Of Celebrities

 Greetings,

The subject of celebrities is one which comes up on a regular occasion because the paparazzi and the mass media has their cameras pointed at them all of the time. We hear reports of what this celebrity did and what that celebrity did. We hear often hear about this celebrity's problems with the law, and that celebrity's issues with drugs and alcohol, most recently we have seen one celebrity assaulting another, named as the "slap that was heard around the world" and other such trope. I refuse to name either celebrity that was involved because I do not believe that either should get recognition for being involved in such an incident. We have lost our way, we have lost the reason for celebrities.

Definition

So we may understand what is being spoken about we shall examine some definitions of "celebrity" as they have been presented in various sources. First from the Cambridge Dictionary, it defines celebrity as, "the state of being famous" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/celebrity). A very simple definition, no explanation. There was more to this definition, but this was the essence. A celebrity is a person who is famous, so the definition certainly is not wrong, however there has to be more to this subject. 

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives a two-part answer, "1. the state of being celebrated" and "2. a famous or celebrated person"(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celebrity). The first describes what celebrity means as a word, the second describes what a celebrity is as a person. Here we begin to come to the core of the idea of the celebrity, they are a person who is celebrated for some reason, or they are just famous. The former part of the definition is important the idea that celebrity is "the state of being celebrated". This is a point worth noting and considering.

The last definition that will be examined, and there are quite a few more out there is one from the Wikipedia, this gives the definition of a celebrity, but also examines the grades of celebrity and also the negative sides of celebrity. The Wikipedia articles are always useful as they do give some more in-depth discussion and further places for investigation, its one of the reasons that I always have liked them, more so as their references have improved. Back to the discussion at hand the Wikipedia defines celebrity as follows,

"Celebrity is a condition of fame and broad public recognition of a person or group as a result of the attention given to them by mass media. ... 'Celebrity' usually implies a favorable public image, as opposed to the neutrals 'famous' or 'notable', or the negatives 'infamous' and 'notorious'." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity)

Here the public recognition is a result of the attention given to them by mass media. The individual does not have to have done anything really, they just have to have grabbed the attention of mass media to gain fame and public recognition, a favourable act which was performed in front of the mass media which stands them out helps a lot. It then indicates the grades of celebrity, through the notable to the notorious, who should not garner our attention at all.

Notorious

No sooner than we hear this word these days than it sparks our attention. The individual who is notorious must be a "bad boy or girl" they attract as much attention as those with the positive image in our topsy-turvy twisted turned upside-down world. In a previous age, in at least "polite" society a person who gained a "notorious" reputation would be ostracised from polite society, rejected from their company. In this society, where reputation counted, this was a kind of death, which any person would try and stay away from.

These days "any publicity is good publicity" and this is very sad, because what sort of message is it sending to our younger generation? Think about it. If those people who we are holding up as people who are celebrities, those people who we are supposed to be looking up to, are performing negative activities and getting attention for it, what does it tell children? Especially if the next day the same individual doesn't pay any consequences for their actions.

Public Reactions

In some cases there are some knee-jerk reactions to celebrities doing bad things, a celebrity gets caught being involved in homophobia, or sexual abuse, or some other social crime. There is a call by some people to burn their books or their music, to boycott them, never to buy their stuff, or listen to them again; even the suggestion of a public burning in protest. The same reaction is picked up in the media and is beamed around the world.

The result: more publicity for the individual. What would really hurt a celebrity in these situations? The exact opposite. Don't mention their name. Don't mention them on social media. Refuse to give them any sort of "grass-roots" publicity. Anytime something about them comes on the television or radio, turn it off. Don't watch things about them on the internet. Drown them in silence. Deny them the publicity.

Real Celebrities

People who should be celebrities are people who should be celebrated. Think about members of our emergency services who risk their lives day in and day out, they should be celebrated. The teams of doctors who invented the various COVID vaccines, they should be celebrated. People who keep us safe should be celebrated. The Romans celebrated their returning heroes from campaigns, they celebrated their gladiators, but the celebrations only lasted until they did not deserve them anymore.

The title of celebrity, should be reserved for those who should be celebrated. Why should a person be celebrated just because they have insanely large amounts of money? Why should a person be celebrated because they happened to be born to the right family? What are these people being celebrated for? Our politicians should only be celebrated when they actually do something to be celebrated, and no other time, other than that they are doing a job, just the same as a cleaner, or a person who repairs the roads.

Let's start celebrating the right people for the right reasons.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

I Violated Facebook's "Community Standards"

 Greetings,

In the course of a message yesterday (15 March 2022) I had the occurrence to violate Facebook's "Community Standards" in specific regard to violence. This was the second time that it occurred and using the same word in the same context. It would seem that either a) the human monitors of Facebook cannot read context, or b) the monitors of these standards on Facebook are totally automated. I will lay further claim to that second part later on in my explanation and in the course of my story below.

