blowing changes in our society are totally new concepts, rather than a modern spin on old things. Like you never saw Facebook in science fiction. It never occured to anyone because it's not like anything that was around then. But ordering fast food is something that's been done for decades; doing it in a gratuitously-modern way is just how I envisioned the future.
The process was fairly easy. Though in retrospect, I would have expected an easier interface from McDonalds. It also wasn't as superfast efficient as you would expect from a collaboration between technology and the Western service economy. For instance, the machine had to tell me to get a locator beacon from the counter. (Okay, I'm not sure if that's what their called; I mean the thing that identifies who you are and where your table is.) I have to ask at the counter? That cancels the system's two biggest benefits: efficiency and not talking to people.
When the burger was delivered, it came on a rustic cutting board, with the fries in a precious little deep-fryer basket. It was like what you'd expect in a chain restaurant where you have to chose between sitting at the bar or grill. But on closer inspection, the cutting board was plastic. Oh, McDonalds, even in the future, you can't help but be McDonaldsy.
This is an interesting concept, and it could change how fast food works. I've always been interested in how McDonalds organizes itself for efficiency. At the tiny McDonalds counter we used to have in downtown Kitchener, you had a great opportunity to see how everything works, because most of the food preparation happened within ten feet of the counter. So you see them making the burger patties dozens at a time, watch the worker with the condiment gun firing at each open faced bun. And you see how they try to make the maximum number of offerings from the fewest possible basic ingredients.
But now, all they have to do is have the basic ingredients available, and leave it to the customers to figure out what things they want to create out of them. So maybe one day they won't bother trying to make up standard sandwiches. Instead of researching what people want and marketing it, they'll just concentrate on getting those basic building blocks to the restaurants as cheaply as possible.
(Only after typing "building blocks" did I realize they have created Lego-as-food.)
But I'm not sure that it's going to work out they way they intended. See, I never saw anyone else getting their custom burger. Sure, I was there well after the lunch rush (I wanted as few people as possible to watch me blunder through the process.) But there were still a lot of people going through, and many were using the self-serve kiosk, but it was mostly to order from the standard menu. So maybe this personalized, lots-of-choice isn't what people want from McDonalds.
They've been trying to cater to a sophisticated clientelle for a while. They're pushing coffee, they made nicer interiors, and suddenly all their restaurants look like they were designed by a Frank Lloyd Wright fanboy. (Speaking of which, if I have any readers in Pennsylvania, could you check on Fallingwater and ensure that it hasn't been turned into a Mcdonalds.) But I don't know if any of this has really changed the way people think about Mcdonalds. It's true that as I left after my meal, I noticed there was a Ferrari in the parking lot, which has to be a first. But mostly it was just people coming in and casually ordering standardized food, same as it ever was.
So perhaps they should embrace the way we see them. For instance, instead of the cheesy cutting board, here's my idea: develop a machine that prints out the burger containers and assembles them on the premises; you can upload your own designs, so your burger comes in a traditional container, but a custom one. That way, you're getting the fast food experience, but it's a modern take on it.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Mighty Vocal People
With the baseball season winding down, people are talking about who's going to win the MVP awards. Of course, I was hoping that Toronto's Josh Donaldson would win for a second straight year, but he fell out of the running after he joined most of his teammates in taking September off. My next choice would be the Astros' Jose Altuve, since he is, like me, both short and not a member of the Boston Red Sox.
But like any discussion of MVP awards, we also have a debate of the definition of Most Valuable Player. You might think that it is tantamount to the best player. But the "most valuable" player could just be the player who makes the biggest difference to their team. But then, the player that makes the biggest difference could just be the only good player on a bad team.
It can be a frustrating argument. Yes, I know, part of the fun of sports - especially baseball - is the arguing about it. But in this case, it's arguing about what we're arguing about, and that's never fun. But it gets worse, because in the past few years, a lot of people go into the baseball MVP discussion with the argument that Mike Trout is the best player in baseball, so he be MVP. That's despite the fact that Trout trails probable-winner Mookie Betts in just about all offensive categories.
