Althouse: Influencers held, awkwardly, to account.

February 13, 2023

Influencers held, awkwardly, to account.

this is so scary bro pic.twitter.com/dX9d1jymIi
— em (@emmacrochets) February 12, 2023

27 comments:

Wilbur said...: Allow me to paraphrase these influencers:
(eyeroll) "Whatever"; 2/13/23, 5:19 AM
Krumhorn said...: I dunno what the problem is. 2 or 3 of them are very fuckable. And the rest of them would do fine if it’s last call and no one is left.

….or did I miss the point?

Nah

- Krumhorn; 2/13/23, 5:20 AM
tim maguire said...: I don’t get why it’s scary (I only watched 45 seconds as, up to that point, it was, effectively, the same 10 seconds played over and over). They were getting off-topic questions and they decided to address those questions rather than ignore them. Good for them.

“What about the plant?” Yeah, what about it? We live on it and that’s not going to change any time soon, so get used to it. We are under no obligation to leave no mark, to leave the smallest carbon footprint. We don’t owe Mother Earth an apology for existing. Mother Earth doesn’t exist.; 2/13/23, 5:42 AM
Marcus Bressler said...: As a viewer of subtitled Britbox, I have to ask the important question: why do the English say "erm" when the perfectly fine American "uh" would do?

MarcusB. THEOLDMAN; 2/13/23, 5:53 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "As a viewer of subtitled Britbox, I have to ask the important question: why do the English say "erm" when the perfectly fine American "uh" would do?"

When I see "erm," I always think of Ermahgerd Girl.

See: "Ermahgerddon: The Untold Story of the Ermahgerd Girl/Meet Maggie Goldenberger, who helplessly watched an Internet meme spawn from her awkward adolescent photo. Except, maybe the 'Gersberms' girl never existed the way we thought she did?" (Vanity Fair).; 2/13/23, 6:14 AM
n.n said...: Labor and environmental arbitrage and bennies for babies.

That said, buy carbon indulgences, spread the Green blight on land and sea, and self-abort.; 2/13/23, 6:24 AM
n.n said...: the same 10 seconds played over and over

The TikTok evolution is perhaps a revisit of the opium wars.; 2/13/23, 6:27 AM
Kay said...: Marcus Bressler said...
As a viewer of subtitled Britbox, I have to ask the important question: why do the English say "erm" when the perfectly fine American "uh" would do?

MarcusB. THEOLDMAN

2/13/23, 5:53 AM

Never realized this was an English thing. In my mind there is a slight difference in meaning between the two.; 2/13/23, 6:43 AM
Enigma said...: Youth has always been wasted on the young.

Consider that throughout the bulk of human history these influencers would have been knocked up and caring for babies by this age. They'd have no time nor reason to contemplate the environment, clothing, nor to plunge headlong into a narcissistic pool, nor to influence random strangers. Random strangers who live vicariously through them!; 2/13/23, 7:00 AM
Earnest Prole said...: As a philosopher named Johnny Rotten said just the other day,

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future
No future
No future for you

Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid

Oh when there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers
In the dustbin
We're the poison
In your human machine
We're the future
Your future; 2/13/23, 7:32 AM
Michael K said...: The UK has gone even crazier than we have.; 2/13/23, 7:40 AM
Roger Sweeny said...: Yeah, those workers are so exploited. Better to close those factories so they can starve back on the farm or rent out their bodies on the street. Why the hell do you think they're willing to work for so little?; 2/13/23, 8:12 AM
Rocketeer said...: “As a viewer of subtitled Britbox, I have to ask the important question: why do the English say "erm" when the perfectly fine American "uh" would do?”

I have no doubt John McWhorter could 1) explain it to us clearly and 2) make the story of that seemingly banal distinction interesting and entertaining.; 2/13/23, 8:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: Their detractors do bring up a good point about the cheapness of clothes, and their impact on the planet.
Cotton and wool. That's what works. (Just ignore the water and pesticides needed for cotton production).; 2/13/23, 8:44 AM
Achilles said...: When life is easy and without struggle people become sad and empty.; 2/13/23, 8:48 AM
Robert Cook said...: "We are under no obligation to leave no mark, to leave the smallest carbon footprint. We don’t owe Mother Earth an apology for existing. Mother Earth doesn’t exist."

