On Media For Grownups

 It began with a video released by (I'm going to guess) New Zealand Youtuber Echo Chamberlain, titled "Oppenheimer: A Film for Grown Ups" which you can watch for yourself and think whatever you like about the thesis.

If nothing else, it sold the film to me, indeed I haven't seen Barbie because I can't get past my impression that I am not, nor have ever been, a six year old girl. It may well be far more sophisticated than Oppenheimer turned out to be. 

The point is more that it harked back to Stephen Fry's interview with Dave Rubin, which is a great interview marred by unfortunate 3rd rail comments Fry made making light of the molested by an uncle experience. So even when it was recorded, at a time when people were literally floundering as to what was happening in the culture, the most interesting aspects of that interview were lost.

I sit here writing, in admittedly a polo-shirt which is more grown up than the t-shirts I usually wear. But I'm also in brand Jordan basketball shorts and I just checked it is 10 degrees Celsius outside. I dress pretty much exactly as I did when I was 16. Something Fry called Infantilism, he also called out grown-men wearing baseball caps and drinking lolly-water by which I assume he meant soft-drinks or sodas or pop as carbonated sugar beverages are variously known. 

Fry suggested there was some merit to eating food that required a knife and fork to eat, that there was something to do with the maturation process in cutting up your own food and feeding it to yourself, instead of processed foods like hamburgers and hot dogs that possibly could be consumed by someone lacking teeth.

I also believe he also said waaaaaaaay back in 2016, that adults didn't need to go see superhero movies. On that front, I'm inclined to agree.

Where I get unstuck, is trying to figure out what media for grownups actually is, it's harder to make a positive statement than it is to say what it isn't. For example:

Harry Potter is not for Grownups.

It's probably the butter beer. I believe JK Rowling originally intended a very interesting literary experiment with Harry Potter, which was a character that grew up as the readers did. She probably didn't foresee what an institution it would become, what staying power it would have. 

The fact is though, that even though Harry Potter by "& The Deathly Hallows" is essentially a fugitive on the run from a murderous death cult, having witnessed first hand numerous deaths like Robert Pattinson and Dumbledore. Unlike many of his readers, Harry Potter has experienced Trauma of the unskunked variety where he was literally in danger.

Yet, Harry the character came across as immature for a boy somewhere between 16~18 entering his final year of school. JK never wrote in the porno, weed, getting black out drunk and munting, the fingering, the hand jobs, the felatio that is reflected in a UK series like "The Inbetweeners" even though it focuses on the kids not getting any action.

I would point out, that as ostensibly dangerous as curses, basilisks and litches are it's not as frightening as being an inner-city high school student in London or Baltimore. That classic line from The Wire after a girl slashes another girls face with a boxcutter in class and the teacher is informed of the "good news" that the student wasn't HIV positive. 

There's something in that cocktail that says when Harry meets Dookie and they share highschool war stories and Harry's like "The Dementors were really scary but I learned to summon an expecto patronus" or whatever and Dookie's like "Man you grew up in fantasy land a girl at my school got permanantly disfigured today with a boxcutter for looking at a girl wrong!"

The Harry Potter series for some reason remains Enid-Blighton-Quaint. It is more in the world of scones with lashes of butter and fresh cream and strawberry jam with bottles of ginger beer than it ever becomes Harry in the trenches of global Wizard Warfare.

The presence of death and danger doesn't make Harry Potter grown up, and this should be evident given how much death and danger is traditionally present in fairy tales that have long been told to children: The Pied Piper, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella, Snow White etc. 

The Disney animated features adapting old mostly European fairy tales also featured death, but these were sanitised for children.

Adults can enjoy the Harry Potter series, largely because JK Rowling is a good writer, a really good writer who excels at both plotting and character. But that doesn't mean they are for adults. Had she written the series in the 1920s, they wouldn't be too  out of place given that by my recollection mobile phones, the internet etc. play no role whatsoever in any of the books. 

What I expect would have happened had they been released early last century instead of mostly after the turn of this one, is they'd be treated like The Hobbit or The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe. You'd read them as a kid, then your tastes would mature and then you would have kids and you would enjoy sharing them with your kids. There would be some interim life phase of adulthood between child and parent where you read Thomas Harris, Steven King maybe even some non-fiction like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or Deterring Democracy by Chomsky or The Second Sex by Simone De Beauvoir. 

The Name of The Rose is for Grown Ups

Now, when I decided to start reading books again, and decided to try and read content for grown ups, I started with "The Name of The Rose" by Umberto Eco. I had seen the movie fairly recently with Sean Connery and Christian Slater so I knew who did it. 

It's interesting to contrast The Name of The Rose with Harry Potter because they are both works of fiction set in medieval castle-like places that do not exist, the unnamed Abbey and Hogwarts. 

Both feature young male protagonists in Adso and Harry, yet Adso in one book matures and loses his innocence in a manner Harry doesn't achieve in six. Indeed, The Name of The Rose is an old man reflecting on a turning point in his life, in many ways a death-of-innocence incidence.

JK famously did not reveal Dumbledore's sexuality until after the Harry Potter series was concluded whereas Umberto Eco's work features homosexual love quite centrally.

Given that The Name of The Rose is set in a monastery, it is fair to describe it as erotic despite the inciting incident involving a homosexual love-triangle. 

Characters in Umberto Eco's story have intellectual lives to boot, indeed what makes it unquestionably not a book for children, isn't the sex and violence, but the long theological debates and exposition as one is brought up to speed with the Spiritualist movements and the Minorities, or whatever.

William of Occam engages Jorge as to the question of whether Jesus laughed or not. By contrast, what evidence do we have of Dumbledore having any intellectual life at all? He was ultimately a high-school principle even if he was a war hero. His mind was occupied not by arguments or any real internal dialectic, but magic trivia like Pheonix Tears having healing powers, and Trelawney's one documented divination. 

Perhaps most tellingly is that one must be able to handle feeling ambivalent in reading The Name of The Rose, because it is riddled with futility.

One of the great exchanges is between William and his former inquisitor colleague. William is rational where Bernard Gui is dogmatic, that being said through Adso's eyes we can infer that William knows Bernard Gui will commit injustices, yet it is futile, the innocents are doomed to burn as heretics at the stake. All William can manage is to express his contempt via carefully chosen doublespeak.

 I have no doubt people wept at the casualties incurred in the final battle of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, just as I'm sure children and grown ups wept at the death of Bambi's mother and Mufasa. 

I think this remains a qualitative far cry from the futility and disillusionment that makes The Name of The Rose truly gut-wrenching, and one need not cry at all. This is something else as an experience, simultaneous desolation and satisfaction at a story well told.

It is perhaps comparable to Akira Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai" final scene where the heroic Samurai are truly ambivalent in witnessing the happy peasants free of the threat of banditry after it exacted such a toll on the seven.

I think another aspect of maturation in media is Moral Ambiguity. Children tend to be spared this, Voldemort is a cartoon villain. Where even if Bernard Gui has no voice to commend his orthodox worldview, he is unambiguously sincere, a fanatic and we can certainly find in the cellarer Remigio a character to feel ambiguous about.

Some of Adso's struggles, these are internal conflicts born of a kind of sincere faith many could not relate to in 2024 yet it works, in the same way we can feel the pain of Huckleberry Finn who believes freeing a slave is theft and theft is a sin that will condemn him to hell but he has come to see Jim not as property but as a person and a friend. 

In which regard, the adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a story for grown-ups where Harry Potter is not, even though it is told from the perspective of a child younger than Harry and filled with all kinds of shenanigans.

Joker and The Dark Knight Are Not For Grown Ups

I haven't seen the Joaquim Phoenix Joker and I have no plans to. I'm sure, much like Harry Potter books it is very well made, probably even a film I can enjoy, like I can enjoy Baloo singing "the bear necessities" from the Jungle Books movies. I also have no interest in seeing "The Batman" even though, based on what I've heard it may actually be the best film adaptation of Batman.

I did see "The Dark Knight" though and on that grounds I can state affirmatively that it is not for grown-ups. A lot of people's brains were blown out their arseholes by The Dark Knight, seemingly unthinking that a comic book movie could ever feel adultish. 

Indeed, it probably marked a significant slip into infantalism, that I wouldn't understand until I watched some random Youtube video about Game of Thrones, and it got my gears grinding such that the picture would eventually fall into place.

I can't even remember the thesis of the video, what I was struck by was the Youtuber divulging that what he loved about Game of Thrones... were the dragons.

Here's the important thing, many of the most successful children's content has operated on two levels - the films of the Disney Renaissance Little Mermaid thru, It's debatable what killed it either Pocahontas or The Hunchback of Notre Dame...but certainly most would agree Little Mermaid kicked it off again, then Beauty and The Beast, Aladdin and Lion King are the heart of it. These movies parents could sit through without pain, without boredom. The same I'm told, goes for Bluey where parents can appreciate remarks from the parents that go right over their children's heads.

"If it's not Baroque, don't fix it" from Cogsworth is not a joke for the kids, but it's in there and the joke is on Cogsworth not within his joke itself. The Genie turning into Rodney Dangerfield might seem kooky but an early 90s audience is old enough to appreciate the reference. 

A parent is not supposed to come out of the Lion King holding their sides and wiping tears from their eyes breathlessly remarking "Poomba farted!" The 40 year old mother isn't supposed to emerge from Aladdin thinking "I know what I want for my birthday: A Jasmine costume!" and by the time Jason Alexander's Gargoyle is doing pit farts and Danny Devito's satyr or faun or whatever delivers the big laugh line of "I've got a fur wedgy!" parents should be emerging from Disney films thinking "thank god that's over for another year."

You are supposed to latch onto the level pitched at you. Like if you take your kids to a play centre with ball pits and trampolines and signs saying "under twelves only" and there's an area where parents can buy a coffee and watch a 24 hour news channel or cooking program or something, you aren't supposed to "be one of the kids" even if the standard of journalism horrifies you, the grown up thing to do is not to escape into the ball pit. Grown ups are supposed to be running things. 

I may sound prudish, and could be cast as the antagonist from Benny and Joon who needs some time in the ball pit to rediscover wonder and magic. I don't. I haven't lost it. It's not either or, infantilism is when you don't spend any time outside of the ball pit. It's where you can't take your medicine without a spoonful of sugar. When you are no longer capable of watching a crime drama without the good guys and bad guys wearing costumes.

I'm not even sure the dragons in Game of Thrones function as a metaphor, they are kind of functionally intercontinental ballistic missiles in a medieval setting. The impression I got though, and eventually came to understand was that GoT had different camps of fans.

I had naively assumed that what everyone recognized and appreciated as good about GoT was the character studies, the moral ambiguity arising from shifting perspectives that allow (particularly a reader) to dramatically change their opinion of characters like Jaime Lannister, The Hound and even Cersei Lannister when we learn her delusions of insight.

There was a basis for this assumption and this was the fans response to the latter seasons of GoT where the showrunners ran out of source material to draw from and forged ahead instead for the $$$.

The picture that clicks into place is that GoT's major achievement was to create a vehicle with broad enough appeal to put what I shall call "Nerd Shit" into it, it was a vehicle, or perhaps cover for CGI dragons.

Just as Stephen Donaldson proved an author could translate Wagner's "The Ring" into a space opera with his "The Gap" series, I'm sure an author could translate A Song of Ice and Fire into a non-magical setting, perhaps a World War I drama with grease guns and mustard gas instead of Others and dragons, and that story would work, without Nerd Shit. (Having recently watched Cinemax's "The Knick" I would actually describe that show as a close contender for nerd-shit-free GoT.)

But the inverse works as well, and certainly Joker does this. My understanding is that it borrows heavily, if not functions as a remake of, Scorsese's 70s movies, particularly "The King of Comedy" a box-office bomb that it directly references by having Robert De Niro who originally played the Joaquim Phoenix role, play the Jerry Lewis talk show host role.

