The politics of grievance requires a 'bogeyman'. An all-purpose evil on which can be blamed everything that is wrong with life – and the only thing that stands between us and a vague promised utopia.
Bogeyman Politics asks you to believe that there is one simple cure for all of the interconnected problems of messy, complicated, fragile day-to-day life. Can't get a hospital appointment? Blame the Bogeyman. Wages don't stretch far enough? Blame the Bogeyman. Can't get on the housing ladder? Blame the Bogeyman. Marriage breaking up? Blame the Bogeyman. It is a crass oversimplification, peddled by charlatans who want you to think that they alone, in this big scary world, are on your side. It is a con.
For some, the Bogeyman is 'bankers', or 'neoliberalism'. For others, 'Westminster'. For many, it is 'immigration'. For the majority of people who will vote to leave the European Union tomorrow, it is the EU that fills that role; the EU is the Bogeyman, responsible for everything bad about Britain, and the one and only thing that's holding us back from being truly great (or, if you are of a nostalgic bent, 'great again').
Real life is more complex than that. More difficult than that. Anyone selling you the idea you can fix all your problems with one fell swoop is not telling you the truth.
Which is why it is sad to see campaigners for the 'Remain' camp in the EU referendum rebutting the 'Leave' campaign's Bogeyman Politics with a few choice Bogeymen of their own. All day today I have watched a steady stream of smug, supercilious Tweets and Facebook posts along the lines of "Oh, you think single issue x is to blame for everything bad? Ha! You fools! Can't you see that single issue y is to blame for everything bad…?"
No doubt the people posting this stuff think themselves very clever. They aren't fooled by the narrative that the EU is the root cause of all our nation's problems! They can see right through that! They know what the true cause is. But they have allowed themselves to be duped by a different narrative – one which is just as seductively simplistic, and just as destructively wrong.
As with most things, there is no one simple answer. The 'Bogeyman' concept is attractive because it is comforting. It is less frightening to be told you are a basically 'good' person who has been a victim of some malign conspiracy – and that you have it within your power to rise up and take back what is rightfully yours from those who have done you wrong – than that you are adrift on a rolling sea of entropy in the ever-changing, unforgiving, big wide world. Having someone, or something, to blame – giving it a form, a name, a face – makes life easier to cope with. At last, the question "Why do these things always happen to me?!" seems to have an answer.
It is an understandable, human reaction. But political movements based on grievance, where politicians knowingly perpetuate the 'Bogeyman' narrative to mobilise great swathes of the general public, have a long and ugly track record of turning very nasty indeed. And when campaigners for 'Remain' offer up an alternative Bogeyman as a focal point for the mystified anger of 'Leave' voters, they are guilty of it just the same.
The trouble (for both sides) comes afterwards – once the Bogeyman is slain. The Bogeyman may have been defeated, but the problems of ordinary life have not gone away. The hospital waiting times, the tax bills, the energy prices… These things have not disappeared overnight. The sunlit uplands of utopia glibly promised by the politicians who cynically played on people's fear of the Bogeyman to win votes seem as far away as ever.
And so, the search for a new Bogeyman must begin. Something has to fill that void. Something, or someone, has to be to blame. Who do we think that might turn out to be? When Britain votes to leave the European Union, and people's lives are not magically improved overnight, the public anger which did so much to drive the anti-EU movement won't just vanish – we should all be very concerned about what (or who) that ire might end up focused on next.
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
Wednesday, 20 May 2015
We're on our way to Wembley… Or, some of us are, at least
The following is an edited, cleaned-up, more coherent rendering of something I posted late last night to a 'Norwich City Fan Forum' group on Facebook, regarding the somewhat fractious exchanges recently between those supporters who've been able to get hold of tickets to the Play-Off Final at Wembley, and those who've missed out.
I can't believe some of the bollocks that's being talked regarding tickets for Wembley. I would've loved to have gone. The club have decided not to put any tickets on general sale – no obviously, now, I can't. That sucks. But it's up to the club to decide how to do their business regarding ticket sales, and I understand their reasoning.
What I don't understand is a bunch of smug gits telling fans who are – completely understandably – disappointed not to be able to go one of the biggest occasions for Norwich City in a long time that they're not as 'worthy', not as 'loyal', or whatever.
Everyone understands that when demand outstrips supply, some people will lose out. We (those people), for the most part, understand why that is, and respect that. But when the response from those who have managed to get tickets is essentially "Well, that's your own stupid fault – you should've been a better, more virtuous fan, like me!" that can really grate on you.
Nothing gives any supporter the right to strut about, lording it over others, thinking they're better. It's "true fan" nonsense – the nasty mindset where some supporters think they are more 'pure', or that their support is somehow worth more than others', because they do it 'better' – and in the past, that has been (rightly) frowned upon by most of the Norwich City Supporters' community. Lots of things determine whether or not somebody buys a Season Ticket, or Priority Membership – not just the 'quality' of their support – and you have to be either inordinately stupid, or insufferably obtuse, not to see that. Or, you have to be the kind of self-absorbed, ostentatious cretin who likes nothing more than to feel a sense of superiority over other fans who, for whatever reason, can't have what you have. And, frankly, that's how a lot of people are acting – which is rather sad, isn't it?
If you think you are more 'worthy' than another supporter, someone needs to tell you what a stupid, venal attitude that is. We're all Norwich fans, and we should be enjoying this momentous moment for our club, and celebrating together; instead, some people are bitter, whiney and hurt – while others are being pompous, gloating, self-congratulator popinjays. It's not pleasant, it's not cool, and it's not a good look for any of us.
Enjoy Wembley.
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
This time, it's personal
But it shouldn't be.
The following image was spotted on my Facebook feed last night (I have blurred out the phone number myself, as I didn't want to be in any way a part of helping spread it):
It is unclear whether this is officially anything to do with the Green Party, or whether its appearing next to a "Vote Green" flyer is just a coincidence; I have contacted the Green Party, their leader Natalie Bennett, and their candidate in Brighton (their former leader, and only MP from the 2010 Election) Caroline Lucas for a comment on this via Twitter, but have so far had no response.
What is clear, however, is that somebody is spreading the personal phone number of the UKIP candidate in Brighton, and inciting people to use it to threaten or intimidate him (what other meaning – before anybody argues that point – of "Want to tell UKIP exactly what you think of them?" could there reasonably be?).
That's not on. That is not how democracy should work. I don't like UKIP at all, and I have found several of their activists aggressive, abusive and rude when engaging them in debate on Twitter. (In the interests of balance, I have also spoken on Twitter with a couple of UKIP activists – one of them a councillor – who were actually perfectly reasonable, decent people, who just happened to have views which differ from mine.)
But no matter how much you disagree with somebody's ideology, this kind of personal intimidation is simply beyond the pale. Spreading somebody else's personal contact details without their consent is harassment and abuse, and disliking someone's political views does not make that OK.
Whether this is the work of the Green Party, or their supporters, or just somebody working alone, if they can't separate the personal from the political then maybe they should stay out of politics entirely.
The following image was spotted on my Facebook feed last night (I have blurred out the phone number myself, as I didn't want to be in any way a part of helping spread it):
 |
| Also, you misspelt 'Pavilion'. |
It is unclear whether this is officially anything to do with the Green Party, or whether its appearing next to a "Vote Green" flyer is just a coincidence; I have contacted the Green Party, their leader Natalie Bennett, and their candidate in Brighton (their former leader, and only MP from the 2010 Election) Caroline Lucas for a comment on this via Twitter, but have so far had no response.
What is clear, however, is that somebody is spreading the personal phone number of the UKIP candidate in Brighton, and inciting people to use it to threaten or intimidate him (what other meaning – before anybody argues that point – of "Want to tell UKIP exactly what you think of them?" could there reasonably be?).
