A Beautiful Life

A resilient fisherman makes a day-to-day living helping some friends down at the nearby docks, living on a sweet boat that his parents left him after they wound up in a tragic accident.

One of his mates likes to play music and he assists at his gigs around town, one night impressing a legendary widow with his exceptional singing and practical songwriting. 

She likes him so much that she invites him to patiently record at her in-house studio, with her daughter producing the songs, it's an incredible opportunity.

But he isn't ready at first the temperamental transition playing with his head, he still doubts his homegrown talent and trepidatiously remains hyper-critically unsure.

His songs are solid however and as he records them enthusiasm blossoms, and after the first release is met with applause self-assured belief tantalizingly manifests.

Moving from the wharf to superstardom in a couple of months still takes quite the heavy toll.

With newfound relationship responsibilities. 

Tantamount tension.

Consummate joy.

I suppose a lot of people are shy and it's difficult to prepare for mass observation, the overwhelming scrutiny of every micromovement generating controversy, buzz, and takeaway. 

I see the most ridiculous stuff in the For You news section on my cell (can someone hook me up with better articles?), it's like Malibu Stacy getting a new hat, I'm really just not that into it.

Nonetheless, I recognize that people are and that mundane trivialities build community, or through the relationships and fashionable choices of famous stars conversations matriculate.

I worry that fame can alter an otherwise innocent unique trajectory, that it's easy to filter out distractions when you aren't being meticulously criticized. 

If you can harness that tumultuous energy and use it to fuel your celebrated progression, I imagine that things would work out and that your outputs would consistently diversify. 

That's what the Beatles did anyways, they took that worldwide hysteria and responded impeccably. 

It's mind-boggling what they achieved from 1965 to 1970.

So many bands would deal with Satan for the albums Help! and Let it Be.

And for The Beatles, those aren't even the good ones.

Insanely good band.

Cool film too.

*Seriously, between 1965 and 1969 The Beatles released Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album (a crazy good double), and Abbey Road. With Yellow Submarine thrown in the mix too. Plus a bunch of hit singles that weren't on the LPs. It baffles the mind how anyone could have ever produced so much amazing pop in such a short period of time. I can't find anyone to compare them with. Plus their sound consistently changed throughout. How did they pull that off? They did stop touring early on. That may have played an instrumental role. 

The Social Dilemma

From time to time, I've written about how much I love my cellphone, and that's certainly the case, it's a remarkable tool that simplifies so many things and makes life so much much easier.

For social media, I like to play games and post the odd article or picture on Facebook (or Twitter or Instagram). I post articles from reputable sources that abide by codes of conduct to share information I find relevant to the outside world. I don't update my profile status too often because my daily life's just not that interesting, or perhaps it's because I tend to annoy people, or don't have much to say.

Social media apps seemed like wonderful tools when I started using them, they facilitate the sharing of information and let you see what your friends are interested in. They let you express yourself creatively in a variety of different ways that make for a robust compelling caricature that celebrates the active life. Further, the tools are available to everyone so elites don't have a monopoly on shaping public opinion. If used in accordance with ethical guidelines the situation seems rather chill and democratic. But as Jeff Orlowski's The Social Dilemma suggests, the pursuit of logic and reason is seriously off course.

The documentary presents individuals who worked for companies like Google or Facebook and asks them to share their thoughts about their legacies, or the impact their tools have had upon the world at large. And according to the statistics they present, things have taken a turn for the worse.

For instance, they claim that fake news spreads 6 times as fast as news shared from legitimate sources, or that fake news reaches a much wider audience than that crafted by professionals adhering to ethical standards.

The line between comic criticisms of daily newscasts (The Onion) and flagrant disingenuous lies seems to have disappeared entirely as people vainly seek popularity.

If fake news spreads at a much faster pace it makes less sense to tell the truth if you want to be popular, and millions of people are aware of this, and expressing themselves thusly.

Considering that billions of people use social media, it's like the telephone game's gone galactic, as has an unsettling mistrust of professionals who separate fact from fiction.

I think it's important to speculate or theorize or comment or observe, but you need to present your ideas as possibilities, not facts, as you democratically engage with the outside world.

A lot of people don't seem to be able to tell the difference or would simply prefer to bask in sensation, and with the billions of people who access social media every day, the situation's potentially catastrophic.

Suicide rates have simultaneously expanded at an alarming speed and people are spending much less time socializing offline.

Hate is spreading as well and little is being done about it.

I was surprised recently when I attended a campfire at a cousin's where a number of youths showed up. And didn't sit around chatting with one another, but rather spent the entire evening on their phones (I figured cyberspatial obsessions would have less sway in the country).

The doc paints a grim picture of how polarized things are becoming and how the willingness to find consensus is rapidly fading. I suppose building bridges is at a low ebb. But I can't help it, that's what I do.

Even if the stories I share don't spread as quickly as lies, I'll still continue to share them. People need to fight rampant misinformation. And embrace holistic hug power.

As they suggest in The Social Dilemma, it's clear that there has to be some kind of change. There's no going back to the '80s, but there needs to be some sense of social media responsibility.

I don't know if there's much of a difference, democratically speaking, between someone without much education sharing a theory, or an academic publishing an argument, but the academic usually indicates that they may be incorrect, or at least suggests they're engaging in high end speculation. 

It's a compelling continuum where no one's correct but peeps aren't necessarily mistaken either. 

Social media is similar.

But it needs to highlight it's engaging in speculation, or find reputable sources to back up its claims.

If millions of people just make stuff up and then cite each other regularly without proof or argument as if they aren't engaging in speculation, then the world suffers from excessive stupidity.

Enter conscious free-flowing surrealism. 

The doc shares much more information than that (available on Netflix).

Carrie

A shy young sheltered girl is tormented and humiliated by her insensitive classmates due to her unfortunate unawareness of nature's biologics.

But these very same biologics possess specific hereditary gifts that to the uninitiated appear legitimately demonic.

Prom quickly approaches and commendable do-gooders attempt to ease the heightened tension.

Their efforts fail to pacify a spoiled jealous spiteful thug, however, whose mad cruel retributive act, ignominiously ensures that all goodness is in jeopardy.

Reason cannot be maintained.

Liked the new Carrie. 

Suppose a lot of people already know what happens in Carrie.

Nevertheless, a resilient inclusive dimension can be found within, the snobs still abrasively __cking around as they so often do, the immediate transformation of pure bliss into incarnate rage blindly affecting all, the shock hemorrhaging Carrie's (Chloë Grace Moretz) ethical splice, thereby further encouraging understanding inclusivity.

It's a shame Carrie rampages, for, thanks to the resources available in her high school library, she was just beginning to learn how to develop a strong sense of self, conscious of the ways in which her own individuality fit within larger social cohesivities, book after book after book potentially strengthening both her resultant inchoate confidence and sense of belonging.

But she does rampage and if she didn't the narrative's impact would have perhaps been less catchy.

Couldn't work a debate into the end of this one I guess.

Or Professor X?

Imagine Professor X had shown up?

Unprovoked conflict abounds.