This is using nerd shit to make grown up media financially viable. I may commit an appeal to personal incredulity, but I cannot imagine WB studios greenlighting the same movie, simply removing the DCU context. Similarly I understand "Andor" could have simply been made as a Cold War drama, removing any Lucasfilm Star Wars context, but I cannot see it being greenlit without the Nerd Shit.

I recently watched "The Marathon Man" a lesser known 70s movie that is testimony to how good the 70s was (for cinema, most of everything else seems awful. Columbo is the only piece of media that makes me think it might have been nice to live in the 70s). 

To some extent, I'm not even sure the story of The Marathon Man works, though it serves to produce a number of engrossing scenes: Roy Schneider fighting off an assassin in his Paris Hotel room, Dustin Hoffman getting interrogated by Laurence Olivier despite having no information to give up. Dustin Hoffman's flight from his captors through the New York night. Laurence Olivier getting recognized by Holocaust survivors as he tries to determine the worth of his diamond fortune.

People used to go see these movies at the cinemas, many walking home through the very streets Dustin Hoffman was just chased through, maybe going home to the bad neighbourhoods they lived in. They didn't need sugar, salt and fat added to the movie to entice them to it.

The Dark Knight is broadly speaking an abridged adaptation of Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's "The Long Halloween" and like the showrunners of GoT, I feel "The Dark Knight Rises" demonstrates to what extent the source material deserves credit.

Being familiar however with both, we can see a paradox emerge, because "The Long Halloween" despite being a comic book, feels more like taking something for kids and forcing it to grow up, where "The Dark Knight" feels like taking something for adults (such as Silence of the Lambs) and processing it into chicken nuggets by adding Heath Ledger licking his lips to tell us, in an Oscar worthy performance, that the Joker is crazy. 

The movie lost me, when Aaron Eckhart dies, perhaps this was the greatest explainer of why The Dark Knight represented infantilism, where The Long Halloween and even Batman the Animated Series two-part episode "Two Face" were vehicles by which children could mature. 

Aaron Eckhart is "Two Face" for what? the better part of an afternoon? Maybe a few days at most. Almost nobody encounters him which is how James Gordon and Bruce Wayne can keep Harvey Weinstein's fall from grace under wraps, with Batman taking the blame. Harvey Dent even does a George Costanza in terms of suggesting his own nick name "T-Bone", that he mercifully doesn't live long enough to witness it not catching on.

Gone is again, the unsettling, gut wrenching tragedy of Two Face that a comic book team of two people, and a children's animated series managed to convey to much smaller and younger audiences. Jim Gordon and Bruce Wayne are haunted by their lost friend who crossed a line, a threshold more haunting than death, their friend lives on with horrific disfigurement further destroying his own life, torturing everyone who cares about him.

Perhaps part of the child so affected by the tragedy of Two Face, was somewhat prepared to grow into an adult that had to navigate caring about people with destructive addictions.

Where did The Dark Knight excel in its depiction of Two Face? The nerd shit, the CGI disfigured face, the shallow visual gimmick that captivates in its asymmetry, only differing from Tommy Lee Jones' characterization by downplaying the camp, however, functionally the Nolan rendition of Two Face is only slightly more substantial than the death of Gus in Breaking Bad, who having had half his face blown off, stops to straighten his tie before keeling over.

The Dark Knight and Joker I will say, are probably as grown-up as comic book movie adaptations get, if we set aside adaptations like "A History of Violence" and "Ghost World" and "American Splendour" etc as non-superhero genre. Comics, or sequential art I do not treat as de-facto for children. But the entire MCU is not for grown ups. 

Robert Downey Jr, declaring "I'm iron man" before snapping his fingers to reverse Thanos' stupid Malthusian plan to halve the population of the Universe (instead of say, doubling the resources of the Universe, just as useless but likely would not have necessitated him being an evil space tyrant) might have brought you to shed a tear as Kevin Feigey had managed to arrest your development and extend you adolescence from 2008 to 2016, but it just isn't the same as when Barry Pepper's character gets killed in Saving Private Ryan, the movie I watched with Sarah M on the afternoon of my first kiss a decade earlier.

What's the difference? Apart from 14 movies building up to Tony Stark's death, vs Jackson's death coming after a mere two hours or so. 

Where was the Avenger that got his teammates killed because of cowardice? Where was the nerd shit in Saving Private Ryan?

I really loved Dennis Villanueva's take on Dune, it almost felt grown up. He left so much unsaid as if to say "if you don't understand what's going on, read a fucking book you child." Where for Part 1, my only gripe, my studio note, were I producing it, would have been "When Jessica is reciting the admonition against fear, cut away sooner, that's nerd shit."

Nerd Shit, to be clear is the stuff Nerd's latch onto to form user groups, communities. It's the catchphrases they can repeat to each other, thinking Hogwart's Houses are legit personality science, the badges and symbols and crucially the barrier to entry is not a deep, critical understanding of the media being bonded over, it's at a superficial level.

An old but relevant example:

The above image used to populate and repopulate my pinterest feed often with the caption "meme's only Stranger Things fans will understand." Can you decipher this piece of cryptic esoterica? An actor from the show Stranger Things is pointing to the number 11. "Eleven" is the name of Millie-Bobby Brown's character on the show, why, a "normie" would have to watch part of one episode to solve this Rubik's cube.

Fandom never seems to converge around say, reading Matt Damon's character in "The Departed" as a repressed homosexual, it's all around "You Know Nothing Jon Snow." and "Valar Morghulus" and "Live Long and Prosper" and "May the Force Be With You" and "I Shall Not Fear, Fear is the Mind Killer" and "Swear to me!" and "Why So Serious?" and dancing down a set of stairs or Barbiecore fashion.

Risk free relevance. Okay, my parents who are Boomers the age cohort likely driving the infantalism of society with their extended working lives and hoarding of wealth (the generation, not my parents specifically) got swept up in fads and trends like the painful weekends they spent dragging us kids along when the "in thing" was going to vinyards and tasting wines. 

I'm sure, back in the day, discussing a dry Claret or a robust Chardonney you'd discovered at a lesser known place in regional Victoria was the equivalent of having a Pastel Stanley Cup or knowing that Elden Ring dropped its DLC is now, in an office place of working adults. Weekend winery tours though were a more grown up way to express the need for belonging and esteem when the economy allowed boomers affordable housing and a modicum of job security, as well as having access broadly to positions of responsibility, management positions that weren't prefixed with "middle".

As the boomers have aged into decrepitude, I notice the vinyards have come to the city as "Wine Bars" have proliferated, and indeed, some portion of Gen X have also grown up to not go to PAX but to sit in Wine bars and have the salmon.

The major point when it comes to media however, is that an adult doesn't instantly spit up anything that isn't laced with enough sugar, salt and fat. Nerds are throwing tantrums about their Nerd Shit "going woke" and to a degree they have a point, because Disney's strategy with the MCU and Lucasfilm has been analogous to taking "Fruit Loops" and making it "Broccoli Loops" and changing Ice cream to "Beet Cream" and basically all around trying the doomed strategy of "eat your fucking vegetables."

Neither side of this equation can cope with ambivalence like a grown up. Far more progressive than black heroines facing down white male villains, are situations where upon scrutiny you just see two parties in conflict with no idea who is good and who evil, kind of like, life.

The Bronte Sisters and The Old Man And The Sea are for Grown Ups

The theory was simple: If recent is more infantalised, older publications should be more grown-up.

After watching "The Equalizer" with Denzel Washington, I looked up the list of books his character was reading through. It worked for me and I was relieved that I had read some of the 100 books to read before you die. (The Ramayana is a painful slog, Essays by Montaigne took me 1.5 years, though it is worthwhile.) The first new book (to me) I read from the list was "The Old Man and The Sea" then on audiobook I downloaded the BBC radio play productions of the Bronte sisters novels. 

So far I made it through Jane Eyre, and am two thirds of the way through Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff is presently on the verge of succeeding in marrying his son to his aunt or cousin or something, so all that remains is for Heathcliff to lose his will to live and give up on the whole revenge plot and die.

I'm still confused on these points, but there's a hint of nostalgia for me listening to Jane Eyre. I struggled with literacy until grade three where I was put in a remedial program. Jane Eyre might be the first story I ever read, albeit I was reading an abridged version. 

The production values on the BBC audiobooks are high and I don't know what liberties they have taken, there is certainly an actor for each speaking role, instead of having a narrator perform all the voices, and a sound engineer if not a BBC Foley artist, so they may have cut out a bunch of prose.

These stories certainly lack the "nerd shit" of the MCU and comic book movies that disqualifies those from being grown up, the moral ambiguity is through the roof, though morality is highly peripheral to "The Old Man and The Sea".

What can be said is that the stories work, there are beginnings, middles and ends held together by a spine of tension. I am not sure they conform to Aristotle's poetics, or three act structures or whatever.

The Old Man and The Sea is the most straightforward and is probably a good example of the antithesis of "Nerd Shit", because it is unavoidably a story about fishing.

The curious thing is, is that Hemingway's tale works as a story about an old man catching a fish. Not only is it a functional story, but it is a story well told. 

I am not a big believer in subtext, I think we can deduce some autobiographical features from the text about Hemingway, but it isn't necessary. Again, I think a grown up could put the book down and marvel at its ability to engross you in the practice of low-tech Marlin fishing having known nothing about it. 

It works on the level of being escapist in the sense that a data-analyst in Helsinki could escape into the world of a mid-century Cuban fisherman for three days and experience a life, realistic or not, wholly unlike her own.

Furthermore, a Danish fisherman could also escape into a life mostly unlike their own, and it is sufficient to be an old destitute fisherman and not need to save the world by carrying the ring of power to mount doom in Mordor meeting Goblins, Trolls, Ents, Giant Spiders, Balrogs, Elves, Wizards and Giant Eagles. So another clue might be that grown-up content doesn't need to bolster a childish egocentricity for the protagonist via having the council of Elrond meet.

Hemingway is also popularly mis-credited with composing a 6 word short story: "For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn." and I think there is something about a comparison between The Old Man and The Sea and The Lord of The Rings that can somewhat illuminate content for grown ups and content for children if for no other reason than we can eliminate "complexity" as a defining criteria. 

Tolkien made up whole languages and set the benchmark for fantasy worldbuilding and yet "The Lord of The Rings" is not for grown ups. It's hard to imagine simpler stories than The Old Man and The Sea yet I would have to say it is vastly superior to The Lord of The Rings, being a story of the form "There and back again" but more emotionally challenging while being far more economical.

The last thing to point out as childish, is that one could pick over "The Old Man and The Sea" and try and debate whether it presents toxic or non-toxic masculinity. That kind of analysis I think is also part of the infantilism of the present day. I'm not sure whether it was ever treated as a treatise on masculinity, maybe, probably, but again I don't think there's an answer to be found, the story doesn't contain enough information and the ending is ambiguous, though it is easy to convey - The old man returns to harbour with a skeleton of the largest fish ever seen. So is it triumph or tragedy?

I watched a video essay by "Like Stories of Old" that motivated me to start writing this post titled "The Death of Cinematic Curiosity" something I was thinking about recently with Furiosa failing to capitalize on word of mouth (scoring 90%+ with both critics and audiences, yet inspiring nobody to go see it) and watching a movie like "The Marathon Man" or knowing Umberto Eco's "The Name of The Rose" is one of the highest selling books ever written...and in the present day and age, I struggle to imagine "The Marathon Man" or even "The Godfather" or "Cabaret" getting produced and a book like "The Name of The Rose" getting published.

Anyhoo, Like Stories of Old also hits upon the inability to cope with ambiguity and he cited a pre-culture-war criticism of "Schindlers List" by a reviewer David Mamet that I will quote here, having been unable to find the original source, credit to Like Stories of Old for curating an apt quotation:

"But the film panders to the audience. It invites them (as does any melodrama) to reward themselves for Seeing that the Villain is Bad; and, in the Liberal Fallacy, of feeling this perception is a moral accomplishment."