That's not on. That is not how democracy should work. I don't like UKIP at all, and I have found several of their activists aggressive, abusive and rude when engaging them in debate on Twitter. (In the interests of balance, I have also spoken on Twitter with a couple of UKIP activists – one of them a councillor – who were actually perfectly reasonable, decent people, who just happened to have views which differ from mine.)
But no matter how much you disagree with somebody's ideology, this kind of personal intimidation is simply beyond the pale. Spreading somebody else's personal contact details without their consent is harassment and abuse, and disliking someone's political views does not make that OK.
Whether this is the work of the Green Party, or their supporters, or just somebody working alone, if they can't separate the personal from the political then maybe they should stay out of politics entirely.
Thursday, 6 November 2014
#MontyThePenguin
I've just watched the new John Lewis Christmas advert. If you haven't seen it yet, here it is:
According to the response on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, people have actually been crying at this. Genuinely shedding real life tears. Can you believe that? It's a television advert. And you're crying at it?! Pull yourselves together! You'll find you get a lot less emotional watching it if you bear in mind that it's been cynically calculated to make you spend as much money as possible.
Even worse, however, is John Lewis' appropriation of Christmas. This article in The Telegraph declares that "today sees the start of the countdown to Christmas: the launch of the John Lewis Christmas advert". No, it doesn't. We already have a 'countdown to Christmas' – it's called Advent, and it begins four Sundays before Christmas Day (this year, that's 30th November). And with its traditions of lighting candles, singing songs and baking cakes, Advent is considerably more festive and more community-spirited than an unashamed attempt to squeeze more money out of consumers by tugging on their heartstrings.
I shall be expanding on this at a later time, but when my political party sweeps to power next May in a landslide election victory, our flagship policy will be to double corporation tax on any company who puts out a Christmas advert before the last week of November. If John Lewis decide to pass that increase on to their customers, they may find their Christmas marketing campaign doesn't bring it quite so much profit any more.
According to the response on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, people have actually been crying at this. Genuinely shedding real life tears. Can you believe that? It's a television advert. And you're crying at it?! Pull yourselves together! You'll find you get a lot less emotional watching it if you bear in mind that it's been cynically calculated to make you spend as much money as possible.
Even worse, however, is John Lewis' appropriation of Christmas. This article in The Telegraph declares that "today sees the start of the countdown to Christmas: the launch of the John Lewis Christmas advert". No, it doesn't. We already have a 'countdown to Christmas' – it's called Advent, and it begins four Sundays before Christmas Day (this year, that's 30th November). And with its traditions of lighting candles, singing songs and baking cakes, Advent is considerably more festive and more community-spirited than an unashamed attempt to squeeze more money out of consumers by tugging on their heartstrings.
I shall be expanding on this at a later time, but when my political party sweeps to power next May in a landslide election victory, our flagship policy will be to double corporation tax on any company who puts out a Christmas advert before the last week of November. If John Lewis decide to pass that increase on to their customers, they may find their Christmas marketing campaign doesn't bring it quite so much profit any more.
Friday, 10 October 2014
It's all a conspiracy!
My brother has, in the past, postulated that government agents may be engaged to combat conspiracy theories which threaten the ruling order, by inventing and disseminating fake conspiracy theories so patently ludicrous that their sheer absurdity serves to discredit the entire sphere of conspiracy theories. It’s an interesting thought. (He also reckons he might be rather good at this job - he’s probably right, but I can’t image how one would embark on such a career!)
Personally, I’ve no time for conspiracy theories, or those who propagate them. They are fascinating - and yet often so tortured and tenuous that it amazes me just how many people seem to take them seriously. In many cases, it feels as though the theory is not a conclusion reached after examining evidence but a twisting of correlations in order to fit the narrative which the theorist has already decided he wants to tell. In other words, conspiracy theorists know what they want their theory to be in advance - then they go out and look for evidence to support their hypotheses. This is the opposite of an evidence-based scientific process.
It is this dogmatic adherence to principle, often in spite of evidence, which makes me so suspicious of conspiracy theorists in general. Indeed, the absence of evidence supporting the conspiracy theorists’ stance - and sometimes even the presence of evidence directly contrary to it - is more likely to be presented as further evidence in their favour than taken as a sign to reconsider the position (ie. the lack of evidence is, in itself, ‘proof’ that something is being suppressed by ‘the establishment’).
Conspiracy theories can become almost cult-like in nature. And this is exactly why they are nonsense. Anything which has a basis in truth is not advocated solely by hysterical zealots screeching on the internet.
How many times do you see someone on Facebook posting a link to an article claiming to have uncovered some great ‘truth’ about the world in which we live, which is oh so obvious when once your eyes have been opened to it; and yet, if you comment to question the premise - not in a hostile or offensive way, but simply in the spirit of having an open debate on the topic - the original poster instantly becomes defensive, and highly personal? Anyone who can back up their position with facts doesn’t have to resort to such tactics, but is happy to enter into a reasoned discourse and present their side of the argument in a rational, logical way. Conspiracy theorists do the opposite of this, and the great irony is that these people who delight in telling the rest of us among the common herd to ‘open our eyes’ and ‘wake up’ and ‘see things for what they really are’ are actually some of the most closed-minded people one is likely to encounter.
Which is why none of what I’ve written here will make any difference to people who actually believe conspiracy theories - of that, I am certain. “Oh, but of course, you would say that. You’ve been taken in!” they will say. “Of course there’s no evidence to support conspiracy theories - it’s all been carefully removed or covered over by the ruling establishment, to keep you in the dark!” (And thus, as I’ve mentioned, a lack of evidence to support a conspiracy theory becomes, in itself, evidence supporting that conspiracy theory.) But this is precisely the problem I have with conspiracy theorists - the unwavering faith in their own agenda, the twisting of facts to suit their narrative, and the absolute point-blank refusal to countenance anything outside the confines of their own world view makes it supremely difficult to take any of what they say seriously.
Personally, I’ve no time for conspiracy theories, or those who propagate them. They are fascinating - and yet often so tortured and tenuous that it amazes me just how many people seem to take them seriously. In many cases, it feels as though the theory is not a conclusion reached after examining evidence but a twisting of correlations in order to fit the narrative which the theorist has already decided he wants to tell. In other words, conspiracy theorists know what they want their theory to be in advance - then they go out and look for evidence to support their hypotheses. This is the opposite of an evidence-based scientific process.
It is this dogmatic adherence to principle, often in spite of evidence, which makes me so suspicious of conspiracy theorists in general. Indeed, the absence of evidence supporting the conspiracy theorists’ stance - and sometimes even the presence of evidence directly contrary to it - is more likely to be presented as further evidence in their favour than taken as a sign to reconsider the position (ie. the lack of evidence is, in itself, ‘proof’ that something is being suppressed by ‘the establishment’).
Conspiracy theories can become almost cult-like in nature. And this is exactly why they are nonsense. Anything which has a basis in truth is not advocated solely by hysterical zealots screeching on the internet.
How many times do you see someone on Facebook posting a link to an article claiming to have uncovered some great ‘truth’ about the world in which we live, which is oh so obvious when once your eyes have been opened to it; and yet, if you comment to question the premise - not in a hostile or offensive way, but simply in the spirit of having an open debate on the topic - the original poster instantly becomes defensive, and highly personal? Anyone who can back up their position with facts doesn’t have to resort to such tactics, but is happy to enter into a reasoned discourse and present their side of the argument in a rational, logical way. Conspiracy theorists do the opposite of this, and the great irony is that these people who delight in telling the rest of us among the common herd to ‘open our eyes’ and ‘wake up’ and ‘see things for what they really are’ are actually some of the most closed-minded people one is likely to encounter.