I've heard a few people make a similar argument in basketball, calling for LeBron James to be the default MVP as the best overall player, even if Steph Curry had the best season. Essentially the argument is that James and Trout should win the award year-in, year-out, until another player surpasses them in general talent.
So the MVP could be the player who had the best season, the player who made the biggest difference, or the best overall player, even if he doesn't have the best season this particular year. Just what we need, a third definition.
I guess this idea is a result of our celebrity culture, where the designated star gets to be the centre of attention, with details like reality not mattering. But another contributing factor is the weird place baseball occupies in American culture right now. As I mentioned once before, baseball has become a local game, where fans care about their own team, but not the sport in general. That's unfortunate for someone like Trout: as a generational talent in a popular sport, he should be the most popular guy in America. But most baseball fans care more for their own team's utility infielder.
This situation seems to be frustrating baseball journalists. They're trying to give credit to a star player, but no one seems to be listening. And they have to worry for the long-term health of a sport that's traditionally been defined by individual stars. So sometimes their efforts to laud young talent at every opportunity sounds a bit heavy handed.
But like any discussion of MVP awards, we also have a debate of the definition of Most Valuable Player. You might think that it is tantamount to the best player. But the "most valuable" player could just be the player who makes the biggest difference to their team. But then, the player that makes the biggest difference could just be the only good player on a bad team.
It can be a frustrating argument. Yes, I know, part of the fun of sports - especially baseball - is the arguing about it. But in this case, it's arguing about what we're arguing about, and that's never fun. But it gets worse, because in the past few years, a lot of people go into the baseball MVP discussion with the argument that Mike Trout is the best player in baseball, so he be MVP. That's despite the fact that Trout trails probable-winner Mookie Betts in just about all offensive categories.
I've heard a few people make a similar argument in basketball, calling for LeBron James to be the default MVP as the best overall player, even if Steph Curry had the best season. Essentially the argument is that James and Trout should win the award year-in, year-out, until another player surpasses them in general talent.
So the MVP could be the player who had the best season, the player who made the biggest difference, or the best overall player, even if he doesn't have the best season this particular year. Just what we need, a third definition.
I guess this idea is a result of our celebrity culture, where the designated star gets to be the centre of attention, with details like reality not mattering. But another contributing factor is the weird place baseball occupies in American culture right now. As I mentioned once before, baseball has become a local game, where fans care about their own team, but not the sport in general. That's unfortunate for someone like Trout: as a generational talent in a popular sport, he should be the most popular guy in America. But most baseball fans care more for their own team's utility infielder.
This situation seems to be frustrating baseball journalists. They're trying to give credit to a star player, but no one seems to be listening. And they have to worry for the long-term health of a sport that's traditionally been defined by individual stars. So sometimes their efforts to laud young talent at every opportunity sounds a bit heavy handed.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Going Back For Thirds
With a contentious election in the US, both parties are trying to get every vote out. And that means the quadrenial effort to explain why you shouldn't vote for a third party. This year they are particularly tempting given the acrimony of the primaries. If you had your heart set on Bernie Sanders, you might be tempted to vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein as an ideological alternative. Similarly, a Republican turned off by Donald Trump's racism or anti-free-trade stances might be looking at the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson.
Fortunately, the third party candidates themselves are doing plenty to encourage voters to go back to the mainstream candidates. Johnson's biggest splash in the whole campaign was his interview embarrassment where it turned out he had never heard of Aleppo, the besieged rebel-held city in Syria. Embarrassing as that was, I have to give him credit for owning his ignorance and saying he would research the topic - most modern American conservatives would have tried turning it into a positive: "of course I haven’t heard of some little town in Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I’m more interested in what matters to American taxpayers."
As for Stein, she seems to be an amalgam of all the bad attributes of left-wing politicians:
But as always, the main reason not to vote for them is that they simply can't win. Even if you have solid evidence that one of them is the best of all possible presidents, a vote for them would still be a wasted vote unless you know there’ll be a groundswell of support for them unprecedented in American history. By a nice coincidence, Facebook’s memories feature brought up this cartoon I made eight years ago, for illustrating the concept. Also, tech writer Clay Shirky does a great job of explaining it.