Bringing me to Heathcliff of Wuthering Heights. Emily Bronte's world is now as foreign (to me at least) as Tolkein's Middle Earth. I couldn't write a story with a concept like the British class system, nor imagine a world where no adults would intervene in the welfare of a child as the characters so fatalistically give over Linton to his father Heathcliff being like "oh well, there's nothing to possibly be done."

For me, Heathcliff is written and characterized in such a way, as to not be ambiguous, with the confounding factor being that Heathcliff was a shit prior to being abused. In fact the only reason I've been presented with to be sympathetic to Heathcliff, is that other characters are sympathetic to him, even though, close to nothing warrants this attitude.

By Kate Beaton, from her Webcomics "Hark A Vagrant"

At it's simplest, Wuthering Heights could be considered a morality tale about the perils of mate selection, except Catherine actually chooses the better mate, making Heathcliff a "Marijuana, not even once" kind of caution. At root, the tragedy and bleakness of Wuthering Heights has to be laid at the feet of Mr Lockwood, and perhaps is justification for why the narrative doesn't begin closer to the stories end. Mr Lockwood fucks everything up by introducing Heathcliff to his family system and leaving his family to deal with the consequences.

As such, Wuthering Heights is hard for me to make head-or-tail of, and it isn't a detective story or murder mystery. I would struggle to tell you what it is about, without just giving a blow by blow account of plot details. I guess I'd summarize it as: the wheel of fortune intermittently crushing various people. It is very much a story where stuff just happens, though Heathcliff turns bad quickly and stays bad so can be seen as the antagonist, though people seem to have settled on anti-hero or Byronic hero, in which case I have to allow for the possibility of some kind of redemption ark. (spoiler, he basically just dies and property is restored via marriage to the families he swore revenge against).

It is full messy like life, even if it might be fanciful. One could feel a sense of moral accomplishment by managing to identify where in Wuthering Heights, things went wrong because it isn't a simple process of pointing to the dudes in the Nazi uniforms, but given the expansive time frame and the trauma passed on through generations, it confronts an adult with the realities of being an adult - you might identify who started it, or who the villain is, that doesn't mean there's anything you can do about it.

In this sense, to tie Wuthering Heights and The Old Man and The Sea together, Jaws is a movie for grown ups. You can spot the villain - it's the Great White Shark, and you can watch helplessly as it eats vulnerable people.

Jaws demands contemplation, in terms of, Spielberg famously not letting people see the shark until the end of the film. The shark destroys the sanctuary of the boat, Brody has to make his shot as he is sinking into the shark's territory, stupid as a man and a shark going at each-other is. 

Jane Eyre I would similarly struggle with an attempt to describe what the story is about. It also takes place over a fairly vast timespan, Jane starts destitute and subservient, Rochester begins wealthy and dominant, Jane becomes wealthy and...I mean, she stays in love with Rochester. 

It certainly defies the "Beauty and the Beast" tropes, though it may seem not to. Rochester is transformed from a man into a cripple. The ethics of his treatment of his wife, and Jane Eyre's disposition to it may have been intended to be straightforward back in the day, but contemporary readers as at maybe the release of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" back in the 70s will probably struggle. 

What is timeless is likely the "moral" of the Bronte's stories being that conversation is the most important activity in any marriage. Personality seems to triumph over both looks and class. "Oh and they lived happily ever after" (unlike almost half of all marriages).

And of course, for me, a male reader, there's an element of "witchcraft" to reading the Bronte's novels, or for that matter "The White Masai" because I have no insight into why the various heroines make the decisions they do. Rochester does seem appealing when dialoguing with Jane, the couple as portrayed do have the kind of rapport that is only really achieved by two lovers being written by the same author. 

But Jane's love of Rochester seems to be largely because a) Rochester is the only dude around, and b) really a struggle of Jane triumphing over her low self-worth.

Both Jane and Catherine make their respective stories happen however, by rejecting the men they love. Jane leaves until she is coincidentally taken in by her cousins she never knew existed, and Catherine marries another guy more fitting to her station.

Things work out for Jane, nothing I believe works out for anybody in Wuthering Heights, except maybe people once Heathcliff is dead, enjoy stable lives.

Yet, these stories aren't just morally ambiguous but ambiguous in general. They reveal feminine pragma with their consciousness of class and what every male suitor earns, much like Jane Austin's novels. They give insight into an existence of simply looking for safe harbour, and I guess again like Jaws the only way out is through - they have to swim with the sharks.

Now, as I pointed out earlier, Jane Eyre is one of the first stories I ever read. It is beyond my capacities of recollection to find the abridged version I was exposed to, certainly none of the abuses of Jane Eyre's upbringing left an impression on me, but I was pleasantly surprised by the "there's someone in the walls" horror element, and I can remember then being intrigued that it turned out to be a secret wife. I remember the conclusion though, and I recall Jane Eyre devoting herself to a crippled Rochester.

I had no impression that what I had read was a fairy tale, for children, I couldn't credit myself with being able to imagine what horror elements of Jane Eyre had been downplayed or omitted and it wasn't like I'd gotten up after 8.30pm or whatever my bedtime was back then and gone to find my parents and subsequently glimpsed a scene from Friday the 13th or The Hand That Rocks The Cradle or The Silence Of The Lambs on TV.

Which is to say, what muddies the waters in determining whether popular media is maturing or infantilising is that just as 50 year old's can sit and read Shonen Jump or Harry Potter, kids can read Huckleberry Finn, Animal Farm or Jane Eyre.

I think our intuitions tell us such, if for example some families were on holiday and in a quiet moment of the afternoon a parent stumbled across some kids reading and in that intrusive way of parents asked "What are you reading?" and one kid said "Harry Potter" and another said "Jane Eyre" I think people whether by chauvinism or not, would intuit that the kid reading the second book was mature beyond her years or something.

Conversely if you walked into your workplace breakroom and saw two employees at separate tables on their lunch break and one was reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation series and another was reading Percy Jackson or The Maze Runner, I feel most people would see the person in their mid 20s reading YA fiction at best an aspiring YA author, but more likely having some kind of emotional development issue, normalized by prevalence but no less debilitating.

Malcolm Gladwell is for...?

Another simple way to find media content for grown ups would be to avoid fiction, stick to non-fiction. Indeed Michel Montaigne's essays are well worth reading but almost impossible to recommend to a child. 

Alas, Charli D'Amelio's autobiography is non-fiction (despite, I'm sure, being highly curated) and there's almost nothing to learn from Charli D'Amelio being that the interesting part of her life story is that she blew up on TikTok performing a "cover" of a dance.

Bringing me to the most perplexing case study - Malcolm Gladwell. He is simply an interesting guy, exactly who you would hope to be a guest at a friend's dinner party you are obliged to attend. 

Having said that, Malcolm Gladwell might be the only person I have seen single-handedly nuke his own side of a public debate when he went all in on "anyone who argues against legacy media is a racist" debating Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray.

Aside from that, Gladwell is undoubtedly one of the most talented storytellers in living memory. The trouble being that he tells non-fiction stories, that from time to time, have turned out to be fiction, or made fiction by further study.

I saw something recently, a piece of apologetics for new testament or old testament bullshit, that was like "it's not the book, it's the reader." The position that the errors are not in the bible itself, but the Christians attempting (and presumably failing) exegesis in which case, I would argue one can simply throw away the book and concentrate on just teaching the output of sophisticated and correct exegesis.

Now I think, to pick a prominent example, adults should be trusted with a book like "Outliers" to not then latch onto the simplest and most risk averse idea being the 10,000 hour rule to destroy countless people's lives through parents attempting to vicariously secure their futures by forcing relentless deliberative practice upon them.

Evidently, they cannot. But, and you'll have to stick around for my reasoning, in the present day and age I think the world would be better off if grown ups read Mein Kampf. Because I don't think it would produce Nazis so much as be a bullwark against it. Children can't be asked to read Mein Kampf in part or whole because it is a boring and tedious book replete with wild leaps to anti-Semitic conclusions, just as children can't be asked to read scripture, yet are forced to, and I've heard many former Christians testify that the best way to create atheists is to have them read the bible. 

I digress, patently, if one is grown up to the extent that they can entertain ideas without needing to be persuaded by them, Gladwell's science communication is fine, though I suspect it is simply an elite level of the "doing your own research" that produces conspiracy theorists. Gladwell to his credit, will not defend the 10,000 hour rule, admitting that by simply observing the Beatles, Wayne Gretsky and Bill Gates he ignores the Roger Federer, Michael Jordan and Steve Jobs who enjoyed tremendous success while generalizing or at least not specializing in the fields they came to dominate.

Furthermore, if there is a thesis of Outliers, it is that the aspect of success within our control isn't making our kids amass 10,000 hours of violin practice by the time they are 16, but rather that success is highly contingent on opportunity. Bill Gates had access to a computer where his contemporaries didn't, Wayne Gretsky probably was born the right time of year to be older and bigger than other kids in his little league etc.

On the other hand, what Gladwell and other science communicators do, is make science accessible, in which case I doubt there's a Gladwell book on the market that children can't read, and children are in that demographic most prone to watching Dawson's Creek and thinking they are getting smarter because they use big words and discuss grown up things.

I feel as such I can't rule on who Gladwell's writing is for. More so that useful science should perhaps not be subjected to a popularity contest. The "best" ideas winning out hopefully is taking place in the context of a sport like Boxing, where cheating and rigging is scandalous, vs Wrestling where it is a form of theatre that also sports lower life expectancy for its actors than boxing does.

Clearly, if nothing else, media for grown ups is not as simple as "non-fiction" for grown ups, "fiction" for juveniles. Non-fiction can still be trite, and we likely saw a TED inspired boom of it, replete with communicating science that does not replicate. 

I would have liked to say British panel show QI is for grownups, yet they refer to their staff as elves. It operates perhaps perfectly in that space of interesting trivia that isn't challenging in any way and thus does not require maturity to interact with. Yeah, it might be "challenging" to contemplate if there is more than one moon, or whether the moon is a moon at all, but ultimately it shouldn't induce anxiety to contemplate how science might classify a mass in space.

Gladwell on the other hand, has had perhaps most notably, a massive impact through science he has communicated, like the 10,000 hour rule. School sporting programs changed paradigm from generalist discovery to predetermined specialization or something. In which case, grown ups can't be trusted with the application of marketing to science. 

All I can do is guesstimate, that part of the maturation process, or at least a shorter path to maturation process might be to read some nonfiction once in a while. Read some history, read some narrow subject science written by an expert in that domain. Maybe?

Reaction Videos are not for Grown Ups

I'm going to embed a video not because it's particularly brilliant explanation of clickbait and "reaction thumbnails" but because it puts onscreen a statistically significant sample of youtube thumbnails.

Suffice to say, a grown up should at least notice their own minds being hacked by a photo of a wide eyed person, mouth hanging open pointing to a pixelated blur captioned with "you won't believe the results!"

If maturation means anything, it has to somehow involve learning from experience. 

Beyond the ability to resist mind hacking click-bait, does one really conceive of the internet, and in particular youtube the largest media site on earth, as basically a mind-blowing machine?

The fact that clickbait proliferates, promising content consistently more exciting than it can ever hope to deliver in a battle for our attention reflects poorly on our own predictive abilities.

I don't want to single out the content creator, because fundamentally I don't think he is a bad guy, but what got annoying to me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it, was the value-adding chain that seemed parasitical but could have been symbiotic.

This person was doing reaction videos to a comedians reaction videos to chef recipes. Now he could argue that by adding his own two cents as a professional chef he was adding value, but it was also clear that he was riding the coattails of someone riding coattails.