In the first incident, on 4 March 2022, there was image of an elder lady running with the caption that read "I run so I don't stab people in the face with a fondue fork." or something similar. In response to this, in jest, as the author and person who placed the meme would have known, I replied: "Ironically, that's why I stab people in the face, so I don't have to run." Seconds later I was picked up for violating the "Community Standards in regard to violence. It asked whether I disagreed, I did, it summarily rejected my claim, and posted the following which I screen-shot.

I then posted the same screenshot as a "status" to which I got zero response from Facebook. I had a good laugh about it for quite a few days as friends responded to it. I don't believe the post has even been removed. 

It would seem that their monitors can read text, but can't read the same text when it is contained within an image. This is where I would clearly claim that they are using a text-based selector looking for certain words or phrases, rather than actual individuals. I laughed this breach off, did not bother following it up.

Now for the important background material for those who have not read my Bio. I am involved in fencing, which means that I put on a fencing mask, gloves and pick up a sword with a rubber blunt on the end and then go out with friends and then we learn the best ways to strike one another, based on treatises from the Medieval and Renaissance period. I do this quite a bit, and have become relatively proficient at it. I have been know to say that I don't run because I want to think that I have developed the capacity to have learnt to stand and fight, hence the comment made. A few of my friends have also been cautioned about posts in jest about "going out and stabbing friends" and similar comments.

All this leads up to the second violation of these Community Standards which are variably enforced as noted previously, (no problem with words in images). It would seem that Facebook has something against fencers because as soon as you mention "striking", "thrusting", "stabbing" or even "swords" in some instances, Facebook comes down hard on you. This makes it difficult for the fencing community, both sport fencers and historical fencers alike to socialise on Facebook and talk about what they do. This is actually how my second breach came about.

I said, "Fencing is the best thing for COVID... You wear masks, and if anyone comes within 1.5m, you stab them." In each case, I have had emoticons with laughing faces to make sure it was understood that it was in jest. It would seem that the monitors can't read emoticons or language, or intent either. So, being my second "offence" against the Community Standards, and  Yes, I disagreed with the decision, which was summarily ignored. I was banned from posting for 24-hrs and my feed will be limited for a month. 

This is even more ironic because the idea for the comment came from an image which I downloaded straight from Facebook...

This time I took it to the Oversight Board because if a person cannot talk about fencing without getting this treatment, then something needs to be done. I indicated in my submission that their restriction of certain words and phrases restricts the fencing community, an international one, from communicating and that maybe they might find another way of communicating if Facebook was not going to be accommodating. I also pointed out that my comments were in jest, that clearly such violations are monitored by bots and not by human beings. I don't know if it will do anything, but I have to try and will be making submissions every time this occurs over a fencing-related comment from now on.

The other choice is to play within the rules of Facebook all the time and deliberately censor fencing words that might be taken to be offensive or violent, and when people ask, I will explain the situation and make my protest in this fashion. I think a combination of the two will be best because as this post proves, I doubt that I am going to hold my "tongue."

Cheers,

Henry.

Misinterpretations and Misquotation

 Greetings,

We have all seen someone take a quote from the Bible or the Koran and use it to their particular purposes, to push their particular cause ahead. Most often this particular verse has been cherry-picked among others that the writer or speaker does not want to hear about. The same thing happens with more secular texts as well, a piece of text is examined, a quotation is removed from its context and the individual then uses it completely removed from this context to make a particular point that they are driving at regardless of what the original intent of the writer was, most often it is evident that the quote has been lifted from popular culture and the individual has not read the works of the individual.

Facebook strikes again...

The quote from Friedrich Nietzsche's 1895 book Twilight of the Idols is "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger." Dr. Jen Wolkin has clearly not read the entire text by Nietzsche, nor does she know anything about the author of the piece or she would not have had such a superficial understanding of this common misquoting from his book. It is not glorifying trauma but encouraging the individual to use the trauma as fuel to spur them on in life rather than letting the trauma destroy them. 

The assumption that Nietzsche is glorifying trauma means that Dr. Wolkin has taken the common misquote, the popularised version of the quote, from Nietzsche and then used it for her convenience without doing the decency of doing the research to find out the background of the author or the material around it. The result being that she has reversed the meaning of what Nietzsche wanted to say, not a glorification of trauma, but that the individual can survive, and spur themselves on.

Nietzsche follows this maxim in his book with the following, "Help yourself, then everyone will help you. Principle of brotherly love." Once again, encouraging the individual to stand on their own two feet and help themselves out of their current tribulations, so then others can help them. For is it not the case that only until we ask for help that we can gain help? This will be turned to say that people should help one another without being asked. How can we if we don't know help is required, especially on a personal level?

About Nietzsche...

