24 December, 2023
Jordyn Jones' Top Ten Music Videos
If you haven't heard of her, Jordyn Jones is a minor celebrity pop star/model/influencer. Born at the turn of the millennium in the vicinity of Kalamazoo, Michigan (yes, it's a real place, and I've been there :-p), she journeyed to Los Angeles as a preteen, already trained as a dancer and ready to pursue her dreams of pop stardom. I first became aware of this rising young starlet when she started releasing music videos on Youtube circa 2014, juxtaposing her pretty white girl looks with a confident hip hop swagger. Over the years, she transitioned to a more traditional pop star image, and with age and maturity, has steadily grown in popularity as an Instagram model.
After having the privilege of attending a local cheer competition two seasons ago, I started watching Dance Moms to steep myself in the subculture. When I started season 1 of the spin-off Abby's Ultimate Dance Competition, I recognized with excitement a young Jordyn Jones just at the start of her career, and it reignited my interest. I devoured her Youtube content, including an adorable series for Awesomeness TV, in which she tries out various summer and winter jobs. Meanwhile, I put together a playlist of songs she's recorded, so I can listen to it in the car.
I'm currently in the process of catching up on her podcast What They Don't Tell You, in which she interviews her peers in the social media sphere. Being in a different generation, with no experience of the LA lifestyle, it's mostly conversations with "influencers" I've never heard of; but Jordyn's bubbly, happy-go-lucky personality is positively infectious, and I enjoy putting it on and occasionally checking in while I work at my computer.
I know Jorydn's a pretty white girl with all the privilege in the world, but she's genuine, kind-hearted almost to a fault, and surprisingly grounded for somebody who came of age in LA (I give her mom a lot of credit for that). She's also a bit of a teetotaler - which I can relate to - despite basically living in the fast lane. She tragically lost her dad a few years ago in an alcohol-related accident, and maintains a warm and hilarious relationship with her mom. She can dance. She can sing. She's funny. She's pretty - and she's never been afraid to market herself on that point. I'm not ashamed to admit that I stan her.
And so I wanted to celebrate the sunshine her web presence brings into my life (also because it's only fair, given that I've honored two other young starlets I've stanned in the past, right here on this very blog) by sharing with you ten of my favorite music videos she's released on Youtube during the last decade. We'll go in chronological order, starting with the earliest one (because that makes the most sense to me, and I hate ranking things).
Banji (Sharaya J cover)
Not the earliest music video Jordyn appeared in (she was briefly part of a girl group called 5 Little Princesses, or 5LP - search for the song Sugar and Spice), but her debut as a solo performer, and likely the first I ever saw. Whether you think it's the bomb or cringey AF (personally, I'm in the former camp), it makes a strong impression. Admittedly, there's a discordance between Jordyn's ultra-cute aesthetic and the darker stylings of hip hop (albeit not quite to 5LP's level of tween girls rapping about staying up late while wearing pink tutus and glittering tiaras), but I think it's adorable and it gives me something to appreciate about a music genre that doesn't normally appeal to me.
"Where did this, where did this chick come from?"
If you like this video, Jordyn's cover of Fancy by Iggy Azalea provides more of the same, with a steady bass beat, and a video that manages to make laundry day look chic. And if you're digging that schoolyard nostalgia, Jordyn and friends layer on the Lip Gloss in an unforgettable cover of Lil Mama's song by that name, decked out in cheerleader uniforms and dancing in front of an ice cream truck. If I have a lot to say about this era of Jordyn's career, it's because this is how I was introduced to her and it brings back fond memories.
"Hot girl, hands off, don't touch that."
Lips Are Movin' (Meghan Trainor cover)
Without breaking continuity from her previous videos (all of which so far have been directed by Nayip Ramos, and feature the familiar faces of some recurring backup dancers), Jordyn gives us a taste of her pop star aspirations and gets a little playfully jaded with what is probably the most popular song she's covered yet. And if you prefer this style over Jordyn's hip hop phase, you won't want to miss her cover of Katy Perry's This Is How We Do, in a video that gives off major beachy/urban California vibes.
"I know you lie - your lips are movin'."
Fiyacracka
I'm already regretting limiting myself to 10 videos, because I would be remiss not to mention I'm Dappin'. Notable in that it's Jordyn's first original song, it displays a somewhat more mature style while giving her an opportunity to show off her rapping skills. Although still playful, it's a bit darker (literally - with lots of indoor and night time shots), with a steady rhythm and a catchy chorus.
"I'm dancing, I'm snapping; my swagger is splashing."