Which is why none of what I’ve written here will make any difference to people who actually believe conspiracy theories - of that, I am certain. “Oh, but of course, you would say that. You’ve been taken in!” they will say. “Of course there’s no evidence to support conspiracy theories - it’s all been carefully removed or covered over by the ruling establishment, to keep you in the dark!” (And thus, as I’ve mentioned, a lack of evidence to support a conspiracy theory becomes, in itself, evidence supporting that conspiracy theory.) But this is precisely the problem I have with conspiracy theorists - the unwavering faith in their own agenda, the twisting of facts to suit their narrative, and the absolute point-blank refusal to countenance anything outside the confines of their own world view makes it supremely difficult to take any of what they say seriously.
Thursday, 9 October 2014
#Portmantober
Make the month of October fun/exciting/charitable/healthy/aromatic by taking part in Portmantober! Take the Portmantober challenge, and for thirty-one days find ever more annoying and self-serving ways to mash up the word ‘October’ with another word of your choosing, all in aid of charity/fun/personal development!
How to participate:
Have fun out there, Portmantoberists!
How to participate:
- Choose your word or phrase: for example, you might want to dedicate the entire month to the teachings of Swiss Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
- Write a smug Facebook status informing all your friends that you’re doing ‘Jean-Jacques Roussober’ this year. (Don’t forget to include a good dollop of subtext designed to make your ‘friends’ feel bad if they don’t also join in!)
- Tweet with the hashtag ‘#portmantober’ at least once a day, but preferably much, much more often than that.
- Convince yourself you’re doing something profoundly worthwhile, while actually just being a tremendous nuisance to everyone you know (and quite a few people you don’t know).
Have fun out there, Portmantoberists!
Saturday, 4 October 2014
Don't cry for Jeremy, Argentina
One doesn't haven to be a fan of Jeremy Clarkson to condemn mob violence. Clarkson and the Top Gear team were recently chased out of Argentina by an angry mob hurling bricks and rocks, after locals took exception to a vehicle number plate which they thought was a jibe about the Falklands War. (The BBC denies that this was the case, and insists the number plate was purely a coincidence.)
Clarkson is a controversial figure, and not without his critics. However, to be seeing comments on Facebook and Twitter about this incident supporting the actions of the Argentinian rioters, or even offering to supply them with more rocks to hurl at the presenter, is pretty disgraceful.
Condoning and supporting this sort of 'lynch mob' rioting is never OK. Not even if the target is somebody you don't like.
Clarkson is a controversial figure, and not without his critics. However, to be seeing comments on Facebook and Twitter about this incident supporting the actions of the Argentinian rioters, or even offering to supply them with more rocks to hurl at the presenter, is pretty disgraceful.
Jeremy Clarkson feared deaths in Argentina number plate row ... Argentinians, please be more accurate next time (: http://t.co/xxuhqmKUFF
— Richard Boardman (@uxrick) October 4, 2014
Condoning and supporting this sort of 'lynch mob' rioting is never OK. Not even if the target is somebody you don't like.
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
A true friend
Things like this crop up in my Facebook feed from time-to-time. I hate them.
The trouble is, all those things (being broke, being a a bitch, etc.) are 'who you are'! Or, at least, are a part of 'who you are'. The idea that you can separate out 'who you are' from all the things you do and say and the events of your past is ludicrous.
No, the purpose of posts like this on the internet is to make the person posting them feel better about his or her own life - to say to people: "hey, if you have a problem with the way I behave, that's your fault for not being a 'true friend', and not accepting me for who I am - not my fault for being a selfish, inconsiderate, unhygienic, narcissistic knob-end! Besides, I may have all these flaws, but that's not really 'who I am', is it?" Rubbish.
Kind-of related… I played on this track:
The trouble is, all those things (being broke, being a a bitch, etc.) are 'who you are'! Or, at least, are a part of 'who you are'. The idea that you can separate out 'who you are' from all the things you do and say and the events of your past is ludicrous.
No, the purpose of posts like this on the internet is to make the person posting them feel better about his or her own life - to say to people: "hey, if you have a problem with the way I behave, that's your fault for not being a 'true friend', and not accepting me for who I am - not my fault for being a selfish, inconsiderate, unhygienic, narcissistic knob-end! Besides, I may have all these flaws, but that's not really 'who I am', is it?" Rubbish.
Kind-of related… I played on this track:
Sunday, 11 May 2014
#Eurovision aftermath
"on the official #Eurovision app, you can hear all of tonight's songs as many times as you want!" I already have.
— Kit Marsden (@manek43509) May 10, 2014
OK, no one expects the songs in the Eurovision Song Contest to be heavyweight musical masterpieces oozing with integrity and artistic merit. The contest has long been a showcase for Europe's lowest-common-denominator bubblegum pop music and questionable fashion choices.That being said, even in the world of expendable cheesy pop, there are still good and bad examples of songwriting. Unfortunately, Eurovision more often seems to give an unreasonably large platform to the latter.
My impression during the live television show last night was of an endless parade of unremarkable, instantly forgettable tunes - but it is only the day after that one realises how disposable so many of these Eurovision entries actually are.
If nothing else, pop music of this sort can at least boast irritatingly catchy chorus hooks with simple lyrics and melodies which get stuck going 'round and 'round your head, whether you want them to or not - well, usually, anyway! However, looking back over the events of the previous night, or twenty-six songs which were performed, I can remember only a handful of them.
Interestingly, I remember the chorus to the Greek song 'Rise Up' (which also featured performers on trampolines), which came nowhere in the voting process. I remember some parts of the Dutch song - which came second, but which I actually thought should've won. (Even more remarkably, I actually have one mutual friend with the Netherlands' singer on Facebook.) And I was pleased to discover that I remembered the chorus of the British entry too - despite its being rather short on words!
As for the winner - Austria's bearded lady, Conchita Wurst - only one line from the song (the crabwise sequential run into the chorus) has stuck in my mind, despite having heard it twice. As Rod Liddle notes in The Spectator, while Conchita Wurst can certainly sing, and the Austrian song was by no means bad, it was not the best song of the evening - its extraordinarily high tally of points can be ascribed in no small part to its novelty factor.
However, rack my brains as I might, that is all of last night's musical content which I can recall. Sure, I remember plenty of the acts' gimmicks - the Romanians' circular piano; the erotic Polish milk-churning; the Swiss whistling (Swisstling?); the Spanish singer looking like she'd just got out of the shower - but none of their actual songs.
While this slapdash approach to songwriting can work in the surreal crucible of the Eurovision Song Contest, in the real world such tracks would, in all likelihood, sink without trace. Could it be that it's not actually as easy to write a catchy pop hit as so many people seem to think it is?
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Celebrities and their opinions
The latest YouTube video to be 'Shared' over and over on my Facebook timeline is entitled Patrick Stewart Gives Passionate Response To Question About Domestic Abuse. The world of social media, of course, has unanimously adjudged this to be a Good Thing™.
While I don't doubt that Patrick Stewart has some very interesting things to say on this topic, I am often left feeling slightly uneasy when celebrities get themselves involved in good causes with which they have a personal connection. That they are well-intentioned is not in question - but when it comes to a topic of such importance and significance as domestic abuse, surely objective, rational thought is desirable, rather than a hotheaded emotional response?
There will be those who look at any celebrity involvement in a cause like this as a positive thing, because it helps to raise awareness (the favourite hobby of people who want to feel they are doing good). However, I do wonder why, as a society, we give such credence to celebrity opinions in general.
The world is not exactly short of Blog posts and newspaper articles by actors and authors, poets and popstars, each a household name (like 'Slopbucket'), and each keen to get on his favourite political hobby-horse and trumpet his own opinions, knowing that people will listen because he is famous. (Neither, as it happens, is there any shortage of bitter, ranty Blog posts by complete nonentities complaining that the world is not exactly how they'd like it to be - but spare me the smug comments pointing out this irony.)