When taking the total number of professional chefs in the world clearly most don't decide on taking the path to success of creating easy reaction content to established attention grabbing content. Fundamentally, the success and viability of reaction videos kind of a deregulated DVD commentary track industry, is likely a symptom of society being facilitated in their lack of curiosity. 

We can get 9 hour video essays about Dr Who, instead of having to try a new show a bunch of people took big risks and were hugely invested in making, and isn't bad but doesn't rate high enough to get greenlit for a second seasons. 

Reaction videos are not for grown ups, because, and I don't want to spend too much time on it: a) they do not involve the risk of putting yourself out there. b) they are designed to facilitate the outsourcing of thinking.

What do you think of this? I think what pro-chef thinks. You are perfectly capable of trying things and reacting on your own.

Now, youtubers I'm happy to name as a fine example of producing media for ungrown, immature people is "The Dave Cullen Show" now, Dave and I probably agree about a lot of films particularly produced by Disney in the last 8 years. 

But there's a sharp dividing line, at least apparently. If in I don't know 2014 someone comes to me and says "should we make 5 more Star Wars movies and 4 Star Wars TV shows to be released in the next 8 years?" to me the question does not depend on who makes them, my answer would be "no, that's too many films I personally think there are between 3 and 4 Star Wars films too many."

I don't think Dave Cullen shares my view that I simply want all this exploitation of IP to stop. I think he wants more Star Wars, more Star Trek, more MCU, more Dr Who and I infer this because he makes videos promoting fan films of these IPs.

But more to the point, I would guess Youtube has trained him into appealing to the infant mind of audiences because he has released videos titled:

"Why does this keep happening?" and "They're doing it again..." and "That's Weird..."

Okay, can you guess what these videos are about? I've watched one of them and I can't remember what it was about. You can check out his video channel page and I think the thumbnails will give you ample idea of the tactic of employing "Spielberg face"

Now, there's a lot of money to be made off children and this is very counterintuitive for a lot of people because children don't have jobs. For example, in the 2000s if you had to guess who was the biggest band in the world you might guess The White Stripes or System of a Down or maybe Britney, Destiny's Child or Backstreet Boys. Few people if prompted would guess the huge act that is largely invisible to them - The Wiggles. 

In the influencer economy of "content creators" its probably easier now to be aware that the major players make content largely for people who are 12 years old - People like Mr. Beast, whose videos I've never seen but yes every single thumbnail on his channel's video page has his Spielberg face on display, but somehow algorithmic learning has dragged science communicators down into this marketing strategy treating not just content for children like people competing for $1,000,000 dollars by standing on a circle for longer, it is applied to theoretical physics by Sabine Hossenfelder.

Which is again, having to trick people into seeing a Scorsese movie (that flopped in the 70s) by putting Batman and Joker costumes on the poster. In which case is "Science News" with Sabine for adults or children? Well, I can only go by the marketing and say that according to Sabine her content is for children, not grown ups and Professor Dave explains has taken the care to make two videos now explaining that Sabine's content is anti-science. 

I started disregarding her content once she started with the click bait.

Inconclusion

I'm still wearing basketball shorts, I'm listening to Moby Dick by Herman Melville, a book I don't yet understand but I was prompted to read it after finding in my library's audiobooks "And The Ocean Was Our Sky" by Patrick Ness, that I downloaded because it's premise of retelling Moby Dick from the whale's perspective sounded like an actual interesting intellectual exercise compared to the proliferating genre of "retelling [insert classic text] from [insert marginalised group]" genre of fiction perhaps started by "Wicked" or "A Thousand Ships" I don't know.

That book sucked and the chapter of Moby Dick that just deals with the narrator Ishmael sharing a bed with a cannibal harpoonist is more interesting than the whole of "And The Ocean Was Our Sky" that really didn't step up to the challenge of writing Moby Dick from a whale's perspective, like Watership Down or other books about animals. 

This post is unlikely to conclude for the simple fact that consuming media takes a bunch of time. The approximately right conclusion (as opposed to being precisely wrong) is the attention economy and smart hones hack our brains and its created a race to the bottom in terms of media content that is more childish, more kitsch designed to make our reptillian brains salivating - salt, fat and sugar.

I also think there's the macroeconomic happening of longevity that has infantilised society in general. People are sticking around, staying in jobs, not delegating, not succession planning, micromanaging and acquiring and hoarding and that makes children of us all.

The prerequisite to maturity is responsibility. Responsibility is not something we can be trusted with only once we are mature. This I feel has been our great mistake. The technological progress of the 20th and 21st century meant children were trusted with less because the economic necessity of giving children responsibility disappeared and this has now applied to Gen X for pretty much all of their lives.

Those vast numbers of us with no real responsibilities are left simply to amuse ourselves. My brother is someone who for example is not alone in struggling with the existential angst of a 2nd Trump presidency. Yet, he is also a big fan of From software games where to oversimplify things you always play a dead person in a world where everyone and everything is dead and falling apart and struggle through extremely difficult and slow paced combat.

When I reread what I wrote comparing the egocentricity of LOTR having Frodo as "boring English person stand-in" declare that he will carry the one ring to the cracks of doom before the council of Elrond, vs The Old Man and The Sea being about an old man catching a Marlin in a futile ordeal, I think I can reconcile my brothers inability to consume news media about Trump while loving very bleak video games as a form of escape.

I think such media can be described as "meaningful life simulators" where people simulate doing things of social consequence. Worlds where we are responsible for our world, rather than on the receiving end of them.

I'm also currently reading "Trainspotting" better known as a quintessential 90s movie, and a non-fiction book called "The Sell-In" I think I'm doing better at least at consuming media for grown ups, and I can recommend it.

Perhaps its about escaping into books that actually challenge you, or turn around and force you to contemplate your own life as it is, vs books that comfort you with grand narratives about good triumphing over evil.

There's so much more I could write about, but I think you should probably just get a library card and start reading some stuff, for the act of reading itself is now pretty grown up in a TikTok economy.

I don't think I can conclude anything, but the question itself is definitely worth asking.

Ad Review: Temu "Shop Like a Billionaire"

 Again, going way back to my marketing roots and just looking at Ads that have exposed themselves to me in recent times. Today's is going to be "Temu" and their "Shop Like A Billionaire" Campaign, which if I had to guess serves to take a large booming phenomena and take it mainstream. From Tiktok using kidults to TV watching Boomers:

The only thing notable about Temu's ad, when compared to say K-mart and Target ads of yesteryear is the brazen honesty. Similar to my previous post about Virgin's "Bring on Wonderful" campaign that makes no apologies for just making work shitter for their employees.

In Temu's case I'm going to use some terminology that comes from my marketing degree - high-context vs low-context cultures. This was probably at the time one of the revolutionary discoveries in behavioural psychology, because to that point psychology had been conducted by universities like Stanford (who conducted the Stanford experiment) by paying tertiary students in New England $20 to be test subjects and then the findings were generalised to people everywhere.

The point being someone did an experiment where they asked western students to describe a picture of an aquarium and then they also asked Japanese students to do the same thing. And the picture was something like this:

 

And it turns out westerners hone in on describing the fish as the central figure, and Japanese students were more likely to notice the context, the background details and comment on them or something. So the Japanese would say "I see a spiral snail shell and some weeds that a fish is swimming past" and the westerners would say "it's a picture of a fish that has like a silver blue stripe and transparent fins and an orange body with red cheeks" or whatever.

Now obviously, there's huge cultural differences between countries like Japan and China, even quite pronounced antipathy. But broadly speaking "the West" which goes back to Europe vs the Ottomans, is more individualistic or "low context" (the fish) vs "the East" now more associated with Asia than the middle east, so China, India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia etc. are less individualistic or "high context" (the tank).

This translates into the West looking at the individual driving the Porsche and inferring the story of the Porsche eg. look at that finance douche skimming some pension fund etc. and the East looking at the Porsche and inferring who the driver must be, eg. look there's someone from the aristocratic class or who runs a successful business.

Theory over, I must confess that I am through-and-through a Westerner and just have that blind spot where I can't imagine the advantages of the Eastern high-context way of thinking. I must confess I can't even muster my imagination to the point where I can believe that people from high-context cultures can actually believe their own beliefs - like that someone who is rich must therefore be a great person. People who think this way from and in my own culture - people who thought George W Bush must be smart because he was President, same with Trump, I think of as idiots. 

Bringing us finally to "Shop like a billionaire" as a slogan. Clearly if you think billionaires shop like a young woman who blows through her wages impulse buying crap, you are frankly, a moron. 

I'm getting ahead of myself "shop like a billionaire" though squarely aimed at the proletariat, is a reasonably succinct way to sell Temu's core competitive advantage over market leader Amazon, and other companies I know little about like Shein. "Shop like a billionaire" though a farcical characterization of billionaires does explain why to give Temu a try over whoever you are currently using. They could have used "your dollar goes further on Temu" as a slogan, but then you may not be able to run this ad throughout the Anglosphere without having to dub a "your pound goes further" in the case of the UK, "your beaver-fur goes further" in Canada, "your dogecoin goes further" in Silicon Valley etc.

But back to the East meets West, this ad may represent a cultural convergence in a market like Australia depending on how successful the campaign is. My feeling is the true slogan of Temu should be "get all your crap in one place" but I don't know much about Temu, as I've previously stated I basically buy nothing myself.

So the lyrics to the jingle are "I like it/It's mine/the Prices blow my mind/I feel like a billionaire" and then we follow this girl out into her cartoon toy-town fantasy land where the prices are so cheap she can impulsively buy crap for everyone she sees. 

The audience targeted I have to infer, are people with very very low awareness. Just as Trump was famously described as "a poor person's idea of a rich person" or something like that, Temu is targeting people who may be residents of rich countries like the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, but are not themselves rich. 

There's something akin to a 12 year old child thinking that if they could just earn $100 they would spend it all on candy like it was Halloween everyday, and although I live in infantilised times with obese adults probably actually often fulfilling these childhood aspirations when presented with disposable income, hopefully most people are changed through a process called maturation that changes them such that by the time they have $100 lying around they don't blow it on chips, candy and cola, but maybe they want to stick it in a savings account, or assemble a cheese board or maybe buy some LSD or MDMA. 

This ad campaign, isn't even puffery, I think its an astute observation of how people with no money assume the asset class disposes their income - buying whatever they want. 

It has to also be said, the twee aesthetics of the ad gloss over the question of where Temu's low low prices come from. That's the brazen part of this Temu campaign - though thought provoking for someone like me, I'm clearly not the target market, Temu is an invitation not to think, to just consume.

In which case, this campaign also deserves its place as a sign of the times, it can pierce through the misaprehensions of anyone addicted to news media. There is a large targetable market of people with no concern for the environment, growing wealth inequality, eroding middle classes and democracy, the repeal of labour laws.

This market, clearly targeted is one that sees progress as moving toward a world that does not frustrate their impulsive consumption. 

Now, I actually am agnostic as to how to approach sweatshops and cheap labour. The footage never looks good when you see textile factories in Bangladesh, or China or wherever, but this isn't to say that no manufacturing jobs is better than sweat shop jobs in some places. It may be that or starvation, I don't know.

What we face since the 20th century when Capital got mobile, is the problem of labour movements in countries like the US, UK, Australia and Canada and Europe winning important victories enabling unionisation and establishing minimum wages, penalty rates, the 8 hour day etc. It's one thing for a court to rule that Globo-corp has to pay its Australian workers $32 per hour and 1.5 times that if they go overtime, that the company is liable for any injuries suffered by workers on site and that they are not allowed to call an employee on their weekend to bother them about work, and Globo-corp just being able to move operations to a country where for $10,000 you can have some guy round up local villagers and trap them in a work camp to work themselves to death as slave labour.

These are all really complicated, and would lead away from Temu into the discussion about Tariffs and what not, of which I'm agnostic also. The thing is, there's going to be a reason that Temu's "prices blow my mind/I feel so rich" and its probably a reason consumers cannot think about lest it take the candy sheen off of living in Temu-land, where a young 20 something can bounce and strut and cover up all the bald heads with wigs for just $4.99 a piece. 