But I've chosen to highlight Fiyacracka from this stage of Jordyn's career instead, because I think it's an even stronger offering. Many of the same things can be said about it, but the glamor is dialed up to eleven, and you can really begin to see the mature pop star Jordyn was becoming, as distinguished from the cute child star she started out as. This is Jordyn, barely 16, literally manifesting her dreams.
"When that bass drops, I can bang ya like a fiyacracka."
BRUH!
This is one of Jordyn's most imaginative music videos (once again featuring director Nayip Ramos), in which she and a couple of her cohorts play inmates of a girl's correctional facility, exploiting some of the tropes from women's prison flicks. It's so much fun! And if you've ever stalked her Instagram (just between you and me, I may have gotten my account suspended for running a page-loading script just to get to the start of her timeline - what's the point of having those pictures posted if it's humanly impossible to pull them up?), then you'll know Jordyn's faux crime ("too many selfies") isn't stretching the truth. Obviously, the slang term "bruh" was in use long before Jordyn got a hold of it, but I can honestly credit her for getting me to start saying it... sarcastically.
"I'mma let you, I'mma let you finish, but... bruh!"
All I Need
In this sunny video, Jordyn sings a pop ballad to young love - deep, yet fleeting - perfectly encapsulated in the chorus (which I catch myself singing in my head from time to time). The lyrics are poignantly prescient, as time casts a wistful sheen over the proceedings, in light of the fact that the video co-stars Jordyn's then boyfriend who is now her long-time ex.
"We're gonna be together forever... for right now."
For another song that portrays romance with an underpinning of melancholy, take a beach vacay with Summer, and view an even more mature side of Jordyn. If, on the other hand, it's more upbeat pop covers you want to hear, I can recommend Starving and The Middle, as well as an angelic duet with Sam Bruno singing Ariana Grande's No Tears Left To Cry.
New (Daya cover)
For this video, we once again take a darker turn, with a glamorous-looking Jordyn in the back seat of a car riding through the city at night, agonizing over a messy breakup, and realizing only too late the value of what she's lost. Although it's a cover, the emotion is palpable, and I enjoy the play of the lyrics. In fact, I prefer it to Jordyn's cover of another, more popular Daya song - Sit Still, Look Pretty (although that one is also good, and I appreciate its message of empowerment).
"Messing with someone new, thinking I wanted to;
turns out I don't want new - I want you."
Ain't My Fault (Zara Larsson cover)
"It ain't my fault you came here lookin' like that."
I love the way this song sounds. I also love the video. I think it's really cute the way Jordyn repeats the word "nope" in the chorus. I love how it's shot in a single take, while Jordyn moves around the studio. I love how the backup dancers come in and out of frame at different points during the song. I love the way Jordyn whips her ponytail around. I don't even care that the lyrics sound rapey; fair or not, when it's a pretty girl singing them, I'll let it slide. If you like the sentiment, but want something a little less problematic, check out Can't Say No from Jordyn's 2019 self-titled EP.
"Can't say no when you're lookin' like that."
Think About U
"Every time I think about you, I just think of making love."
This is my choice of videos from the aforementioned EP. The song is pop, but the video has a bit of a grungey aesthetic, and features Jordyn practically dripping with desire. Also of interest is the video for More, another track from Jordyn's EP, featuring Jordyn with cotton candy blue hair. Notable in that it co-stars Jordyn's more recent ex, I daresay the wound might still be too fresh to properly enjoy it.
"More of your touch, more of your eyes, more of your tongue..."
That said, it's not as raw as watching Jordyn and her ex play-act a fight in the video that portrays her ending up on the beach at sunset with duet partner Wesley in Intimate.
"I'm trying to keep it intimate, so let me know if you are into it."
Blind
"I fall deep, take the pain till I can't breathe."
Released in April of 2020, this is the epitome of "quarantine" music videos - featuring Jordyn rolling around alone in bed in a thin crop top and ripped jeans. You'll either love or hate the video's unwavering commitment to its retro VHS aesthetic - personally, I think it's spot on. I prefer this one precisely for its raw quality, but you might also like to check out Jordyn's somewhat more polished-looking video covering Hayley Kiyoko's Curious, in which she also appears in bed looking scrumptious. It doesn't have the heart-aching quality of Blind, but it's very flowery, white, and sweet-sounding.
"I'm just curious - is it serious?"