I guess I'm just puzzled as to why a celebrity's opinion, even in a field which is nothing to do with what that person is known for, seems to carry so much more weight than the opinions of an 'ordinary' person. Just because someone has had some modest success as a singer, that doesn't suddenly make them an expert on (for example) social housing issues - and if they have some personal connection to the issue of social housing, that still doesn't mean that what they have to say is worth anything, it just makes it more likely that they'll use their public platform with even more zealous fervour, and expect to have people take notice of them.
While I don't doubt that Patrick Stewart has some very interesting things to say on this topic, I am often left feeling slightly uneasy when celebrities get themselves involved in good causes with which they have a personal connection. That they are well-intentioned is not in question - but when it comes to a topic of such importance and significance as domestic abuse, surely objective, rational thought is desirable, rather than a hotheaded emotional response?
There will be those who look at any celebrity involvement in a cause like this as a positive thing, because it helps to raise awareness (the favourite hobby of people who want to feel they are doing good). However, I do wonder why, as a society, we give such credence to celebrity opinions in general.
The world is not exactly short of Blog posts and newspaper articles by actors and authors, poets and popstars, each a household name (like 'Slopbucket'), and each keen to get on his favourite political hobby-horse and trumpet his own opinions, knowing that people will listen because he is famous. (Neither, as it happens, is there any shortage of bitter, ranty Blog posts by complete nonentities complaining that the world is not exactly how they'd like it to be - but spare me the smug comments pointing out this irony.)
I guess I'm just puzzled as to why a celebrity's opinion, even in a field which is nothing to do with what that person is known for, seems to carry so much more weight than the opinions of an 'ordinary' person. Just because someone has had some modest success as a singer, that doesn't suddenly make them an expert on (for example) social housing issues - and if they have some personal connection to the issue of social housing, that still doesn't mean that what they have to say is worth anything, it just makes it more likely that they'll use their public platform with even more zealous fervour, and expect to have people take notice of them.
Saturday, 12 April 2014
Never say 'die'
For Norwich City fans, today's 1-0 defeat by fellow Premier League strugglers Fulham was a huge disappointment. Billed as a 'must-win' game - as classic 'relegation six-pointer' - it was believed that whoever lost this match would be in serious trouble.
Serious trouble, yes. But not certain relegation. The Norwich City FC Facebook page has quickly filled up with comments saying "well, that's that, then - we're definitely going down now!" I don't know how anyone can be so sure.
Football is inherently unpredictable. How anyone can say with such cocksure arrogance that relegation is a certainty for Norwich now is beyond me. After all, while the result at Fulham today doesn't exactly help matters, as things stand we're still not in the Relegation Zone even now.
Plenty of supporters are pointing to 'the Run-In', and the fact that Norwich's last four games are against four of the so-called 'big teams'; many people believe that, although Norwich are currently 17th, Fulham (and maybe even Cardiff, too) can catch us because their final four games are that bit easier.
Even though this ignores the fact that there are no 'easy games' in the Premier League, I am again at a loss to understand how these people can be so certain. The prevailing attitude seems to be that the possibility of Norwich taking any points at all from their last four fixtures is so unlikely as to be discounted entirely - but the fact is, nothing is impossible, and stranger things have happened in football, over the years. After all, few people would've given Norwich a hope of beating Spurs earlier this season, or holding Manchester City to a very creditable draw after having been hammered 7-0 the first time around.
Yes, staying is going to be difficult for Norwich, and there is no doubt that the task which now faces us is enormous - but there are so many factors involved in this equation, no one can really know for definite what will happen. To act as though relegation is already a mathematical certainty is as foolish as to act as if survival is a certainty - and that sort of negativity and despair does nobody any favours.
If the manager, one of his staff, or any of the players came out after today's match and publicly stated that we hadn't got a hope they would be absolutely crucified by the media and the fans - and rightly so! They would be expected to keep fighting right to the very end, giving everything they have for the club and its supporters. So why do some people think it is OK for us, as fans, just to give up on our season with four games still left to play?
Let's not be under any delusions as to how tough the remainder of this season will be. But we can still beat the drop, and there is still everything left to play for - so let's get behind the manager and the team, and give it everything we've got for these last four games!
Serious trouble, yes. But not certain relegation. The Norwich City FC Facebook page has quickly filled up with comments saying "well, that's that, then - we're definitely going down now!" I don't know how anyone can be so sure.
Football is inherently unpredictable. How anyone can say with such cocksure arrogance that relegation is a certainty for Norwich now is beyond me. After all, while the result at Fulham today doesn't exactly help matters, as things stand we're still not in the Relegation Zone even now.
Plenty of supporters are pointing to 'the Run-In', and the fact that Norwich's last four games are against four of the so-called 'big teams'; many people believe that, although Norwich are currently 17th, Fulham (and maybe even Cardiff, too) can catch us because their final four games are that bit easier.
Even though this ignores the fact that there are no 'easy games' in the Premier League, I am again at a loss to understand how these people can be so certain. The prevailing attitude seems to be that the possibility of Norwich taking any points at all from their last four fixtures is so unlikely as to be discounted entirely - but the fact is, nothing is impossible, and stranger things have happened in football, over the years. After all, few people would've given Norwich a hope of beating Spurs earlier this season, or holding Manchester City to a very creditable draw after having been hammered 7-0 the first time around.
Yes, staying is going to be difficult for Norwich, and there is no doubt that the task which now faces us is enormous - but there are so many factors involved in this equation, no one can really know for definite what will happen. To act as though relegation is already a mathematical certainty is as foolish as to act as if survival is a certainty - and that sort of negativity and despair does nobody any favours.
If the manager, one of his staff, or any of the players came out after today's match and publicly stated that we hadn't got a hope they would be absolutely crucified by the media and the fans - and rightly so! They would be expected to keep fighting right to the very end, giving everything they have for the club and its supporters. So why do some people think it is OK for us, as fans, just to give up on our season with four games still left to play?
Let's not be under any delusions as to how tough the remainder of this season will be. But we can still beat the drop, and there is still everything left to play for - so let's get behind the manager and the team, and give it everything we've got for these last four games!
 |
| Ignore my stupid Profile Picture - the points are still valid...! |
Saturday, 22 March 2014
#NoMakeUpSelfie and the culture of 'Facebook Activism'
The 'No Make-Up Selfie' is one of the biggest stories on social media this week.
The way it's supposed to work is: you post a picture of yourself wearing no make-up on Facebook, then you nominate a couple of friends who also have to post pictures of themselves wearing no make-up, and somewhere along the line somebody texts the word BEAT to 70099 to donate £3 to Cancer Research UK.
But, this being Facebook, even the humble act of charitable giving has developed into an argumentative brawl. There has been a backlash against the 'No Make-Up Selfie' campaign, with people claiming that simply posting a picture of yourself on the internet doesn't actually do anything to raise money for Cancer Research (which is true). But other people have pointed out that Cancer Research UK have seen a £2m increase in donations since the campaign began, so if the posts are encouraging more people to give to the cause, what's the big deal?
If you take it in isolation, the 'No Make-Up Selfie' campaign is undoubtedly a force for good; the increase in the amount raised by Cancer Research UK bears that out. But in context, it is part of a growing trend of 'Facebook Activism', which I worry might be harming, rather than helping, charitable causes in the long run.
I'm sure the 'No Make-Up Selfie' is not the first charity-related Facebook campaign you have seen. I remember a time when everyone was supposed to change their profile picture to a cartoon character from a TV programme they used to watch in their youth, to 'raise awareness' for child abuse - to name just once.
Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with this. 'Raising awareness' about important issues on social media is great, as far as it goes. But that's just the point - it doesn't go nearly far enough.
The trouble with 'Facebook Activism' is that it gives you the illusion of doing good without actually making any real difference. People can feel complacent, believing that they have 'done their bit' merely by posting a status update, or changing their profile picture.