It may even be the case that this Temu ad, by depicting whatever Temu's equivalent of an Amazon fulfillment center worker is as a white guy with a beanie, has gone beyond the legal protections of puffery. 

I don't know but am happy to bet, Temu represents one of our global "races to the bottom" where even if its practices are effectively identical to Amazon, and the price differences come out of Temu reducing their margins (which would mean if you buy an identical dress from Temu that is priced at $9 that was $19 on Amazon, the difference is Amazon is making $11 profit and Temu is making $1 or something) this just means human suffering has gotten cheaper for consumers, that's the good news.

When the EU launches an investigation into Chinese EV exports, or Trump promises tariffs on Chinese goods - these are people crying no fair. This cry of no fair is in some degree a cry of impotence that our societies are divided into nation states and economic blocks whose regulatory powers only extend so far.

The brazen joy baked into Temu's ad, is one in which we are rejoicing that the workers party that is the CCP has done absolutely nothing for Chinese workers who enjoy some of the worst working conditions in the world.

Ad review: Virgin Airlines "Bring on Wonderful"

 Again, feeling my marketing roots I've been finding some ads interesting. At least the first 5~10 times I see them, the 11~200th times is another matter.

Here's the Ad I'll be reviewing today:

Yes, this ad appeals to me both as a marketer and economist. By appeal I mean car crash appeal, and by car crash I am referring to society, not Virgin Airlines ability to make money in the Australian market.

This ad is just so brazen it deserves a medel of some kind. I'm laughing as I type. Let's break it down together.

Air travel sucks now, but its cheap, I have no memory of what it used to cost to fly domestic legs in Australia I'm not old enough to recall paying for Qantas or Ansett flights. I am old enough to remember being served meals and drinks and getting blood noses with the sudden change of altitude. That was flying economy in Australia in the late 80s thru early to mid 90s.

I'm confident by this point the only people who aren't familiar with air travels descent from old-world class warfare trophy to basically a bus service with a butt load of safety protocols. In many cases becoming something that was cheaper than the public transport option to the airport. Certainly my Ryan air flights from Pisa to Sicily and Catalan cost less than the Trenitalia fares from Genova to Pisa.

Virgin Air have adopted the bold strategy in 2024 of trying to make Air travel great again. Albeit this divisive slogan has been reworked into "bring on wonderful".

Of course, what makes Air travel hell, are seldom the airlines and more often our fellow airtravellers. The people who try to move house via carry on luggage. The people who god damn it paid to sit in a reclining chair and they are damn well going to recline their chair for every second of the flight including take off and landing, and if that means they have to pretend to be comatose as a stewardess tries to shake them awake, then that's a hill they will gladly die on. The people who just line up to board no matter what section their boarding pass says and what section has been called, exploiting the fact that the minimal staff know it causes less of a delay to just wave them through than to have them removed from the line.

And how is Virgin going to "bring on wonderful"? Well it's not going to take the form of greater leg room and less passangers per flight, it's not going to take the form of free inflight entertainment for domestic travel, nor snacks, drinks and meals being included in the ticket price.

No, the burden of wonderful falls squarely on the Virgin staffs shoulders.

Again, the Virgin ad clearly is in the safe legal territory of "Puffery" where nobody of sound mind genuinely expects to look out their window and see the ground crew break into dance for their amusement. 

But Virgin are trying to establish a competitive advantage on the quality of customer service, meaning that the key variable in a passengers experience of a Virgin flight will be incumbent on front line staff.

Now I neither expect Virgin Airlines to have ratched up the job requirements of being a steward or stewardess to the same as Concierge at a luxury hotel, nor do I expect Virgin airlines to have announced massive payrises for frontline or for that matter any staff. I do not expect "bringing on wonderful" to correspond with any significant price hike that reasonable, modest and socially conscious Australian consumers will gladly pay for the wonderment of air travel on a budget airline.

No, this ad in particular lays the burden of the strain felt between idiot parents going through their idiot daughter's awkward and uncomfortable phase (that now can be expected to last into the 40s) upon low paid ground staff who are already under tremendous pressure to keep things running on schedule without losing any luggage while meeting all safety requirements as cheaply as possible.

This ad is literally "the suits decided it would be a good idea for frontline staff to work unpaid involuntary overtime" announced in ad form. 

So rather, my amazement and enjoyment of this ad is revelling in the fact that exploiting the working class has become so normalized in our society that everyone thought this ad was a good idea. Just squeeze more out of job-insecure people who live in suburbs that planes fly over because if they'd just worked harder then maybe they could have been born rich like we were.

Ad Review: Samsung "The Next Big Thing Is You"

 Lately I've been feeling my marketing roots. I also somehow managed to set some setting on my phone which can't use "Ublock" ad-blocker, to not personalise ads. I've never been impressed by targeted ads, and I mean how could I be, I basically buy nothing. 

Anyway the first one I'm going to review is fairly simple, but interesting, I would argue because the struggle is real, the struggle being of course to sell benefits of "AI" more precisely LLMs, which we've had for years.

Here was an ad that kept rolling during the Paris Olympics:

Though by my recollection the "Can I kick it?" was translated into a Paris themed French. What is curious is that speech-translation apps have been available since 2010, certainly this benefit has been available on smart phones since 2015, so LLMs are being sold on the same benefit that pretty much everybody already has. 

It should be stated that said benefit I can go for years without seeing anybody use it. The last time I saw someone use a translation app was in 2018 at a hotel I was checked into in Mexico City, a pricey one in which to sleep off my jet lag, an Indian business man was using an app to ask for more bottled water and more towels of the receptionist. It was translating English to Spanish, and I could speak to the receptionist in English (My Spanish would remain shit for years). 

This benefit is in itself, if not a dud, very very marginal. Though it might seem impressive that the whole world is now open up to you. If you think about it, the major benefit of this app is that it would allow me to take a two week trip to Hungary without having to learn any Hungarian, especially not a lot of Hungarian. 

Beyond this, if I was to go live in Hungary for a year though, do I want to be using an app to talk to people? To ask for bacon at the deli? In a multicultural city like Melbourne you just never see this. Furthermore unlike countries outside the Anglo-sphere where increasingly pretty much everyone in the services industry needs to speak English anyway, relatively few Australians speak a second language. 

So here we have arrived at scratching our heads in respective marketing departments to sell LLMs. I pick on this ad, but the overwhelming marketing message of LLMs is selling it as "AI" this mysterious thing that is possibly an existential threat that we need to have in order to stay ahead of it.

The fact of the matter being, that Google Translate from 2010, maybe 2004, is as much "AI" as the current flood of ambiguous LLM based "AI" products. Chat-gpts ability to produce paragraph length coherent responses to plain English questions is an impressive if not necessarily useful leap forward in software. 

Also please note in the extended version of the Ad, the kid who upon reflection is clearly British first asks a group of Spanish speaking women "can I kick it?" to which they respond "Que?" (What?) and then he pulls out his phone AND PRETRANSLATES EARLY AFROCENTRIC RAP LINGO INTO PLAIN ENGLISH "can I play?" before the phone displays "puedo jugar?" on the outer side of the flip - which is probably the real feature they are trying to sell, and the group of girls responds "si, puedes." (yes you can.) Now if the AI could do a LLM translation that went and analysed A Tribe Called Quest lyrics to understand the sentiment that would truly be impressive if unlikely given that the phone would first have to deduce the context in which the user is speaking at all, and even if the app can access the phone camera and microphone and is like "oh Edward is on a basketball court with some girls...analyzing..." The intelligent conclusion to reach is that what he means is "can I kick the basketball with my foot" being that the user is British and they play football with their feet.

"Puffery" is as a legal term in reference to an advertisers legal ability to exaggerate the benefits of their product or service. So it is kind of interesting that in the full version of the Samsung Galaxy ad, they actively avoid puffing up the abilities of LLMs, as in that they can understand Q-tip and Phife Dawg (RIP) employed in a context where not only is the slang obscure and dated for the native speaker but he is choosing to employ acute slang when communicating with a foreign culture.

Bringing me to another dud product sold on the buzzword in the zeitgeist:

Though not timely, I must confess its the Lumosity ads I really want to review. Because they really spoke to my sensitivities of marketing education. More so than the "can I kick it?" Galaxy ad that features heavily a white suburban US youth, its hard to say who that ad is for. 

Lumosity ads were targeted at morons. They used to be all over youtube, I would see lumosity ads maybe two or three times a day. The most striking thing was that all the spokesmodels for lumosity come across as dumb. 

Compare it to an ad for weight loss, or male pattern baldness. In these ads, shonky as they are, what one would expect is a before/after comparison. Here I was really fat, and thanks to Nutronic meal replacement system here I am now thin and athletic. Here I was bald, and thanks to Nutronic hair replacement system here I am now, full head of hair and confident again.

The logical ad structure for lumosity's brain training is showing someone who was dumb and is now smart. Instead we just got ads populated by dumb people talking about how they heard the game was based on "neuroplasticity" which everyone is talking about.

The ad takes the predatory tact of praying on insecure people's need to be relevant. And I suspect most advertising that features "AI" is taking the same tact here in 2024. Albeit circumstances are somewhat different:

For one thing, Lumosity was the really prevalent player spruiking a product with the buzzword "neuroplasticity", it may be a failing of my memory but I can't remember any other brain-training apps or company advertising. But pretty much everyone has AI tools, likely thanks to OpenAI being both the leaders in developing LLMs and being quite open about how they were doing it.

Nobody really "owns" LLMs, the closest would be OpenAI with ChatGPT which I would bet like $20 has the highest brand recognition. Midjourney certainly was leading in AI art for years, but I can name five other AI art brands where for most product categories I would struggle to name more than 2. 

And unlike neuroplasticity which was more or less a successful rebranding of the concept of "practice" LLMs are useful tools. They've arrived, and not only arrived but have been here for years in lesser powerful versions like Google search. I doubt LLMs are a mere fad.

But that's where the meaningful differences stop. The rest is marketing white-bread to the white-bread crowd. I mean who wants a camera that takes photos that swap out your children's actual expressions for happy ones? Parents that want to send their kids to North Korea, that's who. 

Perhaps I've neglected a meaningful difference, and I don't want to write a post on "AI" so much as review an ad that perplexingly can't sell "AI" as being any different to a product we have had for 10 years already. 

Lumosity got sued by the FTC and had to stop selling their snake oil on its curative properties:

On January 5, 2016, Lumos Labs agreed to a $50 million settlement (reduced to $2 million subject to financial verification) to the Federal Trade Commission over claims of false advertising for their product. The Commission found that Lumosity's marketing "preyed on consumers' fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer's disease", without providing any scientific evidence to back its claims. The company was ordered not to make any claims that its products can "[improve] performance in school, at work, or in athletics" or "[delay or protect] against age-related decline in memory or other cognitive function, including mild cognitive impairment, dementia, or Alzheimer's disease", or "[reduce] cognitive impairment caused by health conditions, including Turner syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke, or side effects of chemotherapy", without "competent and reliable scientific evidence".[10][11][12]

There is no good medical evidence to support claims that memory training helps people improve cognitive functioning.[13][14] ~ from Wikipedia AKA basically 90% of the Gemini LLM generated Google search responses.

This may be why products and services that now sell AI in my experience do not talk about the supposed benefits of AI. They don't even do the "gotta be the shoes" thing from the old Nike Spike and Mike ads where there would be legal recourse to claiming no reasonable person would actually think it is Michael Jordan's shoes that make him the greatest basketball player of all time. (now the richest on the other hand...)