Love You Less
We finish this list with the last video Jordyn released before pivoting to podcast host, and probably the most imaginative one since BRUH! (once again featuring director Nayip). Jordyn embodies the role of a bad girl (somewhat ironically), dressed in scandalous outfits and (gasp!) smoking a cigarette. She's speeding down a desert highway, emotionally detached from the destruction she's leaving in her wake. With explosions, flashing cop cars, and even a flamethrower, the production mimics that of a Hollywood blockbuster. It's all a great deal of fun.
"I'm a train wreck for ya, I'm a mess;
God, you're such a heartbreak takin' off my dress."
And there you have it! I hope you've received a fraction of the enjoyment I get from viewing these videos. And Jordyn - thank you for sharing your talent, beauty, and positive energy with the world. I am in your corner, and I'll be looking forward to seeing what you do next. #teamjordyn #jjswag
14 December, 2023
Encounters
So, I just watched a new show titled Encounters on Netflix, and it's got me thinking about UFOs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by the concept, and love to watch both fictional entertainment and speculative documentaries on the subject, because I have a curious mind. But I don't believe in UFOs. Which is to say, of course people experience unidentified aerial phenomena, but I remain skeptical that any of it ties to extraterrestrial intelligence, in the absence of any kind of convincing scientific evidence, which as yet remains out of our grasp. Pretty much the same way I approach religion.
We don't understand everything in the universe - not by a long shot. But we can make educated guesses about certain things, and the claims people make about aliens in spaceships clandestinely visiting Earth far exceed a rational analysis of the empirical evidence available to us.
There could be other intelligent life out there in the vast reaches of the cosmos - scientifically, it's not impossible. And even though it may be rare, on an astronomical scale, who knows? It could even be likely. Whether it's even possible for them to visit us, assuming they can find us and have the desire to make contact, considering the cosmic scale of both space and time, is another question entirely.
In the even more vast expanses of the human imagination, it may even be plausible - though not probable - for alien life of some kind to visit us in a manner demanding and capable of the utmost secrecy that documented encounters would require in order to be interpreted in this way. That said, like with extraordinary claims of religious phenomena, Occam's Razor instructs us to pick the simplest explanation that fits the data available to us.
It's not that my mind is closed to any reality that is unfamiliar to me. If a flying saucer landed tomorrow, and a green-skinned, one-eyed, tentacled monster gave a speech in a national address standing next to the president, or if impossible ships with impossible weapons started devastating the planet and enslaving mankind, I wouldn't reject what was going on before my very eyes. There just needs to be verifiable evidence for it first.
Consider how illogical it is for a society, having recently struggled through a pandemic, to be skeptical of what science tells us about how germs behave, while simultaneously defending the outrageous belief that the presence of flashing lights in the sky proves that our government is talking to beings from beyond the stars. On second thought, maybe those two superstitions are linked.
I don't doubt the visceral feelings and sometimes traumatic emotions that people endure. But I know a little something about how little our brains can be trusted to accurately interpret our sensory perceptions, and it's not solely because I took a few courses in psychophysics in college. I was able to experience it firsthand, during an isolated bout of sleep paralysis that occurred 17 years ago, in which I was convinced that I was awake, and that there was a malevolent humanoid figure beside my bed - until I opened my eyes to an empty room. It was the most terrifying moment of my life, but though I would not want to repeat it, I consider myself lucky to have experienced it once, as a powerful demonstration of the fundamental fallibility of human consciousness.
What I'm saying is, it's possible to remain skeptical about UFOs, while still being sensitive to the accounts of people who claim to have seen them. There are more stances than outright denial and unwavering belief - and, as always, the truth is most likely to lie somewhere in the middle. The way I see it, there are a number of different possible interpretations of any given UFO sighting (or abduction encounter). They're not all going to have the same explanation. Ranging from the least sensitive to the most outrageous, this is what immediately comes to mind:
Possibility 1: The Lie. There was no encounter. Either the witness knows this, and is engaging in willful deception, or has been made to believe - perhaps through the power of suggestion, or a fault of memory - that it happened. This interpretation isn't very sensitive to the witness' perspective (#BelieveTheAbductee, anyone?), but it has been known to happen.
Possibility 2: The Hallucination. There was some form of encounter, but only in the witness' mind. It is the nature of the event that has been misinterpreted, rather than the fact of an event occurring. For example, during my bout of sleep paralysis, there was nobody standing beside my bed, but it sure as hell felt like there was.
Possibility 3a: The Hoax. There was an encounter. However, it has a man-made explanation, and was executed as a prank - either with the witness' knowledge or not.
Possibility 3b: The Weather Balloon. There was an encounter, and it has a man-made explanation. The witness has merely misinterpreted a fairly normal phenomenon. I daresay this is the most common explanation for an alleged UFO sighting, especially among people not overly familiar with the appearance and behavior of aircraft.