Nietzsche went to war as an orderly. He also suffered from various chronic physical and mental conditions which altered his life. The result of which, caused him to become the "freelance" writer that he became, living off a pension from the University of Basel. His writings come from his trials and tribulations with these chronic conditions, from his traumas and his fighting with them. He comes from a position of first-hand experience of trauma, so is a person who speaks from experience when speaking about it.

Do the research first, then quote it...

If you are going to quote something, at least do the author the service of doing the research and finding our where the quote came from, and what they actually said not the popularised, often mangled, version of what is assumed that they said. Do some research about the person who said it, find out about the individual and the reason they might have been influenced to say it; certainly a person's life has a lot of influence on what they write. I certainly would not have begun a blog on fibromyalgia without a diagnosis or being affected by the condition.

I can say that I did my research and had a look at you Dr Wolkin. I would say that while we both have some things in common, in regard to chronic pain, there are some things about us which are quite different. I would suggest you have a closer look at Friedrich Nietzsche, you will find more in common with him than you might see on the surface. Have a look at his life before you read, like the rest of us it explains how he writes and explains what he writes about. He was, after all the one who said amor fati - love your fate. For who better to live your fate, or your life, than you? The concept which has been linked to the Stoic philosophers Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Clearly this is not one of the quotes of his that makes it into the mainstream. Let me leave you with one last quote from Nietzsche to think about...

“You are willing to assume responsibility for everything! Except, that is, for your dreams! What miserable weakness, what lack of consistent courage! Nothing is more your own than your dreams! Nothing more your own work! Content, form, duration, performer, spectator - in these comedies you are all of this yourself!” Nietzsche, F. (1997) Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Translated by R. J. Hollingdale), p78 - 128

There are many different interpretations which one might make of this quotation. The one that I find most appealing is not about controlling your dreams while asleep. The one that I find most appealing is about living your dreams while you are awake; for no one knows your dreams, what you want to do and what you want to be, better than you. Who better than you to live those dreams?

Cheers,

Henry.

What's 100% Effective? Vaccine Arguments

 Greetings,

One of the complaints about the COVID vaccines has been that they are not 100% effective and they are not 100% safe. Well, I hate to be the person to tell people, but there is nothing in this world which is 100% effective and 100% safe, yet the same people use a variety of these products everyday of their lives. Further some of these things which they use can be dangerous, just as they claim that the COVID vaccines can be. Hell, I am not even just going to focus on the COVID vaccine, let's open this to all vaccines, and many of us had these when we were children. You know those shots that prevented you from getting things such as measles, mumps, rubella, Hepatitis B, tetanus, diptheria, tuberculosis and many more.

Don't Know What's In It

Most people don't know what's in most of the things that they consume. Most people don't read the packaging, don't understand what the ingredients are, and don't care. This goes as much for food as it does for medication. Unless you are a specialist in pharmacology, I challenge you to name the composition of any drug that you take on a regular basis. Let's go even more simple than that, name all the constituent chemical components of panadol or aspirin. Yet people will quite happily take these off the shelf and take them without any question about what's in them. Further, most people give no regard to the fact that they can also be dangerous if not taken as directed. 

They Can Be Dangerous

Yes, so can scissors if they are used incorrectly, or a knife, or any sharp implement you find in your home. For that matter if we are confining things to a medical nature, to go back to good old panadol. If you take more than the prescribed amount in the prescribed period, panadol can kill you, and if it does not kill you it can leave you with permanent liver damage. Indeed, if you already have liver damage from some other reason, it is advised that you don't take the stuff because it can cause further liver damage. This is "just" panadol.

They're not 100% Effective

There is a long list of things which are not 100% effective that we still use, in fact there is nothing which is 100% effective. Ask anyone who has been amazed that they have gotten pregnant after using contraceptive protection. Neither the contraceptive pill nor condoms are 100% effective, yet they are used. Parachutes are not 100% effective, there is always the chance that they will fail, this is the reason that they now include an emergency parachute, and even that is not 100% effective. The flu vaccine is not 100% effective, in fact it is usually only 75% effective protecting against three out of four strains of the influenza virus, but some protection is better than none in my books. Notice how you need a "booster" for tetanus every 10 years or so? Do you know why? Same reason we need boosters for the COVID vaccine, to maintain its effectiveness over time.

Things are improving...

Over time scientists will become more familiar with the COVID-19 virus, and its different strains, and they will develop better and more effective ways of dealing with it, and more effective vaccines. We need to be patient and follow what they say. Mistakes will be made, and the initial attempts will be not as effective as later versions, however it is important that the support is there.

More importantly each of us has an important role to play in spreading the right information. Properly sourced information, information which can be backed by science, not conjecture, not some half-baked theory of some amateur, but by scientists. Getting a vaccine doesn't just protect you, it protects your family and friends, you are doing something for your loved ones, and their loved ones. It is for the greater good that you do it, not just yourself. Look at the bigger picture for a change, rather than just yourself.

Cheers,

Henry.