Curiously gambling ads in Australia are steering well clear of claims about "AI" pushing instead social media and "Actual intelligence" but ads for daytrading software are pushing AI, and I suspect that's because while advertisers have figured out daytrading is for all but the tiny population of professionals working for large financial institutions or for extremely rich private clients, mathematically identical to gambling - in so far as if 70% of users lose all the money they put in.

Probably the best ads at really trying to sell a benefit, rather than a feature of LLMs, is the one I've seen a few times but cannot remember what it was for - that kind of said that with AI tools maybe you could do the job that used to require expertise - like a fashion designer or car designer. It is still however a struggle to sell this as a benefit without being predatory - specifically the only people who will be sold on this point are likely to be morons. Why? Because if you can suddenly design a hypercar or a pair of hightop sneakers with no particular expertise SO CAN EVERYONE so there's no benefit there to your career. Same as uber income being driven down by all the people who can become drivers for uber.

So in conclusion, the only scumbags using AI to prey upon dumb people are the trading company ads and there probably are some gambling app ads that do claim AI can figure out the ponies for you. That's really bad in the moral/ethical sense. Companies like Samsung and Apple and Google and Microsoft I view more as struggling to come up with ways in which LLMs are useful. 

Don't get me wrong, they are useful. Just it seems only marginally more useful than the products and services we already have. Hence search engines are trying to force us to adopt Gemini output now, and Microsoft downloads an AI companion when you update windows even though you never used Cortana apart from maybe asking Cortana how to uninstall Cortana. 

Video calls were a hard sell at first, until basically people got used to doing them on desktop computers and phones switched from minutes to data plans. I'm sure some of the LLM features will prove as beneficial as video calls did. At the moment I am underwhelmed though, I don't think marketers at least have cracked the code of selling LLM features by their benefits.

The Last Post I Hope to Ever Write About Jordan Peterson is Actually About the Narcissism of Small Differences

 According to google trends, as at writing JP peaked in terms of search engine popularity in Feb 2018 before a wide jagged trough of interest until achieving his second highest peak search in Jan of 2023 where interest in JP collapsed again. It's important to probably note that somewhere in there he was basically in a drug induced coma in a Russian hospital to recover from a paradoxical reaction to medication. 

But all of which is to say, JP isn't in a coma, he's just not that relevant anymore and if I had to hazard a guess, that can largely be attributed to the Daily Wire paying him to no longer be relevant.

So the diminished relevance of JP is what has me optimistically forecasting that there will be little utility in writing about this personality, whom I personally feel has for a long time been overdetermined to be of little value to listen to. Even more so since his acquisition by the Daily Wire.

Bringing me to Pangburn. Pangburn Philosophy I know as a youtube channel that by my recollection and a brief search, was also an event organizer that went bust. Sam Harris detailed it on his blog in this post. When JP was a rising star, Pangburn arranged events that put him on stage with veteran public intellectuals like Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty etc. 

Pangburn Philosophy folded some time in 2018. But the youtube channel now releases clips from these events, I'll embed some, though I have my reservations because Travis Pangburn may still owe money to speakers he didn't pay, and refunds to people who bought tickets to events that didn't happen. He may be making ad-revenue to pay down these debts, or he may just be milking these old clips.

The important thing is, that Pangburn Philosophy now in it's thumbnails and video titles shows a clear bias towards - for example - Sam Harris and against Jordan Peterson. MOST IMPORTANTLY I embed these not because they are necessary to watch to understand the post, but because the thumbnails and video titles are important, that's why they aren't merely links. See you below ovo.

The thing is, clickbait though these thumbnails may be, they also pretty accurately reflect what actually happened. The fact was that as JP was coming up in the public consciousness, perhaps even becoming the second most talked about personality behind Donald Trump, a bunch of ostensibly straight white men absolutely manhandled him in a public forum and exposed pretty much exactly what JP was doing - advocating for entirely arbitrary preferences in obscure, unclear, frequently content-less word salads.

It was also very rare for personalities like Matt or Sam to resort to data and facts to refute JP. In the case of Sam Harris, you can also witness him climb the very steep learning curve of dealing with JP almost effortlessly. They had their first disastrous exchange on Harris' podcast then called "Waking Up" now called "Making Sense" that I cannot recall ever listening to. My understanding from hearsay was that they got stuck on the first point, which was like "what is true" and Sam wouldn't concede some definition of truth that included things that are not true for the sake of argument. Something like that.

Making almost perfect segue to the Narcissism of Small differences, in their very first exchange (80% confident) Sam Harris respondended to JP's general style by reading him a passage from his own book "The End of Faith" about reading mystical significance into a randomly chosen cookbook. Youtuber Atheist "Holy Koolaid" somewhat embellished and animated this exchange in a manner that both contextualizes and clarifies the central point. Here's a link to it here.

And here's the interesting scenario. Fairly early on in the timeline of the JP phenomena,  he sat down with a bunch of white dudes whose common thread was atheism. Peterson was popularizing a form of Christian apologetics I, in my own mental shorthand, refer to as "Wagner is better than it sounds." Because he takes something like the book of Genesis and turns it into an 11 part lecture series where going by memory his first lecture takes an hour and he doesn't get through the first sentence of Genesis 1:1, after discussing consciousness, robotics, linguistics and a whole bunch of horseshit.

To an atheist of course, innovating apologetics is like innovating anti-gravity whether it is "magna rails" or "hoverboards" the innovation isn't actually going to be anti-gravity, and apologetics no matter what form it takes isn't actually going to be a proof of God.

Here though we arrive at a problem - Atheists could, with a little discipline, manhandle JP like a baby goat that had fallen over. The exposure truly is there for anyone who wishes to see it. Matt Dillahunty's conversation took place after the critical Cathy Newman interview, made famous for her strawmanning "So what you are saying is..." and JP then sits down with Matt and does nothing but "so what you're saying is..." to claim that Matt a secular humanist is actually unknown to him, a Judeo-Christian true believer.

When JP sits down with Sam Harris, Sam consistently exposes that JP as studied and thoughtful he is as to the profound depths of sophistication to be found in "Judeo-Christian" traditions, knows critically little about any other religions.

But what if you are also talking shit? 

Well then you get shit like youtuber "Big Joel's" insightless half hour take on JP who begins with the poem "The Fisher King" to which he compares JP or JP's aspirations and it deteriorates from there.

Enter a symbiotic relationship, grounded, I feel, in the narcissism of small differences. For those unfamiliar with the term, a shallow explanation is that we tend to dislike most passionately people who remind us of ourselves. Gays and Lesbians will give more grief to bisexuals than straights. Vegans will most passionately attack the vegetarian for eating eggs, milk and cheese at a dinner table surrounded by omnivores. Protestants will fight Catholics more readily than Islam (historically speaking) who in turn are more consumed with Sunni vs Shia than Islam vs Christianity. Republicans and Democrats can both hate each other in the most public of ways while diplomatically hosting as honoured guests representatives of autocratic governments.

And so, JP using exegesis, which is a special term for using critical analysis of scripture will be most up in arms at that part of the left that fell head over heals with using critical analysis of texts to form their political positions on sex, gender and race. 

This was why for several years there, JP and the far-left formed a symbiotic relationship that likely resulted in a net transfer of wealth to JP. Big Joel gets 3.6M views plus from his videos on JP, Tom Nicholas got 1.6M views for "JP doesn't understand George Orwell" Philosophytube has racked 6M+, Contrapoints video on JP got 4.6M views. So it's not like there wasn't money to be made from JP, but I don't know how youtube ad revenue compares to the speaker fees Sam Harris got for doing 3 JP events with Pangburn Philosophy.

I'm also guessing that relative to the value of the free publicity JP got, whatever money "breadtube" as I believe it is loosely called made is comparable to that sweet sweet "The Dawkin's Delusion?" money. (using as proxy the 229 customer reviews of Dawkin's Delusion when compared to the 11k customer reviews for The God Delusion).

The Dawkin's tangent is probably worth dwelling on because it also makes the point of this post - there was a trend during the whole "New Atheist" fever to attempt to discredit or debunk New Atheists by claiming that Atheism was another religion, as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the Abrahamic religions. In my opinion none of that fightback was effective, nor could be effective because it springs forth from - they are doing what we do, but we disagree.

This is only really a sound technique for refuting the soundness of the method. So too it was with trying to discredit Jordan Peterson on the grounds that he reads into George Orwell the wrong things, whereas you read into George Orwell the right things.

Importantly, its also why JP is not a good champion in terms of fighting the woke. He likely also created massive markets for breadtube and enriched them through his own critical analysis of texts like "Frozen", "The Lion King" and "Harry Potter" both sides are basically trying to argue the other is reading books wrong.

I think it was why you got more hairpulling from these camps that the phenomenas of JP and wokeness continued whereas it was easier to just dismiss Sam Harris as a racist and be done with it. There aren't really analogues to the JP critical video essays that come 3 years too late from breadtube regarding Sam Harris, where Harris' relevance has remained more constant, where JPs clearly declined once he signed on with the Daily Wire.

Critical analysis of texts can produce interesting ideas, inspiration, content. I remain sceptical that it can produce knowledge. What knowledge analysing texts can produce would need to be tested in some way. Abrahamic scripture serves as a big data set given how long it has been critically analysed to produce testable hypotheses, of which most of these fail.

Conclusion

We are left with internet history of two camps. One camp was a debate between sound epistemologies like empiricism and rationality had between figures like Sam Harris and JP that resolved quickly and the participants largely have moved on. 

The other camp was arguments between people who think their reading of texts are correct and people (championed by JP) who think their reading of texts are correct. This was the group that via narcissism of small differences produced no resolution, engaged longer and engaged far more minds, enriched themselves at the expense of society, produced no resolution and the argument is still ongoing.

Whatever dodginess is going on with Pangburn Philosophy, it is now releasing shorts that are as conclusive as historical sports matches. JP lost, his critics won, insofar as the debates where about the soundness of JP's methods.

I guess the sad thing is, the market of people who want a way to rationalize the beliefs they hold is always a bigger market than those interested in truth, and grandiose as that sounds it needs acknowledging that it's a lot easier to be interested in truth when you are relatively speaking, on top, the West African slave trade is a lot easier to talk about than the East African slave trade, for example.

Voice Referendum Revisited

Least Said Soonest Forgotten

In Louis CK's show "Louis" David Lynch guest starred as Jack Doll, late night producer who gave his three rules of showbusiness, the show emphasised the rule "if someone asks you to keep a secret, that secret is a lie." but the one relevant to Australian reconciliation is: "You have to go away to come back."

With the failure of the 2023 "Voice" referendum, talk of reconciliation has for the most part gone away. To an extent, I have no idea what has happened to reconciliation. I could not name an organization or an MP actively working on it, or known for discussing it. 

I compare this to media coverage of a struggling pro-sports team. Rightly or wrongly, teams that produce the worst records or perform below expectations tend to fire a head coach or general manager or something and attempt to rebuild.

I'm sure this is happening somewhere, albeit I'm not sure if anyone responsible for the failure of the 2023 referendum was fired. Hence I feel it's about time to revisit it.

The Crux of My Cold Take

Having now sporadically meditated on it for a year, my impression has endured that the Voice referendum was for much of the Yes campaigners, not a good faith referendum. This is because so much of what I have poured over and come across gives me the primary impression that the people that brought about the referendum seem to have no idea what a referendum is.

Like, finding out that to drive a vehicle on the roads, you need a license. And nobody really caring that to get a license you generally need to sit a test and pass it. It was like this, a change to the constitution was asked for, and nobody seemed to act as though they understood they needed a double majority of Australian voters to vote yes.

So when I say "not good faith" I mean, I suspect many people feel that I was not supposed to think of my vote as something I should think about and make my mind up over. I was supposed to just go vote "Yes" because the referendum needed to pass for the desired body to be enshrined.

To this day it makes me angry to think of how unseriously this referendum was taken by the people who asked for it. This manifested in the great gulf between the wording of the proposed change to the Australian constitution, and what everyone was talking about.