Possibility 3c: The Stealth Jet. There was an encounter, and it has a man-made explanation. However, the witness' confusion is justified, because it involves experimental technology. For obvious reasons, an explanation is unlikely to be forthcoming, and other possibilities may be proffered (especially Swamp Gas or The Weather Balloon) to defer speculation.
Possibility 4a: Swamp Gas. There was an encounter, and it has a natural explanation. The witness has merely misinterpreted a fairly normal environmental phenomenon. However, in many cases, there may simply not be enough evidence (especially if all we have to rely on is witness testimony) to provide a satisfactory explanation.
Possibility 4b: Ball Lightning. There was an encounter, and it has a natural explanation. However, the witness' confusion is justified, because it involves an unexplained environmental phenomenon. The fact that science has yet to provide an explanation does not mean it is truly supernatural.
Possibility 5a: The Flying Saucer. There was an encounter, and it involves some form of extraterrestrial intelligence. The technology is so far beyond our understanding, that it will be a long time before we can adequately explain it.
Possibility 5b: The Chariot. There was an encounter, and it involves a truly supernatural phenomenon that defies logical explanation, whether it be extradimensional beings, or some kind of spiritual manifestation (e.g., angels, or human souls).
Allow me to conclude with a quote from the series, followed by a few lingering remarks:
"What the story's about is that re-enchantment of the environment. People used to believe in all kinds of weird stuff. In modern times, we don't believe in those kinds of creatures, but... weird stuff is still here. Obviously, there's something - whether it's in here in the landscape, or in people's minds - they're having the same sort of weird experiences, but they're expressing them in the pop culture of the time. Whether it was supernatural, or natural, something happened that literally changed people's lives. And that, in itself, to me, is what's important."
- David Clarke, Journalist
---
I mean, even if it were true that the universe is teeming with life, either there would be observable evidence of that, or its reach or our understanding wouldn't enable us to observe it. In that case, it makes little difference what people believe. We can keep an open mind, in anticipation of the future advent of further evidence, without tying ourselves to beliefs that aren't corroborated by observable reality. And there's nothing wrong with that approach. In fact, it can be very dangerous to believe in things that are not backed up by empirical evidence.
As an example, germs existed before man discovered them. And though it would have benefitted us to have behaved as though germs existed before we had evidence enough for us to understand them, I wouldn't expect man to have done so. Because without evidence, how could we have known that germ theory (if anybody had even conceived of such a thing) - and not miasma or "bad humors" - was a true and accurate representation of reality?
If we blindly follow the wrong theory out of some arbitrary decision, instead of whichever is the best one our current knowledge offers us, then we'd be in trouble. This is exactly how religious faith leads us astray, by artificially inflating our confidence in the myths we've chosen, while blinding us to a reality the complexity of which is often hard to parse initially, but is constantly being rendered in greater resolution by the magnifying glass of science (the use of which religion often objects to).
There's nothing - except the evidence we're able to collect and interpret - to tell us which among all possible paths is true. And that's what science does, performed correctly. It doesn't have faith, it doesn't have bias. Humans have these things, and they sometimes taint their experiments with it, but science itself remains pure. It evolves as our understanding evolves, and always reflects reality to the best of our ability to perceive and interpret it. Or else it isn't science, and it needs to be replaced by science.
---
Like, people claim a relationship between UFO activity and nuclear power, and you don't think that it might have something to do with splitting atoms and the ionization of the atmosphere? Even if it's a phenomenon we don't currently understand, it's a heck of a lot more plausible than immediately jumping to "extraterrestrial entities are monitoring the progress of our technology."
Also, like, of course the FBI, the CIA, and other national security agencies are going to be monitoring unexplained aerial phenomena. It's partly their job. That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to cover up contact with an alien culture. But if they're dodgy about transparency, it's because much of what they do is confidential, and if they can't explain something, it's better to keep it under wraps. You don't want the people you're protecting thinking you can't do your job, and you don't want your enemies to know what your limitations are, either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by the concept, and love to watch both fictional entertainment and speculative documentaries on the subject, because I have a curious mind. But I don't believe in UFOs. Which is to say, of course people experience unidentified aerial phenomena, but I remain skeptical that any of it ties to extraterrestrial intelligence, in the absence of any kind of convincing scientific evidence, which as yet remains out of our grasp. Pretty much the same way I approach religion.
