19 Screenshots that Reveal the Hollowness of Business Insider and Modern Culture in General

Dilbert IS business, basically. Laugh and care about it to advance your career!

In an era of clickbait nonsense aggregation bullshit, online content in general is in danger of becoming a lobotomized, numbers-driven, shortform mess. When I state with confidence that using the internet can make a person extremely dumb, paranoid, hateful, angry, etc... I am speaking mostly about the content aggregator sites, although mainstream media websites and the 'respected' online only publications are also wracked with issues like poor editorial standards and their habit of mixing serious stories with internet culture fluff. The end result is an uncritical and uninformed mass of people with simplistic world-views and ideas who are around you, and vote and have jobs and discuss whatever malformed ideas they have with like-minded people and shout at those who disagree with them.

I started reading Business Insider earlier this year. I don't know why, I suppose I wanted a wider selection of sites and I'd never really frequented an aggregator before. I figured it would be helpful in determining what wider news trends were... but I was wrong, because Business Insider isn't a news site. It's an aggregator with a 'business' lifestyle slant, which means it will present you with the idols of the cult of success, the accouterments of the cult of success, and Forbes-like fawning and panic about wealth with a subset of stories about actual business some of which may have been bought and paid for by the businesses prominent in that story. Looking at you Shake Shack, Soul Cycle, whatever the newest 'Chipotle-killer' is, etc...

What kept me reading was that I wanted to see how low they'd go. Some of their clickbait articles are so obvious that the site functions as a sort of case study in the decline of news caused by the massive expansion into the void of the internet. The fact that the site was successful enough to be sold for millions (more millions than I'm comfortable with) is a sign that this kind of operation appeals to someone – even if that someone is just advertising and/or PR agencies or some guy with a cargo-cult mentality who thinks reading the imaginatively titled Business Insider will get him a corner office or board seat.

That's the thing, it's not insider information, it's widely available information with a few home-brewed stories... on the one hand they put money in the hands of the people who write useless internet articles, and as much as I do pity them, they are my kind and it's better that there are still jobs where people who write get jobs (even if they go through six or more years of post-secondary education just to write for Buzzfeed or BI). To me, it doesn't matter if that person cannot spell or use words properly,and doesn't know how to use contractions, doesn't have any real passion for language or writing... they could be the biggest, least ink-stained hack of all time but if they're getting six cents a word while a video producer or hype man is out of work, I'm happy. On the other, less expansive hand, they don't produce any 'good' stuff. They provide a service that generally repeats information for a layman crowd. Longform is dead, et cetera...

It's a website that's good at being a brand, and one of those new kinds of brands launched and owned by people slightly more web-savvy than the people who run newspapers, which even as I type it seems crazy, because everyone uses the internet now. The fact remains that traditional media have not adapted super well, I guess, because there are voids where a shrewd person can set up shop and in a few years be valued at millions of dollars.

But what kind of content... that's the important question, right? What's the kind of content they got? Well, it's an eyeful, and I've been filing away some of the more mordant, absurd, and frivolous examples:

The headlines are a schizoid mix of important news and 'content', which may affect the minds of long term readers.

Interested in the insider 'hack' about hotels that you probably never knew about?

["Oh, word?" -Ed.]

Modern Tips for Investing your Identity

These days its not good enough to just exist and passively consume media. I mean, it is, if you exist in the lower tiers of society and not at all online. Even then you'll have to be around people who are either careless or completely uncool... what I am saying is its impossible if you care at all about your image. People will treat you differently based on your projected identity, and perhaps most importantly of all, in the absence of an identity you will be assigned one. People aren't often too kind when assigning you an identity, unless... many factors can intercede in your favor or your detriment.

Escape is unlikely. People who run from identity find themselves cornered and unmarketable to other human beings. No mass movement exists of people who spurn identity as an outdated, noxious concept. Individualism is still in vogue, denying it, even to the least aware person, will mark you as abnormal and potentially dangerous. On the other hand, lots of people get very invested in their identities, to the point where even the dumbest person can see they've taken it too far and judge them for it. With identity comes conflict, and identity fetishism, and a lack of real personal constitution – look at everybody who identifies as anything, too much. They're as odd and bland as the people who want no identity affixed to their name.