Coming back to the excellent work done by Cancer Research UK, for a moment... I myself have had a direct debit set up to make a regular donation to Cancer Research UK since long before the 'No Make-Up Selfie' craze took off, and I have taken part in several fundraising events to raise money for cancer charities. I'm not saying this to hold myself up as some paragon of charitable piety (it's more to fill space in this post - y'know, add another paragraph), but I think it's interesting to put yourself in the position of someone working at one of these charities. I'm sure you'd be delighted to know that some social media craze meant everyone was talking about the charitable work you did, and that your cause was at the forefront of the national consciousness - but you'd probably be even happier to think people were actually going out and doing something to help, instead of tapping away on a smartphone and thinking that, in itself, constituted 'doing enough'.
'Raising awareness' on Facebook is a brilliant way to augment the tireless work of charity activists - but it doesn't, and can't, replace it.
The way it's supposed to work is: you post a picture of yourself wearing no make-up on Facebook, then you nominate a couple of friends who also have to post pictures of themselves wearing no make-up, and somewhere along the line somebody texts the word BEAT to 70099 to donate £3 to Cancer Research UK.
But, this being Facebook, even the humble act of charitable giving has developed into an argumentative brawl. There has been a backlash against the 'No Make-Up Selfie' campaign, with people claiming that simply posting a picture of yourself on the internet doesn't actually do anything to raise money for Cancer Research (which is true). But other people have pointed out that Cancer Research UK have seen a £2m increase in donations since the campaign began, so if the posts are encouraging more people to give to the cause, what's the big deal?
If you take it in isolation, the 'No Make-Up Selfie' campaign is undoubtedly a force for good; the increase in the amount raised by Cancer Research UK bears that out. But in context, it is part of a growing trend of 'Facebook Activism', which I worry might be harming, rather than helping, charitable causes in the long run.
I'm sure the 'No Make-Up Selfie' is not the first charity-related Facebook campaign you have seen. I remember a time when everyone was supposed to change their profile picture to a cartoon character from a TV programme they used to watch in their youth, to 'raise awareness' for child abuse - to name just once.
Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with this. 'Raising awareness' about important issues on social media is great, as far as it goes. But that's just the point - it doesn't go nearly far enough.
The trouble with 'Facebook Activism' is that it gives you the illusion of doing good without actually making any real difference. People can feel complacent, believing that they have 'done their bit' merely by posting a status update, or changing their profile picture.
Coming back to the excellent work done by Cancer Research UK, for a moment... I myself have had a direct debit set up to make a regular donation to Cancer Research UK since long before the 'No Make-Up Selfie' craze took off, and I have taken part in several fundraising events to raise money for cancer charities. I'm not saying this to hold myself up as some paragon of charitable piety (it's more to fill space in this post - y'know, add another paragraph), but I think it's interesting to put yourself in the position of someone working at one of these charities. I'm sure you'd be delighted to know that some social media craze meant everyone was talking about the charitable work you did, and that your cause was at the forefront of the national consciousness - but you'd probably be even happier to think people were actually going out and doing something to help, instead of tapping away on a smartphone and thinking that, in itself, constituted 'doing enough'.
'Raising awareness' on Facebook is a brilliant way to augment the tireless work of charity activists - but it doesn't, and can't, replace it.
 |
Text BEAT to 70099 now. |
Sunday, 16 February 2014
GeckNominate
I'm going to start a new super-trendy internet craze called GeckNominate - you tag a friend on Facebook to 'nominate' them, and then they have spend the next three-and-a-half weeks living as a gecko, licking their eyes instead of blinking and shedding their skin.
Except, of course, they don't. They don't have to do anything.
And it's just the same with current viral internet drinking madness NekNominate. The NekNominate game has been in the news recently, and is under fire for being irresponsible and dangerous, and encouraging excessive drinking. The Mirror claims the game has caused the deaths of five people in the UK.
But despite the so-called 'rules' of NekNominate, it's still up to you what you put in your body. You've been tagged in a Facebook post - it's not a legally-binding agreement! If you don't want to do it, just don't do it.
And if you do want to do it, fine - that's up to you. But if you end up in the hospital because you drank a pint of Stella Artois with Royal Icing, two squeezes of Fairy Platinum washing up liquid, grapefruit juice and and a shot of Cointreau - can you really say that's anyone's fault but your own?
Except, of course, they don't. They don't have to do anything.
And it's just the same with current viral internet drinking madness NekNominate. The NekNominate game has been in the news recently, and is under fire for being irresponsible and dangerous, and encouraging excessive drinking. The Mirror claims the game has caused the deaths of five people in the UK.
But despite the so-called 'rules' of NekNominate, it's still up to you what you put in your body. You've been tagged in a Facebook post - it's not a legally-binding agreement! If you don't want to do it, just don't do it.
And if you do want to do it, fine - that's up to you. But if you end up in the hospital because you drank a pint of Stella Artois with Royal Icing, two squeezes of Fairy Platinum washing up liquid, grapefruit juice and and a shot of Cointreau - can you really say that's anyone's fault but your own?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
C. Hughton (Manager)?
This is going to be a bit of a (unstructured) rant...
Not been the best week for me, personally - but this hasn't been a good week for Norwich City Football Club either, after being knocked out of the League Cup by Manchester United, and then losing 7-0 away to Manchester City today. I'm struggling to know what to make of all this, to be brutally honest - of course, both Manchester teams are tough opposition, particularly when they're playing at home, but a 7-0 scoreline is just embarrassing and we (that is, Norwich) have a much stronger and more talented quad than eighteenth in the Premier League would suggest.
If you believe most of the 'fans' commenting on the club Facebook page, and generally chattering on social media, the answer is staring us in the face - sack [manager] Chris Hughton, and instantly we'll be in the top half of the table, and beating all the top teams. I'm sorry, but that is overly simplistic, and just won't wash.
Before today's game at the Etihad Stadium, Norwich City posted a short video on their Facebook page, in which Hughton says he 'has to take the positives' from the past weeks; the first comment I saw said 'I haven't seen any positives'. Seriously? No positives at all? Nonsense - they may only be small things, but they are there.
This is the sort of thing which really irritates me; it's not the fact that fans are frustrated with the team, or with the manager - that's perfectly understandable - but the uneducated, ill-informed way in which that frustration is expressed. Hughton is often slated by Norwich fans for being 'a defensive manager', and for playing 'negatively' - a charge still inexplicably levelled at him following last week's draw at home to Cardiff, in which the Canaries broke the season's Premier League record for the most number of shots on target. Of course we should've scored one, and we should've won that game - but in what universe does that constitute 'defensive' play?!
Are Norwich dead-and-buried? No. Despite currently sitting in the Relegation Zone, with nine points we are still in touch with the next five or six teams above us in the table, and we are lucky that there is already a small gap opening to the bottom two teams - Sunderland and Crystal Palace - which means that in order for either of them to overtake Norwich they would have to win two games in a row, with Norwich losing both their fixtures.
Yes, something is seriously wrong. Is it the manager? Perhaps. But let's not forget, in our lynch-mob hysteria, that we started very slowly last season too (under the same manager), but then went on an unbeaten run of games better than that of any other team in Europe besides Barcelona. We beat Arsenal, Manchester United and Manchester City last year - all with Chris Hughton as manager.
I think some people must have spilt beer on their computers' numeric keypads, as the '4' and the '2' key seem to be sticking... Commenting '4-4-2' followed by about eight million exclamation marks doesn't exactly make you a football expert. Presumably, these are the same people who stick the knife into the England manager whenever the national teams plays a 4-4-2 formation because it's an old-fashioned way of setting up a team?