We don't understand everything in the universe - not by a long shot. But we can make educated guesses about certain things, and the claims people make about aliens in spaceships clandestinely visiting Earth far exceed a rational analysis of the empirical evidence available to us.
There could be other intelligent life out there in the vast reaches of the cosmos - scientifically, it's not impossible. And even though it may be rare, on an astronomical scale, who knows? It could even be likely. Whether it's even possible for them to visit us, assuming they can find us and have the desire to make contact, considering the cosmic scale of both space and time, is another question entirely.
In the even more vast expanses of the human imagination, it may even be plausible - though not probable - for alien life of some kind to visit us in a manner demanding and capable of the utmost secrecy that documented encounters would require in order to be interpreted in this way. That said, like with extraordinary claims of religious phenomena, Occam's Razor instructs us to pick the simplest explanation that fits the data available to us.
It's not that my mind is closed to any reality that is unfamiliar to me. If a flying saucer landed tomorrow, and a green-skinned, one-eyed, tentacled monster gave a speech in a national address standing next to the president, or if impossible ships with impossible weapons started devastating the planet and enslaving mankind, I wouldn't reject what was going on before my very eyes. There just needs to be verifiable evidence for it first.
Consider how illogical it is for a society, having recently struggled through a pandemic, to be skeptical of what science tells us about how germs behave, while simultaneously defending the outrageous belief that the presence of flashing lights in the sky proves that our government is talking to beings from beyond the stars. On second thought, maybe those two superstitions are linked.
I don't doubt the visceral feelings and sometimes traumatic emotions that people endure. But I know a little something about how little our brains can be trusted to accurately interpret our sensory perceptions, and it's not solely because I took a few courses in psychophysics in college. I was able to experience it firsthand, during an isolated bout of sleep paralysis that occurred 17 years ago, in which I was convinced that I was awake, and that there was a malevolent humanoid figure beside my bed - until I opened my eyes to an empty room. It was the most terrifying moment of my life, but though I would not want to repeat it, I consider myself lucky to have experienced it once, as a powerful demonstration of the fundamental fallibility of human consciousness.
What I'm saying is, it's possible to remain skeptical about UFOs, while still being sensitive to the accounts of people who claim to have seen them. There are more stances than outright denial and unwavering belief - and, as always, the truth is most likely to lie somewhere in the middle. The way I see it, there are a number of different possible interpretations of any given UFO sighting (or abduction encounter). They're not all going to have the same explanation. Ranging from the least sensitive to the most outrageous, this is what immediately comes to mind:
Possibility 1: The Lie. There was no encounter. Either the witness knows this, and is engaging in willful deception, or has been made to believe - perhaps through the power of suggestion, or a fault of memory - that it happened. This interpretation isn't very sensitive to the witness' perspective (#BelieveTheAbductee, anyone?), but it has been known to happen.
Possibility 2: The Hallucination. There was some form of encounter, but only in the witness' mind. It is the nature of the event that has been misinterpreted, rather than the fact of an event occurring. For example, during my bout of sleep paralysis, there was nobody standing beside my bed, but it sure as hell felt like there was.
Possibility 3a: The Hoax. There was an encounter. However, it has a man-made explanation, and was executed as a prank - either with the witness' knowledge or not.
Possibility 3b: The Weather Balloon. There was an encounter, and it has a man-made explanation. The witness has merely misinterpreted a fairly normal phenomenon. I daresay this is the most common explanation for an alleged UFO sighting, especially among people not overly familiar with the appearance and behavior of aircraft.
Possibility 3c: The Stealth Jet. There was an encounter, and it has a man-made explanation. However, the witness' confusion is justified, because it involves experimental technology. For obvious reasons, an explanation is unlikely to be forthcoming, and other possibilities may be proffered (especially Swamp Gas or The Weather Balloon) to defer speculation.
Possibility 4a: Swamp Gas. There was an encounter, and it has a natural explanation. The witness has merely misinterpreted a fairly normal environmental phenomenon. However, in many cases, there may simply not be enough evidence (especially if all we have to rely on is witness testimony) to provide a satisfactory explanation.
Possibility 4b: Ball Lightning. There was an encounter, and it has a natural explanation. However, the witness' confusion is justified, because it involves an unexplained environmental phenomenon. The fact that science has yet to provide an explanation does not mean it is truly supernatural.
Possibility 5a: The Flying Saucer. There was an encounter, and it involves some form of extraterrestrial intelligence. The technology is so far beyond our understanding, that it will be a long time before we can adequately explain it.