It resulted in out-of-touch people's dreams and assumptions being pitted against both bigotry, apathy and confusion.

What Remains Perplexing to Me, As a No "Voter"

When researching reasons to vote yes, I came across an assertion that literally broke my brain. 

I had started to ask myself questions, after reading the Uluru statement of the Heart, and knowing enough about the polling to anticipate the failing of the referendum as rendering my own vote pretty meaningless, why on Earth the process was starting with a referendum, and I don't mean the decades of preparation that went into creating the Uluru statement of the Heart, I mean taking the outcomes of that statement and beginning with the referendum.

I wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt, that this was just a blunder, an oversight due to overexuberance or impatience or something. That the public had not been polled sufficiently or something.

But no, allegedly there was a conscious and deliberate decision to sequence the desired outcomes of the Uluru Statement of the Heart as: First Voice, 2nd Treaty, 3rd Truth.

The idea being that the Treaty would need a body to be negotiated with. And that the truth could only be told when protected by a treaty.

I still illustrate how bonkers this sequencing seemed to me, by making analogy to a trial. The first thing you do is pay your fines and serve your sentence. Then once that is done, the jury can deliver their verdict and only with the protection of a verdict will the jury hold a case to determine the guilt of the defendant.

Intuitively The ATSI Voice strikes me as something that might be an outcome of a treaty. I remain open to the suggestion that Treaty is actually the step we are up to in the reconciliation process, but I am not fit to assess whether the various royal commissions that have been held on the impact of colonization are sufficient to saying we have a consensus on "Truth" at least as far as the nation is concerned, I doubt the people of this or any nation have any grasp on reality these days. There are flat earthers now, not always, just now.

It also goes without saying, that I still find it perplexing that I was basically unable to find substantial public discussion of the wording of the content of the proposed changes to the constitution. When you look at the history of Australia's referendums, they are generally very clear - things about federal elections being held in all the states and territories on the same day, syncing time zones, who gets to vote. Both the Republic referendum and the Voice had similar design flaws, in that it was quite literally impossible to understand what you were voting for. 

Now with the Republic vote one could at least say "we take the parliament we have now, and the Governer General becomes law-signing dude and the queen disappears off our money" which we couldn't even do with the Voice, because we were asked to enshrine a body we had no prototype of, and nobody was saying it would basically be the disbanded ATSIC.

Notable Failure

It was around this time a year ago (plus like 4 months, these drafts can sit around) I became aware that I would actually have to vote in the 2023 "Voice" referendum and subsequently started paying attention to it.

The referendum failed to pass a double majority, with it only winning a majority "yes" vote in the Australian Capital Territory, this is not so much to the ACTs credit in my opinion (and the territories don't count toward the double majority) so it is as noteworthy as pointing out Sydney and Melbourne's affluent eastern electorates also voted yes.

I voted no, and made no bones about my intention to and did so publicly and took in all the arguments I could find to vote yes. I have since felt no negative disconfirmation about my vote. 

One of the more extreme reactions to the failure of the referendum was to declare reconciliation dead in Australia. At which point, it is better if I don't give my hot-take opinion on why the referendum failed but defer to a researched analysis of why it failed. the data suggests that it was not an unprecedented failed referendum but quite a conventional one.

So I'm happy to accept the narrative that had the coalition (Australia's right-of-centre political parties) not withdrawn their support, the referendum may have passed. Hence an argument can be made that it is the Dutton-lead-coalition's fault. This sentiment was somewhat expressed in the unsigned open letter after the week of mourning. 

However, I'm left with a "after that, therefore because of that" style post-hoc-if-not-fallacy-definitely-not-useful diagnosis. It feels just one incidental step removed from an analysis that says the referendum failed because not enough people voted for it.

The strongest argument I could make for the coalition tanking the referendum and the collapse of bipartisan support was that the coalition falsified its support until a referendum was actually on the table. Like a parent boasting that they wouldn't care if their child was gay, right up until their child tells them they are gay.

So I will opine on the content of the referendum. I think it lost bipartisan support because it was a dud product, it's slightly trickier than that, because honestly it was hard for me to see what the coalition would dislike about the proposed changes to the constitution. Given it definitely gave any government the power to nerf or buff whatever "The Voice" was so long as they could pass legislation through both houses. It may be that it was the proposed first application of the constitutional changes was the dud product from coalition perspective.

As such it is understandable that "The Voice" as proposed would be abandoned due to the referendum, which is to say, that path to reconciliation shot itself in the foot, where a governing party with sufficient mandate to call a referendum certainly had the mandate to establish "The Voice" prior to a referendum - enabling an alternate history where the referendum was simply the matter of enshrining an existing body people could point to.

I feel I can characterize it as somewhat objective, that overall despite the long process leading to the referendum it wound up being a fairly mindless affair. Discourse around the subject lacked both attention and substance, my most striking memory of the time being the inability for anyone to discuss the words contained in the proposed change to the constitution.

The referendum was predicted to fail by all recent polling prior to the day, it was projected to have failed within a depressingly short amount of time. The referendum failing before polling had even closed in WA. The Yes23 campaign group called for a week of silence to morn the failed referendum and then an unsigned open letter to the prime minister was published.

Since then, basically radio silence. It is however worth noting that the referendum struggled to make headlines nor garner media attention in the lead up to the referendum vote. The content was there in mastheads like The Age/SMH which I was monitoring at the time, but it was rare for any article or editorial related to the voice to break into the top ten articles on the website landing page. A brief squidgeridoo at Google Trends confirms that a topic like the Voice referendum failed to garner more attention than Taylor Swift in Australia, despite Taylor Swifts concerts being further away than the referendum and it being relevant to less demographics.

Perhaps it is Australia's referendum process that is the dud product, I for one resented having to be asked to vote on the matter because I actually need an expert in constitutional law to tell me what I'm voting for and the legal experts were divided. I think I would prefer an amendment process more akin to the United States whose system is in most other respects much riskier than Aus' in a bad way. Australian referendums are too low risk with almost no chance of significant reforms at all. 

Australia has a lot of Garbage People

More persuasive to vote yes than anything I heard from the Yes campaign, were pamphlets of truly terrible "No" arguments from people that outwardly presented so terribly as to make one believe in phrenology. I'm talking Roald Dahl's The Twits coming to life and handing out "No" pamphlets that from what I glanced, lead with outright flagrant misinformation. 

Some large non-negligible chunk of the population voted no for terrible and largely baseless reasons. Probably the majority that voted no, whatever rationalizing they did, voted no because "everyone" was projected to vote no. Monkey-see-monkey-do shit.

And yes, racists. Not only racists but nationalists and in particular nativists for which Australians are no exception to the cognitive dissonance caused by the presence of indigenous people with better claims to being "true" natives.

It's also hard to estimate the effective population of these garbage people, because many people are agreeable enough to know their true feelings on an issue are "socially undesirable" and thus outwardly falsify their preferences in something known as a "shy tory" effect. Albeit, the referendum still failed 60-40, in line with the polls that predicted it would fail. 

The observable phenomena that racists simply exist, to the extent that people will baselessly conflate something like establishing a body called "The Voice" with confiscation of real property as per the worst "No" arguments I came across is a phenomena that needs to be factored into pursuing reconciliation via a referendum.

That said, I find such stupidity comparable to the people who argue democratically elected representatives enacting emergency powers in actual emergencies (like the pandemic) and thinking it is the beginning of a fascist or communist regime simply exist, and have to be stoically accepted as a completely predictable part of the democratic process.

To this point, were Australia ever to get a chance to constitutionally recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders without it being bundled with a preamble or some extra-parliamentary body, I think it could pass. I would hope it would pass, that simply acknowledging a fact of history is not something people can go into a moral panic about.

However it is both naïve and irrational to ask that racists simply not be racist and it is beyond irrational and in the domain of insane to ask racists to not vote in a compulsory vote where they are obliged to vote. If these are the attitudes you have adopted in the last decade, you should not be involved in the reconciliation process, due to a fundamental non-apprehension of the word "reconciliation" the word you are actually looking for is "bulldozing".

Bipolarization

I honestly don't know if Peter Dutton cynically withdrew bipartisan support by the coalition that forms the other major political party in Australia purely to score a political blow against Labour the presiding major political party in Australia. 

Can we achieve reconciliation while dispensing with the need for a referendum? I say yes. 

A referendum likely best serves to recognize that reconciliation has taken place, rather than a means by which to reconcile. I HAVE TO acknowledge however, that behaviour seems to drive attitudes, rather than attitudes driving behaviour. A referendum that forced people to behave as though reconciled, may result in peoples minds being reconciled - this though was not that referendum.

Yes, I bring a marketing bias that sees the failure of the 2023 referendum as a mere failed product launch, rather than the death of reconciliation. 

I have an unshakeable suspicion that the reconciliation product was designed predominantly through a focus group process that consulted almost exclusively the ATSI community of Australia, then reflective of the electorate at large - the PM took a position that said "we'll take your output and run with it" rather than okay here's a product designed by 2~3% of the population (without considering other self-selection biases) it needs broader consultation with the other 97~98% of the population. 

We can see somewhere between 30~40% of the population, based on the referendum, were okay with "whatever" the Uluru Statement of the Heart got converted to for the referendum question and proposed change to the law. 

On the front of what did happen, the blame for the referendum's failure may lay largely with a conservative and racist electorate, but the crucial strategic failing I feel were those managing first and foremost the design of the subject matter, who likely in my opinion siloed themselves and injecting their own sensibilities into a process that needed broad appeal.

Basically the story of the 2023 Australian Voice referendum is the story of Amazon's "Rings of Power." It's a product made by a cultural silo, that owing to its massive purchase price and production budget just could not target a niche subculture of fan-fic readers or something.

Products and services that are poor out of deference to sensibilities do exist - Australia's unemployment benefits, administered by "Centrelink" are well known as a sodomising experience to deal with, when Covid changed circumstances such that sensibilities changed - that people might be unemployed not because of some moral failing but mere circumstance - virtually overnight the Australian government turned off the pain of dealing with Centrelink. 

On this front, where the left have ruined their own causes via there own alienating sensibilities, I'm not confident the left wing of politics has taken responsibility yet, though the failures of this approach are now fairly well documented - in media that is expensive and unpopular like Disney's treatment of IP, to the UKs independent reviews rejecting or finding ungrounded various activist initiatives, to and probably likely to be most closely related to an Australian reconciliation process - the noteworthy failures and scandals of the leading Anti-racism authors.

Ibram X Kendi's Boston University Antiracist Research Center has proved notably unproductive with it's $55 million USD funding, Whiteness studies doctorate Robin DiAngelo, author of "White Fragility" has quite recently faced renewed scrutiny for plagiarising portions of her doctoral thesis. Ta Nahesi Coates is likely the only one of the Anti-racist thinkers that I'm not aware of any scandal, however he was perplexingly the first to pretty much disappear from the public eye as Anti-racism blew up. It should also be kept in mind, that Anti-racist thought has always been controversial even before it was cool. Right wing nutjobs rail against it, but the left only really respond to the right wing nutjobs, not the criticisms that predate trying to roll out Anti-racism

Advertising

While in Mexico one of my most dependable correspondents was my embattled anti-vax friend, we disagree on a lot, if not most things hence the value of that friendship to me and when we caught up in person shortly after the referendum we concurred that figuratively speaking the "No" campaign just didn't exist.

We both would have been using an availability heuristic - basing our impression on what we could see, I asked him about it because I live in one of the concentrated "Yes" vote areas, so maybe that's why I saw pretty much no "No" campaign presence. But my friend is on the rural outskirts and goes to church and reported much the same.

The money story bares this out though it is not literally the case that the "No" campaign didn't exist, but it was a 5th of the size of the Yes campaign. 