If those supporters who are screaming 'Hughton Out' want to be taken seriously, they need to provide a viable alternative. Sacking a manager is a big deal - it will cause unrest and upheaval, it could unsettle the team and have the opposite effect to the one for which we'd be hoping. But even assuming it would be the right course of action, the biggest question is still: who would we get instead?
A lot of managerial names were being bandied about by the Facebook know-it-alls today; including Malky Mackay, Neil Lennon, Gianfranco Zola and Roberto Di Matteo. Can you honestly see any of those managers even wanting to come to Norwich? Who else is there who is available, and is a genuinely better option?
Now, let's be absolutely clear here... I'm not saying that Hughton is blameless in this situation (he isn't), and I'm not saying that getting rid of the manager is not the right way forward - but if we are going to sack our manager, that needs to be a carefully considered, well-thought-out move, and not a knee-jerk reaction brought on by mindless panic after a tough start in the first quarter of the season. I, for one, am extremely glad that the football club I love is not being run by these same idiots who like to act first, and think later.
Not been the best week for me, personally - but this hasn't been a good week for Norwich City Football Club either, after being knocked out of the League Cup by Manchester United, and then losing 7-0 away to Manchester City today. I'm struggling to know what to make of all this, to be brutally honest - of course, both Manchester teams are tough opposition, particularly when they're playing at home, but a 7-0 scoreline is just embarrassing and we (that is, Norwich) have a much stronger and more talented quad than eighteenth in the Premier League would suggest.
If you believe most of the 'fans' commenting on the club Facebook page, and generally chattering on social media, the answer is staring us in the face - sack [manager] Chris Hughton, and instantly we'll be in the top half of the table, and beating all the top teams. I'm sorry, but that is overly simplistic, and just won't wash.
Before today's game at the Etihad Stadium, Norwich City posted a short video on their Facebook page, in which Hughton says he 'has to take the positives' from the past weeks; the first comment I saw said 'I haven't seen any positives'. Seriously? No positives at all? Nonsense - they may only be small things, but they are there.
This is the sort of thing which really irritates me; it's not the fact that fans are frustrated with the team, or with the manager - that's perfectly understandable - but the uneducated, ill-informed way in which that frustration is expressed. Hughton is often slated by Norwich fans for being 'a defensive manager', and for playing 'negatively' - a charge still inexplicably levelled at him following last week's draw at home to Cardiff, in which the Canaries broke the season's Premier League record for the most number of shots on target. Of course we should've scored one, and we should've won that game - but in what universe does that constitute 'defensive' play?!
Are Norwich dead-and-buried? No. Despite currently sitting in the Relegation Zone, with nine points we are still in touch with the next five or six teams above us in the table, and we are lucky that there is already a small gap opening to the bottom two teams - Sunderland and Crystal Palace - which means that in order for either of them to overtake Norwich they would have to win two games in a row, with Norwich losing both their fixtures.
Yes, something is seriously wrong. Is it the manager? Perhaps. But let's not forget, in our lynch-mob hysteria, that we started very slowly last season too (under the same manager), but then went on an unbeaten run of games better than that of any other team in Europe besides Barcelona. We beat Arsenal, Manchester United and Manchester City last year - all with Chris Hughton as manager.
I think some people must have spilt beer on their computers' numeric keypads, as the '4' and the '2' key seem to be sticking... Commenting '4-4-2' followed by about eight million exclamation marks doesn't exactly make you a football expert. Presumably, these are the same people who stick the knife into the England manager whenever the national teams plays a 4-4-2 formation because it's an old-fashioned way of setting up a team?
If those supporters who are screaming 'Hughton Out' want to be taken seriously, they need to provide a viable alternative. Sacking a manager is a big deal - it will cause unrest and upheaval, it could unsettle the team and have the opposite effect to the one for which we'd be hoping. But even assuming it would be the right course of action, the biggest question is still: who would we get instead?
A lot of managerial names were being bandied about by the Facebook know-it-alls today; including Malky Mackay, Neil Lennon, Gianfranco Zola and Roberto Di Matteo. Can you honestly see any of those managers even wanting to come to Norwich? Who else is there who is available, and is a genuinely better option?
Now, let's be absolutely clear here... I'm not saying that Hughton is blameless in this situation (he isn't), and I'm not saying that getting rid of the manager is not the right way forward - but if we are going to sack our manager, that needs to be a carefully considered, well-thought-out move, and not a knee-jerk reaction brought on by mindless panic after a tough start in the first quarter of the season. I, for one, am extremely glad that the football club I love is not being run by these same idiots who like to act first, and think later.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Summer skin on Facebook
Now that we are in the month of June, it is acceptable - indeed, practically mandatory - to post gratuitous skin pictures on Facebook, providing that the skin you're posting is burnt as heck.
Not only does this surreptitiously show off the 'beach physique' of which you are so proud, it also gives all your friends on Facebook the impression that your day has been an action-packed roller-coaster of 'having fun' outdoors - effectively using your red raw sunburn as a placard showing everyone you know how much more exciting your life is than theirs (which is, after all, the point of Facebook).
Not only does this surreptitiously show off the 'beach physique' of which you are so proud, it also gives all your friends on Facebook the impression that your day has been an action-packed roller-coaster of 'having fun' outdoors - effectively using your red raw sunburn as a placard showing everyone you know how much more exciting your life is than theirs (which is, after all, the point of Facebook).
Saturday, 14 July 2012
Happy Facebirthday!
So, yesterday was my birthday... (I'm twenty-two; thanks for asking.)
As is normal in this day and age, I experienced a high volume of traffic on my Facebook profile, with plenty of friends and acquaintances dropping by to wish me many happy returns. (I probably had more people talking to me on Facebook within the space of twenty-four hours, than I do in six months during the rest of the year!)
Of course, Facebook is in now, when it comes to communicating. Some people would say that a message written on someone's Facebook Wall (sorry, Timeline) is less personal than a traditional birthday card, a handwritten note, or even a 'phone call - but we must move with the times, and personally, I still appreciate the fact that people have got in touch with me to wish me well on my birthday. It's nice.
As I said, I really appreciate my friends' taking the trouble to speak to me on my birthday, and I always try to respond to each person who has done so. However, it really irritates me when other people respond so impersonally to birthday wishes on Facebook.
I often notice other Facebook users displaying less gratitude to their friends, and simply posting a "one-size-fits-all" status update during the day, saying "thanks to everyone who has wished me a happy birthday!!" No doubt they feel overwhelmed by the large amounts of people getting in touch with them, and feel it unnecessary to reply to each one individually - I'm sorry, but I don't agree, and I think if someone has taken the time to write you a comment, you can take the time to write them one back.
After all, it wouldn't look great if, on every day which is not my birthday, I just posted a status saying "happy birthday to anyone whose birthday it happens to be today!" instead of actually bothering to talk to my friends individually, would it?
As is normal in this day and age, I experienced a high volume of traffic on my Facebook profile, with plenty of friends and acquaintances dropping by to wish me many happy returns. (I probably had more people talking to me on Facebook within the space of twenty-four hours, than I do in six months during the rest of the year!)
Of course, Facebook is in now, when it comes to communicating. Some people would say that a message written on someone's Facebook Wall (sorry, Timeline) is less personal than a traditional birthday card, a handwritten note, or even a 'phone call - but we must move with the times, and personally, I still appreciate the fact that people have got in touch with me to wish me well on my birthday. It's nice.
As I said, I really appreciate my friends' taking the trouble to speak to me on my birthday, and I always try to respond to each person who has done so. However, it really irritates me when other people respond so impersonally to birthday wishes on Facebook.
I often notice other Facebook users displaying less gratitude to their friends, and simply posting a "one-size-fits-all" status update during the day, saying "thanks to everyone who has wished me a happy birthday!!" No doubt they feel overwhelmed by the large amounts of people getting in touch with them, and feel it unnecessary to reply to each one individually - I'm sorry, but I don't agree, and I think if someone has taken the time to write you a comment, you can take the time to write them one back.