Possibility 5b: The Chariot. There was an encounter, and it involves a truly supernatural phenomenon that defies logical explanation, whether it be extradimensional beings, or some kind of spiritual manifestation (e.g., angels, or human souls).
Allow me to conclude with a quote from the series, followed by a few lingering remarks:
"What the story's about is that re-enchantment of the environment. People used to believe in all kinds of weird stuff. In modern times, we don't believe in those kinds of creatures, but... weird stuff is still here. Obviously, there's something - whether it's in here in the landscape, or in people's minds - they're having the same sort of weird experiences, but they're expressing them in the pop culture of the time. Whether it was supernatural, or natural, something happened that literally changed people's lives. And that, in itself, to me, is what's important."
- David Clarke, Journalist
---
I mean, even if it were true that the universe is teeming with life, either there would be observable evidence of that, or its reach or our understanding wouldn't enable us to observe it. In that case, it makes little difference what people believe. We can keep an open mind, in anticipation of the future advent of further evidence, without tying ourselves to beliefs that aren't corroborated by observable reality. And there's nothing wrong with that approach. In fact, it can be very dangerous to believe in things that are not backed up by empirical evidence.
As an example, germs existed before man discovered them. And though it would have benefitted us to have behaved as though germs existed before we had evidence enough for us to understand them, I wouldn't expect man to have done so. Because without evidence, how could we have known that germ theory (if anybody had even conceived of such a thing) - and not miasma or "bad humors" - was a true and accurate representation of reality?
If we blindly follow the wrong theory out of some arbitrary decision, instead of whichever is the best one our current knowledge offers us, then we'd be in trouble. This is exactly how religious faith leads us astray, by artificially inflating our confidence in the myths we've chosen, while blinding us to a reality the complexity of which is often hard to parse initially, but is constantly being rendered in greater resolution by the magnifying glass of science (the use of which religion often objects to).
There's nothing - except the evidence we're able to collect and interpret - to tell us which among all possible paths is true. And that's what science does, performed correctly. It doesn't have faith, it doesn't have bias. Humans have these things, and they sometimes taint their experiments with it, but science itself remains pure. It evolves as our understanding evolves, and always reflects reality to the best of our ability to perceive and interpret it. Or else it isn't science, and it needs to be replaced by science.
---
Like, people claim a relationship between UFO activity and nuclear power, and you don't think that it might have something to do with splitting atoms and the ionization of the atmosphere? Even if it's a phenomenon we don't currently understand, it's a heck of a lot more plausible than immediately jumping to "extraterrestrial entities are monitoring the progress of our technology."
Also, like, of course the FBI, the CIA, and other national security agencies are going to be monitoring unexplained aerial phenomena. It's partly their job. That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to cover up contact with an alien culture. But if they're dodgy about transparency, it's because much of what they do is confidential, and if they can't explain something, it's better to keep it under wraps. You don't want the people you're protecting thinking you can't do your job, and you don't want your enemies to know what your limitations are, either.
05 December, 2023
My Solipsistic Nightmare
"Am I stranded on an island?
Or have I landed in paradise?"
- Paradise by Miley Cyrus
The list of social media sites I've voluntarily left keeps growing (who knew mainstream platforms like Reddit and Twitter were no less cesspools of immaturity than 4chan?), and the list of places that are left, for me to interact with people and express my ideas in a way that helps me feel like I'm not living in a solipsistic nightmare, continue to dwindle. Under normal circumstances, this would be the point where I would question whether the problem is me. Am I a toxic human being? But isn't that an overly harsh assessment? I know I have some pretty serious personality flaws, but I've spent my whole life working on them. And while I can be very judgmental of people (I believe this is a symptom of my OCD and perfectionism - I hold myself to impossibly high standards, and it bothers me when other people fail to do the same), above all I want to be liked, and I strive very hard to be diplomatic in terms of seeing different sides of an argument.
It's kind of funny, the phrase I used above - 'solipsistic nightmare'. In philosophy, solipsism refers to the belief that you are essentially the only conscious being in the world, and everyone else is a figment of your imagination. It's a fascinating concept, but a potentially dangerous belief. I more commonly like to use it symbolically, to refer to a world where you're effectively alone - there just isn't anybody else around. Like a post-apocalypse where you're the only survivor. Obviously, this isn't a technically accurate description of reality - all you have to do to disabuse yourself of that notion is look at the people all around you. But emotionally, there are times in a person's life where they really do feel alone, even if they're surrounded by people. Like how you can sometimes feel "alone in a crowd". This is especially true in the internet world of broadcast platforms and the interminable quest for likes, and exponentially moreso if you've ever had the subtly traumatic experience of being shadow-banned.