What about our obligation to our ensuing generations of humans to come? Fuck them, too...right? (These are not generations to come centuries from now, but those coming within the lifespans of many alive today.); 2/13/23, 10:57 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...why do the English say 'erm' when the perfectly fine American "uh" would do?"

The Brits may well ask the same question of us: What's with the "uhs?"; 2/13/23, 11:00 AM
rcocean said...: Why should women interested in fashion and clothes have to worry about the clothes being cheap? Do people worry that their cars don't cost more? Or (before Biden) that meat and most food was inexpensive?

Its just someone trying to manipulate them.

Watching these young women, my reaction was different. It was "These people should NOT be voting".; 2/13/23, 11:02 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Yeah, those workers are so exploited. Better to close those factories so they can starve back on the farm or rent out their bodies on the street. Why the hell do you think they're willing to work for so little?"

You think workers rushing to grab jobs that pay miserable wages for long hours rather than starve means they are not being exploited? Their situation is the quintessence of exploitation.; 2/13/23, 11:13 AM
JAORE said...: Just who is influenced by these ninny videos?

One doubts if they are played at MENSA meetings.; 2/13/23, 1:16 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Roger Sweeny,

Indeed, the notion that you are opposing is a prime mark of a person who can't see beyond their own situation but doesn't realize it. I watched for 5 years as rural folks streamed into Juba (verified armpit of the world) because awful as it was, they thought it better than sticking it out as subsistence farmers.

And contra our friendly local commie Cookie: (1) nobody is out there forcing them out of their rural abodes -- definitely no press gangs! and (2) there wasn't any industry at all in Juba, nor any other great avenues of employment that I could see. I have no idea how these newcomers got by.; 2/13/23, 1:16 PM
Mary Beth said...: As a viewer of subtitled Britbox, I have to ask the important question: why do the English say "erm" when the perfectly fine American "uh" would do?

It all sounds like "um" because of non-rhotic English dialects. A lot of British English words do not get a hard "r" pronunciation that they get in American English. I don't know why they spell it that way, though.; 2/13/23, 1:45 PM
Mary Beth said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/13/23, 1:45 PM
Roger Sweeny said...: @ Robert Cook - "You think workers rushing to grab jobs that pay miserable wages for long hours rather than starve means they are not being exploited? Their situation is the quintessence of exploitation."

So if the factory shuts down and they starve back on the farm or rent their bodies out on the street, are they being more exploited or less exploited? That is a sincere question.; 2/13/23, 7:17 PM
Joe Bar said...: All of these people have scary eyebrows. When did that become fashionableÉ; 2/13/23, 8:43 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So if the factory shuts down and they starve back on the farm or rent their bodies out on the street, are they being more exploited or less exploited? That is a sincere question."

It's not a matter of being "more" or "less" exploited; if they're working long hours for low pay because it is the least bad option, they are being exploited. The factory is exploiting their desperation to provide for themselves and their families by paying them meager wages, knowing the workers have no better choices. If the workers had better options available, other available work for either more money or less onerous conditions--or both--the factory would have no choice but to offer higher wages to attract workers. This is why their situation is the quintessence of "exploitation." The unequal balance of power between job seekers and job providers leaves job seekers with no ability to bargain on an equal basis with the job providers for mutually agreed upon wages and conditions. The situation for such workers is: take it or starve.

The term "wage slavery" is not just a bit of whimsy, but a blunt description of circumstances for many workers around the world, including here in the US.; 2/14/23, 10:32 AM
Roger Sweeny said...: @ Robert Cook - Thanks for the reply. Since my concern is making things better, I really don't care if two situations are both bad, I care which is less bad and want people to be there. Of course, it would be great if there were a third, even less bad situation they could be in. But the tragedy of existence is that there often isn't, and if you reject the less bad because it isn't good, people are in the worst position, and I think that's wrong.

So I see the person who campaigns to shut down that "exploiting" factory as a perhaps well-meaning but ultimately destructive person.; 2/14/23, 2:34 PM