Wednesday, July 25, 2012

"I like to say things and eat stuff"

 A quote from a white grey marl striped t-shirt with colorful text.
 

Emily McCombs of xoJane has a blog post showcasing several shirts that celebrate the rising subculture of flaunting fat.
This celebration of gluttony is a backlash directed towards the thin, fit and emaciated, whose mere presence in public is perceived as an act of aggression towards heavier, vengeful individuals.  Their emotions are stirred by a flood of thoughts.

Vengeful types, whether obese or thin, are often the types of people who engage in gossip.  It follows that these individuals also enjoy gossip-oriented magazines.  Furthermore, those who read gossip-oriented magazines are more likely to consume other low types of media.  Consuming media that revolves around gossip and sex electrifies the emotions, especially when it is in video format (because video stimulates eyes and ears quite effectively and has become even more surreal in recent years).

Of course, one who is obsessed with gossip is a person who has to keep tabs on others to evaluate their own status.  A radicalization occurs for some, who decide that they need to exercise and/or diet to remove all fat from their body (even forgetting that some fat is necessary).  Others decide that they would prefer to quell their unfulfilled urges through hedonistic means.

The Pinterest front page is from time-to-time laden with images of "too-skinny" (or more appropriately, too little body fat) celebrities such as Nichole Richie or Jennifer Aniston.   There are also posts of muscled women who have abs cut like fit men.

There are occasional battles fought on Pinterest between the fat and thin.   The former sometimes use Marilyn Monroe as their poster girl, complete with a caption about how curvy is beautiful or something along those lines.  Other pins are more aggressive and and use terms such as "meat on her bones" or "skinny bitches."


In conclusion:
Marilyn Monroe was curvy, you are fat.
Jennifer Aniston resembles a toned, lean man in a dress.
(Will be addressed in future articles.)

Monday, June 18, 2012

The Future of Aol.com and Fashion blogs

It is unclear whether Aol. will be capable of existing ten years from now.

It has been well established for quite some time that Aol.'s future relies on the success of the editorial content of its subsidiaries like Tech Crunch, The Huffington Post and Engadget.

Aol.'s approach is unsustainable because of the nature of their subsidiaries and here is why:
  
Advertising is dying.  

It is too difficult to implement advertising blocks on a mobile platform because it greatly hinders the ability to consume content and even defeats the purpose of "on-the-go" and "fast" entertainment.  In addition to this, when looking into the future, many individuals will get by without a full-on desktop.  Their usage on desktop platforms will be predominantly work or academically related, two spaces where advertising is distracting and will be highly frowned upon.

The lines between advertising and content are becoming unclear, but for how long?
It seems the whole of the internet has headed into the direction of carving their content into advertising.  Every article is essentially a sale-pitch of some sort.
Consumerism is at its peak currently and websites such as Pinterest are betting on the fact that people love to spend their spare time thinking about products they wish to purchase.  This is a fad however, and there will come a time when people mature beyond this empty and pathetic existence.

The many fashion blogs sprawled around the internet face this same issue.

It can be assumed that advertising will still be around for quite some time but people will get tired of being hustled to.

Aol. can only hop from one website purchase to the next.  This is a laughable business model because they will always be trailing behind in innovation.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Atheism, Religion Still in Debate; Evolution at the Center

To some, evolution is how God created humans. To others, God has yet to be created.

There is no reason why evolution should be considered incompatible with religious belief. The defacto stance of the Roman Catholic Church for the past half century has been that evolution is a plausible explanation for the origin of species after the initial creation of life by God. This debate most likely continues because there are individuals on both sides who are making a comfortable living off of book-sales and lectures that revolve around their stance.

Religious groups who oppose the idea of evolution usually subscribe to the idea of "intelligent design."  Common beliefs that go along with this concept are that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans walked the earth alongside dinosaurs, assuming that dinosaurs were actually real and that fossils are not a scientific hoax or placed in the soil by God himself to "test our faith."  There is little room for debating such profound detachment from reality and a result, the debate (and flow of money) continues.

 
"These atheists are synthesizing a God."

The Richard Dawkins flavor of atheists are actually religious because they believe in an absolute truth. This means that to them, there is a possibility to know everything about anything. It follows that one who knows everything will know how to do anything. These atheists are not nihilist criminals and therefore, they have a moral system based on valuing human life and "doing good." If they had the ability to do anything, then it follows that they would simply "do good" all the time. Afterall, they believe that science is "doing good" for all of mankind.

These atheists are synthesizing a God. Assuming that the majority of what they purport is "absolutely true," this God would appear when science has reached its pinnacle.