It's a really frustrating topic. It can be depressing when we see just how few people have a passion to make the world a better place. It can also be hard to come to terms with how few people have the skills to apply it. But times like this expose how few people combine the two into effective change. And when I see that it's easy to lose hope.
But now I find out about a new group that has this combination of hearts and minds. I've come across a Facebook group of actors, writers and producers from various incarnations of Star Trek who are campaigning against Donald Trump. And interestingly, they're putting special emphasis on reminding people not to vote for a third-party candidate. Oh Star Trek, however crazy the world gets, you're always there for me. On the other hand, I'm more than a little worried to discover that Star Trek is the lone oasis of humanity in America.
Fortunately, the third party candidates themselves are doing plenty to encourage voters to go back to the mainstream candidates. Johnson's biggest splash in the whole campaign was his interview embarrassment where it turned out he had never heard of Aleppo, the besieged rebel-held city in Syria. Embarrassing as that was, I have to give him credit for owning his ignorance and saying he would research the topic - most modern American conservatives would have tried turning it into a positive: "of course I haven’t heard of some little town in Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I’m more interested in what matters to American taxpayers."
As for Stein, she seems to be an amalgam of all the bad attributes of left-wing politicians:
- populist promises that the country can't afford
- promises the president doesn't have the power to implement
- simplistic understanding of economics
- flirting with conspiracy
- citing or ignoring scientific evidence as is convenient.
But as always, the main reason not to vote for them is that they simply can't win. Even if you have solid evidence that one of them is the best of all possible presidents, a vote for them would still be a wasted vote unless you know there’ll be a groundswell of support for them unprecedented in American history. By a nice coincidence, Facebook’s memories feature brought up this cartoon I made eight years ago, for illustrating the concept. Also, tech writer Clay Shirky does a great job of explaining it.
It's a really frustrating topic. It can be depressing when we see just how few people have a passion to make the world a better place. It can also be hard to come to terms with how few people have the skills to apply it. But times like this expose how few people combine the two into effective change. And when I see that it's easy to lose hope.
But now I find out about a new group that has this combination of hearts and minds. I've come across a Facebook group of actors, writers and producers from various incarnations of Star Trek who are campaigning against Donald Trump. And interestingly, they're putting special emphasis on reminding people not to vote for a third-party candidate. Oh Star Trek, however crazy the world gets, you're always there for me. On the other hand, I'm more than a little worried to discover that Star Trek is the lone oasis of humanity in America.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Countdown To The Final, With Europe
The World Cup of Hockey is over. Going into it, there was much talk about the two oddball teams, North America (Canadians and Americans under 23) and Europe (people from outside the countries that got their own teams, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic and Russia.) The concepts weren't very popular when they were introduced a year-and-a-half ago. I was actually pretty surprised that the NHL (organizers of the tourney) went through with it.
But the big surprise was how the fans really came around on the new teams. The North America team was predictably fast and exciting, and fans couldn't help cheering for their enthusiasm. There was much disappointment when they narrowly missed the knockout round. It was also a good showcase for the talented young players in the league, which was presumably the driving force behind the idea. And the Europeans outperformed expectations, finishing as runners-up, and they probably offered the champion Canadians their biggest challenge. They took their underdog status and turned it into motivation as great as the national pride the other teams had. The only downside was that they were hard for us in Canada to hate. Even beating Finland in 2004 was more satisfying.
So what's going to happen in the future? Let me be the first to suggest: seven-game series, Canada vs. The rest of the world. Also, let's have a Soccer World Cup team featuring the best from outside Europe, South America, and Africa.
The other change is that now, hockey fans will admit that they were too quick to reject a new idea, and will have new respect for the leadership of the NHL. Ha, I had you going there for a moment. Of course not, they'll just go back to hating everything. It's too bad, because the fandom's hatred for Commissioner Gary Bettman has really gotten out of hand. I don't really like Bettman either, but booing him at absolutely every public appearance is pretty childish.