After all, it wouldn't look great if, on every day which is not my birthday, I just posted a status saying "happy birthday to anyone whose birthday it happens to be today!" instead of actually bothering to talk to my friends individually, would it?
Friday, 4 June 2010
Facebook group hilarity
I know I'm posting rather a lot today, but I couldn't let this latest observation go by without mentioning it somewhere...
I have just laughed out loud (yeah, an actual, genuine, real live "lol") at the name of a Facebook group... And the best bit was, it wasn't even one of this "funny" groups - y'know, the ones which invariably aren't funny...
The group name was clearly meant to say - I hate it when you're super excited for something and everything goes wrong - a reasonably mundane, but not inherently amusing, group...
But, thanks to multiple spelling errors, what I actually read, was this - I hate it when your supper exited for something and everything goes wrong - "yes," I thought to myself, "I actually do hate it when my evening meal walks out, because it's found some other, more attractive, way to spend the time, triggering a chain of unfortunate happenings!"
OK, perhaps not so funny when it's explained in that way - but, I guarantee, hilarious, if you happen to be glancing down your News Feed, and spot that name... Honestly!!
I have just laughed out loud (yeah, an actual, genuine, real live "lol") at the name of a Facebook group... And the best bit was, it wasn't even one of this "funny" groups - y'know, the ones which invariably aren't funny...
The group name was clearly meant to say - I hate it when you're super excited for something and everything goes wrong - a reasonably mundane, but not inherently amusing, group...
But, thanks to multiple spelling errors, what I actually read, was this - I hate it when your supper exited for something and everything goes wrong - "yes," I thought to myself, "I actually do hate it when my evening meal walks out, because it's found some other, more attractive, way to spend the time, triggering a chain of unfortunate happenings!"
OK, perhaps not so funny when it's explained in that way - but, I guarantee, hilarious, if you happen to be glancing down your News Feed, and spot that name... Honestly!!
Monday, 8 February 2010
The long-overdue Facebook rant
Facebook - it's fun, it's cool, everyone has it, you keep in touch, you communicate, you share photos, videos, thoughts, comments, experiences... Only one problem - it's RUBBISH!!
The rubbish-ness of Facebook is manifold... I like to think of it as a shrivelled hand, where each bent, bony finger represents a reason why Facebook is rubbish...
The thumb, underneath which we all squirm in discomfort, is the broken codes of Facebook's interface... Photos refusing to load, a "live feed" which still shows posts from last weekend, comments which say they can't be posted, but actually get posted twice, or three times, while you struggle to know what's going on... It is a bug-ridden mire, a swamp of incompetence, pervaded by that pestilential "oops, something went wrong!" error box... They have tried to be too clever by half, and they have fallen short...
Half the time, my home-page looks like this:
The index finger, pointing right at you, with mock-sincerity, is the layout of Facebook's interface... If the code behind Facebook is bad, the way it is laid out on the screen is diabolically poor! Even when my "feed" is working, I see is a string of people joining useless groups, or "becoming a fan" of everything in sight... Am I interested? Nope! As an effective socially networking tool, Facebook is in danger of dieing completely - groups, fan pages, and applications have their eczema-inflamed fingers around Facebook's flabby throat, slowly choking the life out of any sane person's interest in the website...
And that leads me on to the middle finger, a rude and defiant gesture - a poisoner which Facebook itself invited to tea... Applications! Fishville, Farmville, Farm Town, Send a Smile, What Kind of a Friend are You?, How Old a Soul are You?, Fan Check, Who Were You in a Past Life?, My Top Followers - you know the ones... How annoying... Clogging up the "News Feed" like brambles over-running a once-nice suburban garden, people discovering their Top Ten Valentine's Day Crushes, at the click of a button... Do I care? Still no!
The fourth finger, weak and impotent, mostly irrelevant, is the Facebook Chat application... I have used it once - it was an experience akin to bathing in cold, three-day-old herbal tea on the roof of The Treasury, while, oblivious to your presence, Alistair Darling and George Osborne wrestle fiercely, each clad only in a mankini...
And now, the fifth and final finger, of Facebook's dysfunctional hand... The users themselves... "Gosh, how could you say such a thing?! If anyone's a victim in this whole charade, it's Facebook's users!" Well yes - but some seem intent on make cyber-rods for their own ebacks... I referred earlier to the pointlessness of a "News Feed" choked up with posts about irrelevant, un-funny, nonsensical groups and fan pages... Who creates these? Who joins the groups? Who "becomes a fan" with alarming yet inescapable monotony? The users, of course...!
I have done some research, to show just how ridiculous the whole group/page situation has become... I, personally, am getting fed up with many of the old, hackneyed "jokes" which float around Facebooks fan pages... For example, the whole "can *mundane object* get more fans than *unpopular celebrity* ?" thing is getting a little worn-out now... In total, there are "about four thousand, two hundred" of these pages - some of the most popular include -
Can this Onion Ring get more fans than Justin Bieber?
can this sausage roll get more fans than cheryl cole?
Can this purple monster i made on paint get more fans than the president?
Can this Sexy Potato get more fans than Miley Cyrus?
Can this Banana Get more fans Than Miley Cyrus
Can this Hedgehog get more fans than JLS?
Can this egg get more fans than Katie Price?
These are all real examples, all of which have over fifty thousand fans on their pages... And there are at least another four thousand, one hundred of them too! You see my point?
Another quick search shows the following shocking figures..
There are 406 fan pages, and 231 groups, whose names begin with "Hi, I'm a boy" - and there are 575 fan pages and 350 groups whose names begin "Hi, I'm a girl"... The "Hi, I'm a boy" groups are typically made by girls, and they try to make out how awful boys are - similarly, the "Hi, I'm a girl" groups are made by boys trying to get back at girls who've made "Hi, I'm a boy" groups... Unless they're from the small backlash of groups about boys made by boys - or groups about girls made by girls - which try to make out that each gender is not as bad as the other seems to think... It's essentially a sexism war, on Facebook - and it's all rather silly... Here are some examples -
Hi, I'm a boy and I ignore decent girls and choose sluts instead.
"Hi, I'm a boy, I lie about my feelings all the time and ruin your life :)"
Hi I'm a Boy, Your Not The Only Girl In My Life, I Have Ten :) ♥
Hi! I'm a boy - I'm a prick.
Hi, I'm a boy, and actually, I'm a decent bloke.
hi i'm a girl, I argue, moan, think im always right & never shut up
Hi, I'm a girl, I sterotype all men because I cant get into a relationship.
hi, i'm a girl, i unfairly generalise the opposite sex
Hi, i'm a girl. NAGNAGNAGNAGNAG
Hiya, I'm a girl, and when I say I like you, I actually mean it.
As you can see, if you've clicked on any of those links, these groups are just full of petty arguments, tired sexist retorts and piss-poor spelling...
Also on the topic of a badly-punctuated "battle of the sexes" revolving around Facebook Groups (well, kind-of) there are 546 fan pages about having period pains... I may be straying into dangerous territory myself here, but hey, I know it can be painful, but is it 546-pages-painful?!
Then, there are all the "I hate it when"s - around forty-six thousand of them! These can be split into two categories...
Number one - Real I Hate It Whens... For exampl -
i hate it when i forget something i really wanted to say
I Hate It When I Can't Fall Asleep Because I'm Thinking
I hate it when people unexpectedly go offline...
And number two - Stupid I Hate It Whens - which are supposed to be "funny" but really, really aren't, and are terribly over-done... For example -
I hate it when you walk outside and someone randomly throws a fridge at you
I hate it when you open your trunk & a naked asian beats you with a crowbar
I Hate It When You Walk Outside, Realise Your A Fish, And Die.