Now this subheading is "advertising" and I should clarify what I mean - I am referring to the term as used in "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky, which makes the following argument I can not improve upon by rewording myself:

The product is composed of the affluent readers who buy the newspaper—who also comprise the educated decision-making sector of the population—while the actual clientele served by the newspaper includes the businesses that pay to advertise their goods. According to this filter, the news is "filler" to get privileged readers to see the advertisements which makes up the content and will thus take whatever form is most conducive to attracting educated decision-makers.

 I can simplify it though, if that's a bit wordy or too lacking in context - businesses want rich customers because they buy more of their products and services, the media is a business and pay disproportionate attention to the affluent.

Bringing me to the referendum map-

This map sourced from "The Daily Mail" and appears factually accurate to my recollection of the night. The link above goes to the ABC's electorate map that is harder to translate Geographically.

So, basically if Nike wanted to sell a $400 running shoe to compete with newcomers Hoka and Cloud, that was designed to integrate with the apple watch and smart drink bottles that send push notifications when you need to drink more water - they would probably target their campaign for this luxury good to spend the entire budget targeting much the same geographic regions as show up Blue on the above maps. Which is to say predominantly affluent eastern suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney.

Herman and Chomsky's argument is kind of saying that the entire news media is just advertising appealing to these same geographic zones. After the 2023 referendum, we can see how powerful this is because it is likely also true of the Australia's publicly funded national broadcaster The ABC. Right, like their studious are also in Sydney and Melbourne, they may run news programs like "Landline" that wouldn't be viable on commercial stations, but ABC news presenters have for as long as I can remember been more middle-class targeted than Channel 7 or Channel 9 who dominated TV ratings pre-internet.

When we look at something like Brexit, we think of Nigel Farrage and Borris Johnson appealing to working class Brits in economically devastated or neglected parts of the country with misinformation.

The crucial takeaway I feel, inherent in the Referendum maps is just a clear cut example that actually MOST propaganda is targeted at the affluent. Yes grifters flatter uneducated people to run their scams, but flattery is a fact of people-of-means' lives. They are constantly being lied to by job applicants, service providers, friends and family who seek to acquire their resources.

And this probably works great outside of a referendum when a rich person's vote doesn't count just as much as a poor person's and you need a double majority of the population as a whole and a majority of states voting Yes to the change.

Even if we are to take the position that readers of broadsheet newspapers and watchers of The ABC and SBS are better informed and less misinformed than readers of tabloids and watchers of SkyNews, the business model is not up to snuff for getting a referendum carried.

Likely a big part of the problem was revealed and diagnosed in the UK white-paper by Alan Milburn "Unleashing Aspiration" that is written up in the Guardian here crucially in 2009 Milburn found "journalism becoming "one of the most exclusive middle-class professions of the 21st century". 

I learned of the Milburn paper, not in 2009 but more recently listening to "100 Years of Dirt" Australian journalist Rick Morton's autobiography. Published in 2018, I am going to assume that legacy media with shrinking staff numbers hasn't gotten less picky about the qualifications and pedigree of the people it employs.

The media speaks to its audience, as a general rule and yes university graduates from middle class backgrounds can then competently work in media targeted at blue collar markets, but just looking at the election map I suspect we have a map of who reads broadsheets and watches the ABC and SBS - a double minority.

Targeting the affluent is all well and good outside of the election cycle, and no, I can't explain why the ABC as a public broadcaster has always targeted its programming to the affluent middle class. But this was the thing, the Yes campaign had to make its case to a majority of Australians, and all of its marketing material was targeted toward the middle class.

Unfortunately post referendum Yes23.com.au's site has taken away pretty much all of it's marketing material. Probably because it is no longer funded to host all that content. I can only go by my recollection - and that was that the material was appealing broadly to the young and relevant and the old and affluent, and pretty much nobody else.

Characterized by Mill

So John Stuart Mill famously wrote in "On Liberty" that "He who only knows his own side of the argument knows little of that." which is a testable hypothesis and it was once again validated in the case of the 2023 Referendum.

This referendum was about listening respectfully. Australia's terrible situation is that we are facing a doom spiral. Long before social media and the internet exacerbated siloing, Australia's frankly embarrassing history of dispossessing and disenfranchising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders appears to have created a deep fracture where the two major players are mostly out of touch with each other.

I was grateful to get any responses, I was searching for reasons to vote "yes" and needed reassurance, and I kid you not, the first response I got kicked off with the deliciously ironic words "Just vote yes..." then there was a presentation of arguments that may be sufficient to convince a certain demographic but rendered quite the opposite effect on me.

I don't wish to revisit the content of arguments because I wrote about them in a hopefully timely manner where they would have been of impact. Suffice to say, I am old enough to know that you are going to hear first from the most impassioned or enthusiastic advocates, not necessarily the best ones, so I held out for more thoughtful arguments, which I got.

One of my most thoughtful friends eventually probably summarized the best argument for the Yes vote as "vote for the vibe of it" and I don't say so to be dismissive because it was contextualized as this is how change begins and the important thing good or bad is to begin it. If you would, I interpreted it as a rewording of Theodore Roosevelts "The best thing to do in any situation is the right thing, the next best thing is to do the wrong thing and the worst thing to do is nothing at all."

However, I ultimately landed on, what the Australian public were evidently given was a dud product that it rejected, again the data suggests that it was not an unprecedented failed referendum but quite a conventional one.

The lasting impression I have of the Yes campaign, is that they saw the failure of the referendum as an intrinsic failure of the Australian people, not the chosen method for achieving reconciliation.

The data suggests that when the coalition withdrew support for the referendum, public support collapsed. Again, all I have is my impression and this has the big drawback of I only started paying attention long after bipartisan support had collapsed, but my recollection of Yes campaigner reactions to this piece of analysis was a kind of "stab in the back" by the coalition. This is item 6 in the open letter and again, I feel the observed polling phenomena validates Mill's hypothesis. 

None of which is to suggest that people voted no, largely for good reason. Quite the contrary, the data does indeed suggest that people largely vote along partisan lines, having no real opinion on whether pineapple should be on pizza and instead using their proxy opinion of political parties. Suggesting a large population of voters who can resemble bipartisan support for pineapple on pizza until the party they associate with changes its mind and they dutifully follow.

The trouble for the Yescampaign is that this applies equally to the partisan support for the campaign. There were analogues of mindless and misinformed no voters, voting yes and I knew them and heard from them. People had truly terrible reasons for voting yes and I should qualify this with my personal standards - for example not smoking because you believe tobacco to be a sacred ceremonial crop for Indians is a terrible reason to quit smoking. A good reason to quit smoking is because it is the single healthiest decision a person can statistically make.

I don't wish to commit the fallacy fallacy here, so smoking is a good example. Quitting smoking because of superstition is a terrible reason that nevertheless will provide you with all the benefits of quitting smoking for the good and overdetermined health reasons. 

Which is to say, that drawing the conclusion that Australia does not seek reconciliation with the Indigenous based on the failure of the 2023 referendum is akin to concluding that Australia loves communism based on the failure of the 1951 referendum, and that Australia loves the British Royal Family based on the failure of the 1999 referendum. (Incidentally the first time any constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders failed, but I guess with the failure of the republic it was harder to conflate than the Voice referendum.)

The worst thing to do from the perspective of reconciliation would have been nothing at all, what was done was the next best thing which was the pursuit of a dud-reconciliation process. The reason Teddy asserted that it was better to do the wrong thing than nothing was, I assert, that the wrong thing fails and you can learn from it, whereas nothing tells you nothing and you can't learn.

So I would say the referendum isn't the time for the public at large to adopt Theodore Roosevelt's approach to running a country.

I experienced so little negative post-vote disconfirmation because the Yes23 campaign was run incompetently, insofar as they campaigned for a referendum system that requires a double majority by campaigning to a silo - based on the districts that carried a yes majority - the affluent suburbs of Australia's major metropolitan centres. 

As such the post-referendum disconfirmation that I observed really go off the rails was the Yes campaign, who drew far-reaching, if not hysterical conclusions some of which are expressed in the open unsigned letter.

Missing Data

Akin to the shy-tory effect, where I as a coroner, would direct attention to for people who like myself want to see reconciliation ASAP would be opinion polling on Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country.

Firstly I would say the clear good intentions of these rituals is obvious to me, but particularly the Acknowledgement of Country which takes place when no indigenous people are present, has begun to render the opposite of the intended effect on me at least. Much like Climate Summits, I have begun to just expect them to be the talk of people with no real intention to ever act. Much like listening to a politician promise to solve the housing affordability crisis while it has just grown worse in Australia for pretty much my entire life.

I gave a quick google to see if anyone like gallup had polled Australians on their opinion of welcome to country and acknowledgement of country. All I could find was a paper by the Australia Institute about SA parliamentary session openings. Shockingly, SA parliament (state) opens each session, or had been, with a Christian Prayer. I sometimes forget that as part of the Commonwealth Australia is probably officially linked to the Church of England in some way, but despite all the mentions in our constitution of the King (Now King Chuckles the III) Australia is for the most part a very secular place to live.

Acknowledgement of Country has an analogue though with same-sex marriage, or marriage equality. Until the Federal government changed the law in like 2014 or whenever, there was a period of around 8 years where if you went to a wedding and it wasn't a religious one by a religion that hates the gays like Catholicism or whatever, you had to hear the celebrant read out the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. 

In my experience, nobody liked this. Everybody hated it, but if you wanted a legally recognized marriage and you didn't want some fucking 80 year old virgin conducting the ceremony, you had to swallow this pill. Really this stipulation may have been the single greatest campaign for the marriage equality act passing in Australia.

When the law changed, I'm pretty sure this legal requirement stopped. 

So what would be interesting to research would be the expectations of people voting in the referendum as to what would happen to these Welcome to Country/Acknowledgement of Country rituals.

For example, would you get people voting "no" who dislike the ritual and expected that if the referendum passed it would get "worse" (as in showing up in more places, more often) or would you get people voting "yes", anticipating relief from the ritual (as in, the ritual would disappear, being reconciled). And so on.

I think the most reasonable projection based on the deliberate sequencing of 1st Voice 2nd Treaty 3rd Truth, that the intent was more, not less of these rituals. 

Nevertheless, I'm open to the data being anything. I'm open to the possibility, certainly, that I'm in a minority of sticklers who cannot see past the content of Acknowledgement of Country to just appreciate its symbolic value and intention of respect.

I once was walking through the nightclubby part of the CBD with a friend of mine, and expressed my inability to understand why anyone goes to venues with a velvet rope where a bouncer or "door bitch" assesses your worthiness to enter. My friend pointed out that for some people being deemed up to snuff was the entire point - some people like a dress code and an enforcer giving them a pat on the head in the form of uncoupling a rope.

I'm sure some significant proportion of Australians like Acknowledgement of Country for it's repetitious nature, that it is a known quantity and someone who has never really thought about reconciliation can know how to be on the right side of it.

The line of inquiry could run against my suspicions, but that doesn't mean the inquiry isn't worth making. If you did find that with proper anonymity  a vast majority of Australians have simply grown tired, weary and wary of acknowledgement of country and are using this experience to extrapolate out the desirability of a body like the proposed "Voice to Parliament" this is really good for anyone pursuing reconciliation, particularly via referendums, to know.

If public perception is such that the plebs feel like they can't open the fridge without hearing about First Nations people, and then you run a campaign saying that First Nations people need a voice, the reconciliation may be a victim of its own success.

In Conclusion

1.) Referendums are not the way to pursue reconciliation.

2.) If you are advocating for listening, you need to listen.

3.) Tertiary educated, middle-class affluent people need to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE realize that you are targeted by at least as much propaganda as everyone else. People are telling you things you want to hear to get at your money.

4.) Reconciliation cannot be unilateral or partisan. We have to reconcile. For which, a mindset that sees as imperative the destruction of racists, is probably going to suck at reconciliation. Destruction is a genocide mindset. As per Abe Lincoln "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."