What is important is to have something outside of yourself to identify with. Not all identity can come from within, even if the best and most trustworthy kind cannot be bought. Hobbies, interests, activities, talents, peculiarities all are good starting points. Anything but the basic job/field of study/consumption habits can augment the identity you might have (or have not) developed since you were born. As soon as you start falling into the void of identity via consumption, or the chasm of applying various identities to see which you prefer... it becomes quite apparent to others that you are not comfortable enough with yourself.

It's tempting to say that experimenting with identity is something for teenagers. This is not true. Adults reinvent themselves all the time: sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail quite miserably and get mocked and look like total jackasses. The trick is what it has always been: to have a kernel of self, to hold true to it, and not sell it out for temporary gain.

In these largely soulless times it is easier than ever to find an extreme niche identity and invest heavily into it. Life is hard and lonely, and most of us are not exceptionally popular or easy to like. It's easy to become distracted from the struggle of 'being oneself' and buy into one of many processed, mass-appeal identities that will quell your feelings of alienation and disgust. Being a human isn't easy. It isn't a question of blending in. Most authentic people are pretty subdued and blend in easily. Often it's the identity fetishists who stand out the most... the ones who live by their t-shirt, hairstyle, loudly proclaimed philosophies... and even the least presumptuous and annoying among us can be inauthentic, quietly fetishizing their unremarkableness and stifling what or who they really are.

Therefore it's a question too big to answer in a blog post, sequence of blog posts, or even an entire blog. I won't pretend to even be knowledgeable about it, but I think I can draw up a list of helpful tips and insights for modern identity:

1. Never try too hard. People can sense this and almost none of them are impressed by it.
2. It's harder to be something than to look like something. There is living, and there is lifestyle.
3. It's not always worth it to have an identity. Others can be generous with their identification of you.
4. If you're trying to be on top of things, it can paint you into a corner. Be broad, be general, and profit.
5. This issue will never not be an issue. It will often be bothersome, so learn to keep your cool.
6. The harder you are to identify, the more offended you might get at how people see you.
7. The golden years differ for everyone: for most, it's easiest to have a fluid identity in their 20s.
8. Learn to roll with it: you may know what you really are, but you can't always make others see it.
8.1. Sometimes you will get spit on: sometimes you have to hold your pride, and sometimes you have to stand up for yourself.
9. There is an inverse rule about caring somewhere in there, but it has exceptions. Not getting started on it.
10. Baudrillardian concepts about authenticity, simulacra, etc. apply.

I didn't arrive at quite the point I wanted to, which was to say that most everyone fronts a little bit here and there - check out the game Majora's Mask for some insights into this tragic topic. Or gain some actual critical literacy (just don't get too caught up in identifying as culturally literate). For example, a majority of people and things related to entertainment media (music, film, TV shows, video games, mass market books, increasing amounts of political and philosophic content, even health) is insubstantial or faked, which is why people whose identity hinges on them are often either children, mentally unhinged, or totally mentally deficient.

Personally, at times I wonder if it's worthwhile to be anything at all.  I certainly can't say at this point. The only thing granted is humanity, and some abandon even that. The internet, cultural appropriation, along with basic human prejudice, have helped make the issue more central than it ever ought to be and very complex. Don't invest too heavily because the market is a bit overheated and might collapse. Best of luck to you and your identity.

Whispers of Doom: Opinionated Media, The Age of Indifference, and The Death of Thought

There is nothing original about how opinionated news coverage is. It's tempting to say 'how opinionated the media has become' but it's an old story. Even in the best cases there's a subtle angle or two going on in a story; at worst: well you don't have to look far or read deeply. It used to be that only advertisements and special interest messages or full page buy-ins blended message and content into a delicious slurpee of fact and fantasy. Nowadays there is editorializing run amok. A story can't rest, a tragedy can't be digested, before it is processed into agenda and counter-agenda.

As if there were not enough conflict in the world, and as if easy conclusions were not bountiful [and cheap] enough already, there is the great fight in mass media. No wonder the narrative of the contemporary is blurry: it is being constantly retouched by a cabal as neurotic and sinister and widespread as 40's Stalinist revisionists. They are your friends and your enemies, and they have your neighbor's ear if not yours. You will hear what they say, one way or another, and it may occur to you that it can't matter anymore what you think.

Naturally there is still room to read between the lines. For the claustrophobic, it is not recommended to try: the story there is generally not encouraging either. Everything surrounding it is manic, fallacious, and consistently problematic. User Comment Rodeos are a good joke but really, what an exercise in futility – in the name of some laughs, hopefully. There has to be an 'at least', and that is that we can watch the corrosion of debate and solidification of mistruth, and at least laugh about it.

