What they won’t show you on CNN tonight: Ferguson residents line a parade of roses down W Florissant, leading to where Mike Brown was taken from this world. #staywoke #powerful #insolidarity
My thoughts are that if this is indeed about Shameless (which I’m most certain it is), he’s trying to say the writers, directors, and producers of this show continue to push controversy knowing that it’ll garner them the attention and profits that they want, and that the cast is having to deal with scenes and subjects that make them uncomfortable. I’m guessing that it’s been hard this season for them to negotiate with the writers, directors, and producers of this show to not take things too far. Billy Macy has already said that he wanted Frank to be “punished” for his alcoholism, even though Frank is the writers’ favorite and have thus far had him get away with far too much. Cameron Monaghan mentioned wanting to give bipolar an honest portrayal, and having to make sure that the writers don’t take things too far. Emmy Rossum has said that she’s not messed up enough to write for the show, and that the writers have a board of ideas they are willing to consider such as necrophilia. (Which Billy Macy has refused to do in the past.)
This doesn’t surprise me at all, and shows a justified distrust towards the creators of this show. They push things too far all the time, and it’s all for profitability. They changed the category of Shameless to a comedy for just that - to garner attention and for profitability. They’re continuing to invest in stand up comic writers to write serious issues that they do not know how to appropriately handle, because they will always value the comedic (and downright nasty, inappropriate, and lewd) aspects of the subjects they want to tackle. This puts the performers in an awkward position, where not only do they not want to disrespect the audience in their portrayal, but their bodies are being exploited at times for unnecessary scenes. Furthermore, being behind the cameras, the writers and directors and producers don’t have as much visibility in the media. This benefits them, because a lot of their problematic attitudes and behaviors remain hidden from the audience while performers are in the spotlight. Performers are more likely to be targeted for portraying something on screen that upset people, and people will forget that there are writers behind them giving them the material. People forget that this is the performer’s job, and clashing too much with what the writers and directors and producers want, could spell trouble for them.
Friends have your best interests at heart. Friends care about your health and safety. Friends care about your discomfort. Friends are willing to sit down and negotiate changes. Friends listen when you discuss your problems. Friends try to change hurtful attitudes and behaviors, because they don’t want to hurt you. Friends do not care more about profitability, than your dignity and rights. That’s why you can’t be friends with these people, because they don’t give a shit about any of that.
Daniel Radcliffe for London Magazine (x)
get to know me meme: [1/5] favorite tv shows → Friends.
"It’s about sex, love, relationships, careers, a time in your life when everything’s possible. And it’s about friendship because when you’re single and in the city, your friends are your family." — The original treatment used by Crane, Kauffman and Bright to pitch the series to NBC.
I think this is a deeply flawed way of looking at the world.
Now, I have talked about Ferguson, and I’ve talked about Gaza. (In fact, I’ve been writing and talking about Israel and Palestine for more than a decade.) But there are many important problems facing the world that I haven’t talked about: I haven’t talked much about the civil war in South Sudan, or the epidemic of suicide among American military personnel, or the persecution of Muslim Rohingya people in Myanmar.
Is that okay? Is it okay for me to talk about, say, racism in football and lowering infant mortality in Ethiopia? Or must we all agree to discuss only whatever is currently the ascendant news story? Is it disrespectful to Ferguson protesters to talk about continued political oppression in Egypt now that we are no longer reblogging images of the protests in Tahrir Square? I think this is a false choice: If you are talking about Ferguson and I am talking about Ethiopian health care, neither of us is hurting the other.
I think the challenge for activists and philanthropists online is in paying sustained attention, not over days or weeks but over years and decades. And I worry that when we turn our attention constantly from one outrage to another we end up not investing the time and work to facilitate actual change. We say “THE WORLD IS WATCHING,” and it is…until it isn’t. We’ve seen this again and again in Gaza and the West Bank. We’re seeing it in Iran. We’re seeing it in South Sudan. And we’re seeing it in the U.S., from net neutrality to Katrina recovery.
The truth is, these problems are complicated, and when the outrage passes we’re left with big and tangled and nuanced problems. I feel that too often that’s when we stop paying attention, because it gets really hard and there’s always a shiny new problem somewhere else that’s merely outrageous. I hope you’re paying attention to Ferguson in five years, anon, and I hope I am, too. I also hope I’m paying attention to child death in Ethiopia. I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive.
I really don’t want to minimize the effectiveness of online activism, because I know that it works: To use a personal example, I’ve learned a TON from the LGBT+ and sexual assault survivor communities in recent years online. People on tumblr make fun of me for apologizing all the time, but I apologize all the time because I am learning all the time, and every day I’m like, “Oh, man, Current Me has realized that Previous Me was so wrong about this!”
But we can only learn when we can listen. And when you call me a hypocrite for talking about X instead of talking about Y, it makes it really hard to listen.
At times, online discourse to me feels like we just sit in a circle screaming at each other until people get their feelings hurt and withdraw from the conversation, which leaves us with ever-smaller echo chambers, until finally we’re left only with those who entirely agree with us. I don’t think that’s how the overall worldwide level of suck gets decreased.
I might be wrong, of course. I often am. But I think we have to find ways to embrace nuance and complexity online. It’s hard—very, very hard—to make the most generous, most accepting, most forgiving assumptions about others. But I also really do think it’s the best way forward.