And let's face it: it's not because of anything he's done, but who he is. I've always been amused by how people involved with hockey have unending trust in "good hockey guys." And that seems to be their answer for everything, we need to get some good hockey guys to handle it. Gary Bettman is not a hockey guy. Not literally - he cut his teeth in the NBA. And he definitely doesn't seem like a Hockey Guy: he's short, American, intellectual, and a lifelong big-city dweller. He seems like exactly the person who destroys the sport in Don Cherry's nightmares.
But the big surprise was how the fans really came around on the new teams. The North America team was predictably fast and exciting, and fans couldn't help cheering for their enthusiasm. There was much disappointment when they narrowly missed the knockout round. It was also a good showcase for the talented young players in the league, which was presumably the driving force behind the idea. And the Europeans outperformed expectations, finishing as runners-up, and they probably offered the champion Canadians their biggest challenge. They took their underdog status and turned it into motivation as great as the national pride the other teams had. The only downside was that they were hard for us in Canada to hate. Even beating Finland in 2004 was more satisfying.
So what's going to happen in the future? Let me be the first to suggest: seven-game series, Canada vs. The rest of the world. Also, let's have a Soccer World Cup team featuring the best from outside Europe, South America, and Africa.
The other change is that now, hockey fans will admit that they were too quick to reject a new idea, and will have new respect for the leadership of the NHL. Ha, I had you going there for a moment. Of course not, they'll just go back to hating everything. It's too bad, because the fandom's hatred for Commissioner Gary Bettman has really gotten out of hand. I don't really like Bettman either, but booing him at absolutely every public appearance is pretty childish.
And let's face it: it's not because of anything he's done, but who he is. I've always been amused by how people involved with hockey have unending trust in "good hockey guys." And that seems to be their answer for everything, we need to get some good hockey guys to handle it. Gary Bettman is not a hockey guy. Not literally - he cut his teeth in the NBA. And he definitely doesn't seem like a Hockey Guy: he's short, American, intellectual, and a lifelong big-city dweller. He seems like exactly the person who destroys the sport in Don Cherry's nightmares.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Over Analyzes Popular Culture, Like A Boss
I just saw that the Anti Defamation League (fighters of anti-semitism) has listed Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol. Yes, he's just a generic meme cartoon, but he's become such a favourite of of hate groups that he made the list. It's just the most extreme example of something I've been watching for a while: the way that memes can go in so many directions and mean so many things.
As an example is where I'm coming from, I grew up in the eighties, when Garfield was everywhere. Yes, today you may know him simply as one of the last comic strips standing, but back then he was one of the most widely-licensed characters in pop-culture. Of course, being a licensed, trademarked property, all the products he appeared on built on the same concept: Garfield is lazy, pro-lasagna, anti-Monday. That attitude of blandness with a soupçon of rebellion clicked with many children and their parents, and the cat's image was slapped across all kinds of products. But none of it really challenged Garfield's basic personality.
Today, I think the closest property to that would be The Minions. I see them on products, and I see them on memes passed around Facebook. I mean harmless memes, not the hateful ones. Though, I don’t know, maybe they’re on the racist memes too, after all, you’d only have to cut and paste some graphics and you’ve got Minions campaigning for white power. Okay yellow power. But even in the part of the Internet that I frequent, I've seen the Minions used for everything from Dad Jokes to 9/11 memorials. My point is that they appeal to the sort of family demographic, but now it's the people themselves who are deciding how the characters are used, so sometimes they stray from what the creators and marketers originally intended.
But in the social media world, any idea can be attached to any image. It’s a lot like the Winnie The Pooh trying to quote Camus that I mentioned a few weeks ago. I’ve also seen Kermit drinking tea saying some really snotty things that even Miss Piggy would think is a little harsh. And Captain Picard has been supporting surprisingly anti-intellectual concepts.
Mostly it’s just kind of incongruous, or so silly it can’t be taken seriously. Though it sometimes bothers me how it misrepresents a work. Take Peanuts, for instance. It seems that people believe a couple of things about that strip:
I can’t explain the first point, but the second is not too surprising, since it was one of the few big media properties to make religion an unapologetic topic. But Peanuts was also distinctive in being one of the very few media properties to approach religion from a troubled, melancholy perspective. Instead of giving simple and easy religious solutions (<cough> - B.C. - <cough>) it assumed that there were Christians who could discuss the spiritual intellect, and if necessary, doubt. So it seems wrong to see Charlie Brown and Linus assuring everyone - in the wrong font - that you’ll have no troubles if you just accept Jesus.