I am late to that party, but even I can tell it contains some excellent observations by noteworthy members. Stephen Colbert, for one: host of the Daily Show for the 21st century. Generally the news isn't jokeworthy, and turning it into something laughable takes direct confrontation of its most negative features. Held only in context, it's kind of macabre to laugh when 'people are dead/dying'... but if you follow that rabbit hole all the way down you will lose your mind. What matters about Colbert, for instance, is that his stance is based on perspective as well as overwhelming satire. Still, I admit I am no expert, so it could be something else with his show.

What does a politics/satire late night show have to do with news media, worldwide? Only very little: an example of the brighter side. Mostly the news media that exists is corporate in nature and consumerist in action. Generally, Western media is overwhelmingly capitalistic as well, but even to bring that up anecdotally is grounds for suspicion and/or derision, which only makes it truer. When the Rana Plaza Building collapsed in Bangladesh it didn't take long for the apologists and exceptionalists to hurl their agendas into the fray. 'It's a recession, so you know what? The solution is a growing global market, stupid hippies, and that requires affordable labor.' or 'Before you pontificate about these 500 dead garment workers, just remember that many were working women – an economic and feminist victory for that country.' or 'If you think you should feel guilty about that 29 dollar t-shirt made by a worker paid pennies an hour think about these even poorer places where subsistence farmers aren't even exploited by billion-dollar multi-national corporations!'

These are the kinds of things that develop from an overly opinionated media. The story itself was buried in the rubble of a society scrambling to indemnify itself against all charges of complicity. The careful thoughtfulness which can only come from an understanding of things is ever eclipsed by the need to feel strongly about things, to feel superior to or protected from problems, and [for 'a lucky few'] to exploit strong feelings for profit or power. This is nothing new, and is probably a fundamental limit on any possibility of a human solution to the problem. What plagued us as suspicious tribes slaughtering each other in the Neolithic will plague us with nuclear weapons, drone strikes, surveillance, social unrest, and terrorism in the present.

Yeah, I'm getting all of this from a handful of unqualified public user internet commentary, some TV shows, and the odd newspaper. I sometimes cover user comment posts - it seems like a frightening low, come to think of it. Still, all of these things say something about contemporary society. Even the agendas, approached critically, sometimes reveal a little about their motivations. Still, it is not the done thing to wonder about the world. All minds bog down with immediate concerns: on that account there is either no blame to spread or too much to imagine. However, it is and has always been important to open one's eyes now and again, to accept the surprise of being wrong, and there are [in the media alone] too many entrenched positions for that to be true.

As a lowly member of the public, I feel from the media world little other than indifferent contempt – with few exceptions. I don't understand how everyone doesn't feel that way. Companies/governments/media outlets talk down to me all day, in advertisements and productions in every form of media, their lackeys on the street, the social mores they've normalized, the behaviors they encourage, police, cause, and propagate. If I think differently than I ought to, things will seem grimmer than they have to, and maybe that's unhealthy. 'Being happy is being healthy, so even in inclement times, you should focus on you, and be happy!'

Of course, feeling uncomfortable about this situation is absurd, abnormal, or paranoid. The cues are everywhere and they tell me to continue to consume the media, maintain or improve my standing in society, and that things are getting better every day. 'The future is coming, along with the following exciting products and services...'

There will always be 'incidents' and your betters and heroes in politics, business, and the media will cover those. You will know what to think the minute you hear any story, without hesitation or reflection. You might have overblown fights with complete strangers about something trifling you disagree on, but you'll never question why. The irrelevance of opinion [and opinions' sources] is the only thing in doubt. There might be opinions published in and around the news that are unacceptable because they are one-sided and/or myopic, but at least they're only kinda presented as truth, in the sense that they are argued convincingly but never based on facts.

Oh well. Agree to disagree. The headlines will confirm what you were thinking anyway. Whatever you do: don't search for cures - your old friends are waiting for you.

The Coup & Assorted Criticism, Hypery, Links

I feel like the world is generally ignorant of legendary marxist rap crew The Coup, or even worse, is actively skeptical or unreceptive to mentions of that group. I understand perfectly how people can be political, but I personally hold music to be much more honorable than politics, so the general lack of knowledge or enthusiasm about The Coup is baffling. It's understandable. I'm sure smug white people aren't The Coup's ideal audience, so lots of the people I most often deal with have nothing to say when I bring up The Coup.