The reason I think it's funny that I've described solipsism as a nightmare, is that as a sufferer of crippling social anxiety, I can empathize to a certain extent with Sartre's claim that "hell is other people". I usually consider being alone to be my own personal form of paradise. It's not that I hate people, it's just that social interactions cause me existential pain. And the most direct escape from that pain is to be detached from other people. (Not exactly the Hedgehog's Dilemma - where you avoid opening up to people in order to prevent getting hurt - but very similar). I learned long ago that whenever I talk to people, I tend to frame my responses in a way that's optimized toward ending the conversation. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking "this is a stressful experience and I want to end it quickly." It's instinctual; I don't do it consciously. It happens even when I don't WANT it to happen.
"I've been one poor correspondent;
I've been too, too hard to find;
but it doesn't mean you ain't been on my mind."
- Sister Golden hair by America
So I have a complex whereby I've convinced myself that I don't deserve to have other people in my life. Because I'm not a good friend. I don't correspond, I don't stay in touch - honestly, I dread doing those things because they legitimately terrify me. And if that's the cost of not being alone, I'm not even sure it's worth it. The problem is - and this is something I've learned over the years - I can never be truly happy alone. It's stupidly obvious when other people say it, but in my case, it's no less true than it sounds counterintuitive to me. Although living alone in a post-apocalyptic wasteland sounds like heaven in my head, I know I would hate it. Because even sitting in my room by myself, I find that I crave interaction with other conscious minds. I just mostly can't stand getting it...
So I'm in a bind. I can either be lonely and comfortable, or I can be stimulated and stressed. And I know social media isn't the greatest place to be social - but you have to also consider my handicap. I can't talk to people. Maybe I could learn, if I had the right training - but I haven't a clue how to go about getting that. I talked to a therapist once and we both agreed that I would benefit from in situ therapy, but it simply wasn't a service he was able to offer. You have to realize, the only reason I can express myself to the extent that I do now, is because I've trained myself through relatively low-risk online interactions. Being face-to-face with someone, hearing the sound of their voice - these are triggers that turn me into jelly. It's not even a reaction I choose out of fear; my brain literally functions differently in the presence of other people (I mean, I don't have scientific proof of this, but I'm confident that I could get it if the right experiments were performed). I used to be scared even to post a text reply on a crowded message board, but I've gotten over that, through years of experience.
One thing that's stuck with me, though, is that I am incredibly sensitive. I'm not proud of it - although it does, ironically, help me to empathize with other people. I know how much it hurts to be in emotional pain, therefore it's something I hate to think of causing other people, and when I see it being inflicted on someone by a third party, I feel sympathetic, even sometimes when the assault is justified and the victim "deserves" it. For example, #cancelculture and toxic Twitter. Yes, people should be held accountable for their behaviors as well as their opinions (just because you're entitled to have one doesn't mean I have to respect what it is). But there are a LOT of people being bullied online without justification (not any real one, anyway). But even the people who DO deserve it, I feel like the punishment is often cruel and unusual. And it just creates this "shoot first" culture that glorifies abuse and harassment and creates far too much collateral damage, where words are habitually taken out of context, and innocent people are tarred and feathered merely by guilt of assocation (or for committing the crime of "non-condemnation" - which is the rational approach to a situation you don't possess sufficient knowledge of).
"The time is gone, the song is over;
thought I'd something more to say."
- Time by Pink Floyd
You know what? This is getting a bit long, and I don't feel like talking about how much it hurts when rude people say mean things on the internet right now, so I'm just gonna end it here. I may or may not continue it later. And if you couldn't be bothered to read even this much because there are more than three sentences to a paragraph, and the paragraphs all exceed Twitter's 288 character limit, well then... I have no words for you.
Or have I landed in paradise?"
- Paradise by Miley Cyrus
The list of social media sites I've voluntarily left keeps growing (who knew mainstream platforms like Reddit and Twitter were no less cesspools of immaturity than 4chan?), and the list of places that are left, for me to interact with people and express my ideas in a way that helps me feel like I'm not living in a solipsistic nightmare, continue to dwindle. Under normal circumstances, this would be the point where I would question whether the problem is me. Am I a toxic human being? But isn't that an overly harsh assessment? I know I have some pretty serious personality flaws, but I've spent my whole life working on them. And while I can be very judgmental of people (I believe this is a symptom of my OCD and perfectionism - I hold myself to impossibly high standards, and it bothers me when other people fail to do the same), above all I want to be liked, and I strive very hard to be diplomatic in terms of seeing different sides of an argument.