Speaking of fonts, it's also weird that The Meme Font can represent so many things. (Apparently it's just Impact with dark outlines.) Yes, I know, it's just a font. But it used to be that fonts sort of meant things. Take Helvetica, for instance. You can print anything you want in it, as long as you pay the royalty to the trademark holders. But for some reason, it gets used for generic things: packaging, instructions, signs giving directions. The Meme Font, on the other hand, gets used for anything. It could be heartwarming, spiteful, clever. I've seen it used to spread both information and lies. It belongs to all of us and none of us.
Maybe sometime soon we'll see marketers crack down on the use of licensed characters in consumer-created graphics. Or maybe they'll try to taylor their characters to be all things to all people. Take the Smurfs, for instance. They each had a different personality, so whoever you are and whatever Facebook meme you want to create, you can find the Smurf for you, even if you have to use White Power Smurf. Okay, Blue Power.
As an example is where I'm coming from, I grew up in the eighties, when Garfield was everywhere. Yes, today you may know him simply as one of the last comic strips standing, but back then he was one of the most widely-licensed characters in pop-culture. Of course, being a licensed, trademarked property, all the products he appeared on built on the same concept: Garfield is lazy, pro-lasagna, anti-Monday. That attitude of blandness with a soupçon of rebellion clicked with many children and their parents, and the cat's image was slapped across all kinds of products. But none of it really challenged Garfield's basic personality.
Today, I think the closest property to that would be The Minions. I see them on products, and I see them on memes passed around Facebook. I mean harmless memes, not the hateful ones. Though, I don’t know, maybe they’re on the racist memes too, after all, you’d only have to cut and paste some graphics and you’ve got Minions campaigning for white power. Okay yellow power. But even in the part of the Internet that I frequent, I've seen the Minions used for everything from Dad Jokes to 9/11 memorials. My point is that they appeal to the sort of family demographic, but now it's the people themselves who are deciding how the characters are used, so sometimes they stray from what the creators and marketers originally intended.
But in the social media world, any idea can be attached to any image. It’s a lot like the Winnie The Pooh trying to quote Camus that I mentioned a few weeks ago. I’ve also seen Kermit drinking tea saying some really snotty things that even Miss Piggy would think is a little harsh. And Captain Picard has been supporting surprisingly anti-intellectual concepts.
Mostly it’s just kind of incongruous, or so silly it can’t be taken seriously. Though it sometimes bothers me how it misrepresents a work. Take Peanuts, for instance. It seems that people believe a couple of things about that strip:
- The Comic Sans font looks like Charles Schultz’ lettering
- Peanuts is a good medium for Christian messages.
I can’t explain the first point, but the second is not too surprising, since it was one of the few big media properties to make religion an unapologetic topic. But Peanuts was also distinctive in being one of the very few media properties to approach religion from a troubled, melancholy perspective. Instead of giving simple and easy religious solutions (<cough> - B.C. - <cough>) it assumed that there were Christians who could discuss the spiritual intellect, and if necessary, doubt. So it seems wrong to see Charlie Brown and Linus assuring everyone - in the wrong font - that you’ll have no troubles if you just accept Jesus.
Speaking of fonts, it's also weird that The Meme Font can represent so many things. (Apparently it's just Impact with dark outlines.) Yes, I know, it's just a font. But it used to be that fonts sort of meant things. Take Helvetica, for instance. You can print anything you want in it, as long as you pay the royalty to the trademark holders. But for some reason, it gets used for generic things: packaging, instructions, signs giving directions. The Meme Font, on the other hand, gets used for anything. It could be heartwarming, spiteful, clever. I've seen it used to spread both information and lies. It belongs to all of us and none of us.