Shamefully, I never really bring up The Coup at all when people ask me what I like to listen to. The near mythical production of Pam the Funkstress and Boots Riley's cutting rhymes. There was an awareness of the wrongness of things that should speak to anyone, at times. It's not particularly comfortable music, I suppose. It's a little incendiary, even. Revolutionary talk, whether posturing or not, is completely out of favor right now. It's seen something for teenagers, for the mentally unfit, or Russians,  terrorists and other people we disagree with and distrust. Anywhere you look in the world, people will call revolutionaries dangerous, misguided, lazy, out-of-touch – generally before revealing their own lack of comprehension about the basic concepts of socialism or Marxism, whenever socialism is brought up. If you can't revolt and can't hold government to account, why pretend to be happy or enfranchised?

So, if you'd ask me, I'd say The Coup is important, brutally honest, unique, and unabashedly political. Music with a message is nothing new, but it is the nature of popular music to be inherently pro-capitalist or at least ignore the issue or posture about it. The status quo is referenced to establish a lack of privilege and it's on to fun verses about partying, women, crime, or drugs. Hip hop and rap are often maligned for being empty-headed and consumerist by the very people who understand or identify with it the least, and The Coup in particular would serve as an amazing rejoinder. For those reasons and more, I want to pay homage, and celebrate the release of a new album!

Harmless News Story or Intentionally Downplayed Opportunity for Ethical Boycott?

A story I happened to read today developed serious undertones of 'Age of Indifference' malaise in less than five minutes. The first embarrassing part of the story is that, while the article is posted in the 'Diversions 'n Oddities' section, it's a story about drug catapults on the Arizona-Mexico border. This has to be some kind of lesson in provincialism in news reporting, right? This is better than indifference. This is global indifference in the two best flavours: national and international.

Some day in the future, maybe, a disastrous-drug-trade-related story can be proven to be as completely harmless and stupid as a high-school physics project gone wrong, or some other comic situation. I don't meant to play 'morally-outraged idiot', but in this case I thought maybe there was some point to the dumb act, and I thought, goddamn, if the drug markets were slightly different, Mexico wouldn't have hooked even one investigator or digital repeater from the sensationalistic, tone-deaf, and apparently forgetful global media. Shit, before I forget: if Reagan had jumped on only one ideological grenade, he could have entirely prevented the Cuban Cigarette Boat Crisis in the 1980's.

The worst part is that the United State's economic blind eye is, as ever, responsible. The typical hot-and-cold relationship to drugs does enough damage (allegedly; yes; in some cases) to society on an individual scale, let alone a national one. While ignoring the right of civilian domestic supply with various measures, which are only now beginning to erode, it has created a drug bottleneck which has been exploited in many iterations, and in many ways throughout recent history.

What is most terrifying is to imagine the hypocrisy of ethical consumers in America who smoke marijuana (allegedly a small group of people, which is a rumor I find distasteful) who are apparently funding a small, ongoing war. Hippies, and maybe even a majority of unethical users, have problems with people being shot or decapitated. That is Bad Stuff in any language, but maybe not in the lingo of the much ballyhooed, tech-fueled 'age of indifference'. Even those considered politically conservative can agree that outsourcing profit that could be nationalized is a ridiculous proposition, right? And conservative moralists, do you really wish anyone to be killed, even as a result of inaction, and then ignore the moral or ethical implications? These the traditional enemies of marijuana and other drugs are of course oblivious to any argument about glasses or half-fullness.

Everyone is entitled to indifference. I am of the opinion that being indifferent to pretty much everything is alright, but I may have to change my opinions on things, because I can sense what the losing proposition is. If nobody plays their cards right there's a lot of dissatisfaction at the table, and it is all exactly as Kenny Rogers prophesied.

So there's one boycott of commodities the United States consumes regularly that can take place, potentially end a 'diversion' on its own border, without crippling its economy – perhaps even stimulating it. For my money, the dirtiest economism of all is 'ethical consumption', which is similar in smut-factor to the 'cap and trade'. The only good thing about the economy is that it is still a game that is somewhat open to just about anyone, unless one is blissfully in the gutter with an empty bottle of wine and no cash.

Surely there are even a handful of methadryl spillers in the USA who would put their honor where their high was for a few weeks if only to cripple the encroaching clusterfuck for a few years.


For those who are factotums to fact and nothing but the fact: