As IF Times

Source: Yanny or Laurel? Audio clip spurs social media debate | The Star

Every once in a while, a new internet craze manages to capture the interest of otherwise uninterested observers.   We’re not talking about the Tide pod challenge here; that involves a subset of stupid people.  The phenomenon I refer to concerns people’s perceptions of what should be a common observation. A while ago, there was the viral sensation of whether a depicted image showed a woman wearing a white and gold dress or a blue and gold dress.  Further back, we had the one with a woman pirouetting either left or right on the screen.   The most recent craze is a voice expressing either the word “Laurel” or the word “Yanni”.

That there should be a debate over which word is being expressed is truly quizzical.  People have fallen into both camps as to which word they hear.  How can this be possible?  The words are not even close to being similar.  They may as well be watermelon and constipation.  And yet, the internet is abuzz with people insisting that they hear one word over the other.

This is a moment of epiphany.  Eventually, some brilliant neuropsychologist will attribute the variance to some kind of internal wiring specific to individuals.  But it also gives a clue as to the perceptions of events viewed through a political or cultural lens. To people on either side of the political aisle, they cannot understand the positions taken by those on the opposite….no matter how “obvious” it may seem.  Certainly some of this is simply partisan intransigence and biases can be attributed to tribal loyalties.  The most recent example of this relates to the characterization of MS-13 gang members in the U.S;  Trump says “animals”, Pelosi says “god’s children”.  Obviously, not a perception problem.

When a constituency roots for Bernie Sanders, they must see “compassionate socialist” whereas the reality is “rich white guy pushing communism”.  Those that support Al Gore see ” selfless oracle saving the earth” when in reality, it’s ” know nothing charlatan getting rich off mass naivete”.  And of course, when you say, “savior of the people” people will insist either Hilary or Trump.

But for people with no political stake, this Yanni/Laurel pop culture experience may reveal that there truly are differences in the way that things and events are perceived.  Maybe there is no way to convince people to see things in a logical light.  This could explain lots of absurdities in pop culture:  Rap music, the Kardashians, Justin Bieber, the Royals, CNN. It explains girls dating musicians,  fat men wearing skinny jeans and affirmative action.

It means that there is no way to persuade people to accept that their perceptions aren’t valid if that’s what they clearly see with their own lyin’ eyes.   It explains the audience for media networks that push narratives that are laughably obtuse.  To their credit, they have created quite the business exploiting this human trait. Narratives are pushed that have no relation to verifiable fact but a ready audience exists for the product. It explains people willing to endorse government policies that are obviously not in their own self interests and in fact, likely to be suicidal.  Some people have figured out that there will always be an appetite for their brand of nonsense.  After all,  if you know there are monkeys out there, get in the banana business.

Source: Keziah Daums prom dress caused an uproar in the U.S. — but not in China

There must be a factory somewhere in which the only final product is the OUTRAGE of the day. This is a kind of reverse process factory which turns the standard industrial process on its head.  Instead of compiling and processing raw resources, employing people and creating a useful and socially beneficial product, the outrage business uses no resources, employs no one and creates a product which is destructive to society.  While many may notice the similarity to the law business, we note that at the very least, lawyers cause staff to be employed in law schools.  They are the way they are after an education.

With the wide open access to information and  available today, any and everyone can have their voices heard on any topic.  While idyllic in theory, what actually happens is that the many fringe voices heretofore suppressed by common decency, common sense or just plain old grade school logic are given publicity beyond what these individual shrunken heads deserve.   Networks are keen to get eyeballs so they scan for people whose opinions and views would normally get them into a suit with extra long arms tied at the back.  It’s like opening the door to get fresh air; you also let in the flies and no see ums.

The outrage industry is now moving to characterize any and all cultural items, regardless of their insignificance, to represent some sort of imagined cultural appropriation and yada, yada, yada…straight to outrage.  The purveyors of this institutionalized stupidity are rarely numerous in number…at least at first.  Typically the outrage gestates from  some college sensitivity class, but then the headline starved media latches on to it and voila! Cars burn, windows are broken and Canadian Prime Minsters weep.

The favorite card that liberals like to play is the diversity card.  We should all get along, love everyone, respect differences, be one people etc etc etc.  Apparently this inclusiveness works only if everyone stays in their own lane.  Who knew that Bo Derek was being disrespectful when she came onto the screen wearing corn rows in the 1979 film, 10 ? Who knew that eating with chopsticks at an Asian restaurant is disrespectful, unless you are a card carrying Asian.   Cowboy hats and boots, well they’re out of bounds now unless you’ve actually ridden a horse.   That means sombreros are out.  What about fried chicken? Who gets ownership of that?

From hamburgers to air travel, from automobiles to eyeglasses, washing machines to plumbing; much of what we take for granted in modern society was created by people from various  racial groups.  If using these items means  culturally appropriating the property of others, then there’s going to be a lot of near sighted hungry people walking to the river to wash clothes.

Someone needs to invent a mute button on computers and television.  When a topic arises that is so preposterous that there is no tether at all to logic, you should be able to delete that item permanently from ever appearing again.  Of course the big benefit is the paring down of all of the flotsam that passes as news content.  Who has time for all this fake news when we’re trying to delve into The Donald’s most recent outrage?