Maybe sometime soon we'll see marketers crack down on the use of licensed characters in consumer-created graphics. Or maybe they'll try to taylor their characters to be all things to all people. Take the Smurfs, for instance. They each had a different personality, so whoever you are and whatever Facebook meme you want to create, you can find the Smurf for you, even if you have to use White Power Smurf. Okay, Blue Power.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Fill Ms. Fission And Charge Up The Flex Resistor
I want to assure you that I’m not going to talk about cars for a third straight post. This is about technology and media, and it’s only tangentially inspired by cars.
Earlier this week I wrote about the big rumour that Apple would buy McLaren. That was reported all over the net, but the Yahoo! article attracted attention for the wrong reasons. Their article referred - both in the headline and the article - to McLaren being vaulted to fame when their car was used as the time machine in Back To The Future. Of course, car fans, movie fans, children of the eighties, and pretty much everyone else, knows that was a Delorean. It’s hard to imagine that you could confuse the two: McLaren was only making race cars when the movie came out, but wouldn’t go into street cars until more than a decade later, by which time Delorean was long gone. Also, McLaren been pretty profitable, and haven’t yet had any cocaine scandals. Pretty much the only thing the two have in common is five of the letters in their names.
So it begs the question of how this could have happened. I mean, I think of myself as having a good memory, and I’m not getting paid to do this. Yet if there’s any chance that I’ve misremembered a fact, I look it up to confirm it. Why do I do this? Because it’s the Internet, and you can look up anything in five seconds. So it’s hard to imagine the mentality of someone who is evidently writing about topics they don’t know well, but doing it all from their flawed memory. In fact, the article somehow stayed up for at least another 24 hours with the incorrect reference (it’s down now.)
Of course, Yahoo! had something else on their mind for those 24 hours: news that they’d been hacked two years ago, exposing the information of the whole half-billion people with an account, and they didn’t even know about it until now. Many people asked how they could have made such a mistake, but I was thinking yeah, I can see that.
But let's not make it all about Yahoo!; Really, this is part of a bigger problem that the news media doesn't value knowledge. I'm not sure what exactly they do value, but it's clear that the people in front of cameras and keyboards don't know more than most people. It's also a good reminder of the work needed in Internet news. During the current election campaign, I've been increasingly believing that the current media establishment is doing more harm than good, and that I can't wait for new media to paradigm-shift it out of existence. Well, perhaps that new media isn't ready.
Earlier this week I wrote about the big rumour that Apple would buy McLaren. That was reported all over the net, but the Yahoo! article attracted attention for the wrong reasons. Their article referred - both in the headline and the article - to McLaren being vaulted to fame when their car was used as the time machine in Back To The Future. Of course, car fans, movie fans, children of the eighties, and pretty much everyone else, knows that was a Delorean. It’s hard to imagine that you could confuse the two: McLaren was only making race cars when the movie came out, but wouldn’t go into street cars until more than a decade later, by which time Delorean was long gone. Also, McLaren been pretty profitable, and haven’t yet had any cocaine scandals. Pretty much the only thing the two have in common is five of the letters in their names.
So it begs the question of how this could have happened. I mean, I think of myself as having a good memory, and I’m not getting paid to do this. Yet if there’s any chance that I’ve misremembered a fact, I look it up to confirm it. Why do I do this? Because it’s the Internet, and you can look up anything in five seconds. So it’s hard to imagine the mentality of someone who is evidently writing about topics they don’t know well, but doing it all from their flawed memory. In fact, the article somehow stayed up for at least another 24 hours with the incorrect reference (it’s down now.)
Of course, Yahoo! had something else on their mind for those 24 hours: news that they’d been hacked two years ago, exposing the information of the whole half-billion people with an account, and they didn’t even know about it until now. Many people asked how they could have made such a mistake, but I was thinking yeah, I can see that.
But let's not make it all about Yahoo!; Really, this is part of a bigger problem that the news media doesn't value knowledge. I'm not sure what exactly they do value, but it's clear that the people in front of cameras and keyboards don't know more than most people. It's also a good reminder of the work needed in Internet news. During the current election campaign, I've been increasingly believing that the current media establishment is doing more harm than good, and that I can't wait for new media to paradigm-shift it out of existence. Well, perhaps that new media isn't ready.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)