Dont you just hate it when a walrus attacks your nan.
Dont u hate it when your with Jason Derulo & he keeps asking what you said?
There are 231 pages, and 67 groups, devoted to people who laughed when they saw a certain image - usually something to do with popular culture... Here are some more cringe-worthy examples -
I LOL'D when i saw this picture of Robert Pattinson
I lold when i saw this pic of justin bieber !
I LOL'D WHEN I SAW THIS
I lol'd so much when i saw what simon cowel would look like bald. :')
I lol'd when I saw your new girlfriend because you said she was hot.
Pathetic, eh?
And finally, there are a disturbing 1800 pages, and a whopping 6200 groups, claiming to give your Facebook account a "Dislike Button" if you join, and invite all your friends... Of course, none of them work - it is obvious, by now, to anyone with half a brain, that despite the initial clamouring, Facebook has no plans to instigate a "Dislike Button"...
In my opinion, the concept of Facebook still holds true, but it is as a good soul trapped inside a rotten and disfigured body... It is like a fat man with a heart of gold... It needs to go on a detox, and get back into shape...
[all figures correct at time of publishing]
The rubbish-ness of Facebook is manifold... I like to think of it as a shrivelled hand, where each bent, bony finger represents a reason why Facebook is rubbish...
The thumb, underneath which we all squirm in discomfort, is the broken codes of Facebook's interface... Photos refusing to load, a "live feed" which still shows posts from last weekend, comments which say they can't be posted, but actually get posted twice, or three times, while you struggle to know what's going on... It is a bug-ridden mire, a swamp of incompetence, pervaded by that pestilential "oops, something went wrong!" error box... They have tried to be too clever by half, and they have fallen short...
Half the time, my home-page looks like this:
The index finger, pointing right at you, with mock-sincerity, is the layout of Facebook's interface... If the code behind Facebook is bad, the way it is laid out on the screen is diabolically poor! Even when my "feed" is working, I see is a string of people joining useless groups, or "becoming a fan" of everything in sight... Am I interested? Nope! As an effective socially networking tool, Facebook is in danger of dieing completely - groups, fan pages, and applications have their eczema-inflamed fingers around Facebook's flabby throat, slowly choking the life out of any sane person's interest in the website...
And that leads me on to the middle finger, a rude and defiant gesture - a poisoner which Facebook itself invited to tea... Applications! Fishville, Farmville, Farm Town, Send a Smile, What Kind of a Friend are You?, How Old a Soul are You?, Fan Check, Who Were You in a Past Life?, My Top Followers - you know the ones... How annoying... Clogging up the "News Feed" like brambles over-running a once-nice suburban garden, people discovering their Top Ten Valentine's Day Crushes, at the click of a button... Do I care? Still no!
The fourth finger, weak and impotent, mostly irrelevant, is the Facebook Chat application... I have used it once - it was an experience akin to bathing in cold, three-day-old herbal tea on the roof of The Treasury, while, oblivious to your presence, Alistair Darling and George Osborne wrestle fiercely, each clad only in a mankini...
And now, the fifth and final finger, of Facebook's dysfunctional hand... The users themselves... "Gosh, how could you say such a thing?! If anyone's a victim in this whole charade, it's Facebook's users!" Well yes - but some seem intent on make cyber-rods for their own ebacks... I referred earlier to the pointlessness of a "News Feed" choked up with posts about irrelevant, un-funny, nonsensical groups and fan pages... Who creates these? Who joins the groups? Who "becomes a fan" with alarming yet inescapable monotony? The users, of course...!
I have done some research, to show just how ridiculous the whole group/page situation has become... I, personally, am getting fed up with many of the old, hackneyed "jokes" which float around Facebooks fan pages... For example, the whole "can *mundane object* get more fans than *unpopular celebrity* ?" thing is getting a little worn-out now... In total, there are "about four thousand, two hundred" of these pages - some of the most popular include -
Can this Onion Ring get more fans than Justin Bieber?
can this sausage roll get more fans than cheryl cole?
Can this purple monster i made on paint get more fans than the president?
Can this Sexy Potato get more fans than Miley Cyrus?
Can this Banana Get more fans Than Miley Cyrus
Can this Hedgehog get more fans than JLS?
Can this egg get more fans than Katie Price?
These are all real examples, all of which have over fifty thousand fans on their pages... And there are at least another four thousand, one hundred of them too! You see my point?
Another quick search shows the following shocking figures..
There are 406 fan pages, and 231 groups, whose names begin with "Hi, I'm a boy" - and there are 575 fan pages and 350 groups whose names begin "Hi, I'm a girl"... The "Hi, I'm a boy" groups are typically made by girls, and they try to make out how awful boys are - similarly, the "Hi, I'm a girl" groups are made by boys trying to get back at girls who've made "Hi, I'm a boy" groups... Unless they're from the small backlash of groups about boys made by boys - or groups about girls made by girls - which try to make out that each gender is not as bad as the other seems to think... It's essentially a sexism war, on Facebook - and it's all rather silly... Here are some examples -
Hi, I'm a boy and I ignore decent girls and choose sluts instead.
"Hi, I'm a boy, I lie about my feelings all the time and ruin your life :)"
Hi I'm a Boy, Your Not The Only Girl In My Life, I Have Ten :) ♥
Hi! I'm a boy - I'm a prick.
Hi, I'm a boy, and actually, I'm a decent bloke.
hi i'm a girl, I argue, moan, think im always right & never shut up
Hi, I'm a girl, I sterotype all men because I cant get into a relationship.
hi, i'm a girl, i unfairly generalise the opposite sex
Hi, i'm a girl. NAGNAGNAGNAGNAG
Hiya, I'm a girl, and when I say I like you, I actually mean it.
As you can see, if you've clicked on any of those links, these groups are just full of petty arguments, tired sexist retorts and piss-poor spelling...
Also on the topic of a badly-punctuated "battle of the sexes" revolving around Facebook Groups (well, kind-of) there are 546 fan pages about having period pains... I may be straying into dangerous territory myself here, but hey, I know it can be painful, but is it 546-pages-painful?!
Then, there are all the "I hate it when"s - around forty-six thousand of them! These can be split into two categories...
Number one - Real I Hate It Whens... For exampl -
i hate it when i forget something i really wanted to say
I Hate It When I Can't Fall Asleep Because I'm Thinking
I hate it when people unexpectedly go offline...
And number two - Stupid I Hate It Whens - which are supposed to be "funny" but really, really aren't, and are terribly over-done... For example -
I hate it when you walk outside and someone randomly throws a fridge at you
I hate it when you open your trunk & a naked asian beats you with a crowbar
I Hate It When You Walk Outside, Realise Your A Fish, And Die.
Dont you just hate it when a walrus attacks your nan.
Dont u hate it when your with Jason Derulo & he keeps asking what you said?
There are 231 pages, and 67 groups, devoted to people who laughed when they saw a certain image - usually something to do with popular culture... Here are some more cringe-worthy examples -
I LOL'D when i saw this picture of Robert Pattinson
I lold when i saw this pic of justin bieber !
I LOL'D WHEN I SAW THIS
I lol'd so much when i saw what simon cowel would look like bald. :')
I lol'd when I saw your new girlfriend because you said she was hot.
Pathetic, eh?
And finally, there are a disturbing 1800 pages, and a whopping 6200 groups, claiming to give your Facebook account a "Dislike Button" if you join, and invite all your friends... Of course, none of them work - it is obvious, by now, to anyone with half a brain, that despite the initial clamouring, Facebook has no plans to instigate a "Dislike Button"...
In my opinion, the concept of Facebook still holds true, but it is as a good soul trapped inside a rotten and disfigured body... It is like a fat man with a heart of gold... It needs to go on a detox, and get back into shape...
[all figures correct at time of publishing]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)