It's kind of funny, the phrase I used above - 'solipsistic nightmare'. In philosophy, solipsism refers to the belief that you are essentially the only conscious being in the world, and everyone else is a figment of your imagination. It's a fascinating concept, but a potentially dangerous belief. I more commonly like to use it symbolically, to refer to a world where you're effectively alone - there just isn't anybody else around. Like a post-apocalypse where you're the only survivor. Obviously, this isn't a technically accurate description of reality - all you have to do to disabuse yourself of that notion is look at the people all around you. But emotionally, there are times in a person's life where they really do feel alone, even if they're surrounded by people. Like how you can sometimes feel "alone in a crowd". This is especially true in the internet world of broadcast platforms and the interminable quest for likes, and exponentially moreso if you've ever had the subtly traumatic experience of being shadow-banned.
The reason I think it's funny that I've described solipsism as a nightmare, is that as a sufferer of crippling social anxiety, I can empathize to a certain extent with Sartre's claim that "hell is other people". I usually consider being alone to be my own personal form of paradise. It's not that I hate people, it's just that social interactions cause me existential pain. And the most direct escape from that pain is to be detached from other people. (Not exactly the Hedgehog's Dilemma - where you avoid opening up to people in order to prevent getting hurt - but very similar). I learned long ago that whenever I talk to people, I tend to frame my responses in a way that's optimized toward ending the conversation. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking "this is a stressful experience and I want to end it quickly." It's instinctual; I don't do it consciously. It happens even when I don't WANT it to happen.
"I've been one poor correspondent;
I've been too, too hard to find;
but it doesn't mean you ain't been on my mind."
- Sister Golden hair by America
So I have a complex whereby I've convinced myself that I don't deserve to have other people in my life. Because I'm not a good friend. I don't correspond, I don't stay in touch - honestly, I dread doing those things because they legitimately terrify me. And if that's the cost of not being alone, I'm not even sure it's worth it. The problem is - and this is something I've learned over the years - I can never be truly happy alone. It's stupidly obvious when other people say it, but in my case, it's no less true than it sounds counterintuitive to me. Although living alone in a post-apocalyptic wasteland sounds like heaven in my head, I know I would hate it. Because even sitting in my room by myself, I find that I crave interaction with other conscious minds. I just mostly can't stand getting it...
So I'm in a bind. I can either be lonely and comfortable, or I can be stimulated and stressed. And I know social media isn't the greatest place to be social - but you have to also consider my handicap. I can't talk to people. Maybe I could learn, if I had the right training - but I haven't a clue how to go about getting that. I talked to a therapist once and we both agreed that I would benefit from in situ therapy, but it simply wasn't a service he was able to offer. You have to realize, the only reason I can express myself to the extent that I do now, is because I've trained myself through relatively low-risk online interactions. Being face-to-face with someone, hearing the sound of their voice - these are triggers that turn me into jelly. It's not even a reaction I choose out of fear; my brain literally functions differently in the presence of other people (I mean, I don't have scientific proof of this, but I'm confident that I could get it if the right experiments were performed). I used to be scared even to post a text reply on a crowded message board, but I've gotten over that, through years of experience.
One thing that's stuck with me, though, is that I am incredibly sensitive. I'm not proud of it - although it does, ironically, help me to empathize with other people. I know how much it hurts to be in emotional pain, therefore it's something I hate to think of causing other people, and when I see it being inflicted on someone by a third party, I feel sympathetic, even sometimes when the assault is justified and the victim "deserves" it. For example, #cancelculture and toxic Twitter. Yes, people should be held accountable for their behaviors as well as their opinions (just because you're entitled to have one doesn't mean I have to respect what it is). But there are a LOT of people being bullied online without justification (not any real one, anyway). But even the people who DO deserve it, I feel like the punishment is often cruel and unusual. And it just creates this "shoot first" culture that glorifies abuse and harassment and creates far too much collateral damage, where words are habitually taken out of context, and innocent people are tarred and feathered merely by guilt of assocation (or for committing the crime of "non-condemnation" - which is the rational approach to a situation you don't possess sufficient knowledge of).
"The time is gone, the song is over;
thought I'd something more to say."
- Time by Pink Floyd
You know what? This is getting a bit long, and I don't feel like talking about how much it hurts when rude people say mean things on the internet right now, so I'm just gonna end it here. I may or may not continue it later. And if you couldn't be bothered to read even this much because there are more than three sentences to a paragraph, and the paragraphs all exceed Twitter's 288 character limit, well then... I have no words for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)