Lawrence Li, Period 6, 03/13/24

 Research Paper - The Doomsday Argument

The trope of the world coming to an end and rebirthed has been brought up several times throughout our curriculum.  In our Norse Mythology unit, we learned about Ragnarök which was the day the Vikings believed the world would come to an end – the final battle between the Aesir and the Giants.  The world would then be rebirthed and life will thrive once again.  Similarly, we learned about The Coming of the Apocalypse in our Ancient World unit which is a cataclysmic event that causes the end of the world and leads to a new heaven and a new earth where there is no more suffering, death, or evil.

In modern times, a theory called the Doomsday Argument that was first proposed by the astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1983 stated that if we had a timeline between the first human ever born and the last human to ever exist and we were to assume that we are at a random position in this timeline, we can say that mankind is at a greater risk of extinction if we were to assume that we are near the end of the timeline.  This argument suggests that if the total number of humans who will ever live is not significantly larger than the current population, then humanity is more likely to face a catastrophic event that causes them to go extinct.  They estimate the total number of humans who will ever live solely based on current population size and birth rates which is why many people criticize the argument for making questionable assumptions about population growth as it doesn’t take into account technological advancements.  

If we were really to think logically here, we would have to take into account the science and ethics of human extinction as the argument illegitimately assumes that the human race will not last forever which can be inaccurate.  However, to say that we are early in the whole timeline of humankind can be fallacious as well since there are numerous threats to mankind in this day and age such as asteroid impacts, nuclear or biological warfare, terrorism, poisoning the environment, ozone layer destruction, new diseases, the fear of computers and artificial intelligence taking over, disasters from genetic engineering, the list goes on.  Furthermore, an argument I really like to think about is the fact that we haven’t been in contact with any other extraterrestrial life which can suggest that technologically advanced societies quickly destroy themselves.

Regardless of how grim and dark the future might seem, the Doomsday Argument remains a controversial and speculative idea in the fields of cosmology and philosophy as it is based on probabilistic reasoning and does not provide definitive predictions about the future.  Overall, the Doomsday Argument is an intriguing thought experiment that is constantly evolving and being brought up but will most likely remain speculative and will never gain widespread acceptance as a model or equation used to predict the end of the world.

Sources

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36443987_Gott's_Doomsday_Argument

• https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15273/1/gigo9e.pdf

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339055687_The_End_of_the_World_the_science_and_ethics_of_human_extinction

Sachi Robinson, Period 6, 3/6 Modern Myth 2024

 

Black History Month is celebrated through February, and its intended purpose is to focus on the contributions of African Americans to the United States. A commonly preconceived notion is that it unfairly elevates Black people, and this fallacy fails to acknowledge the plight of Black people and how we continue to feel the legacy of formal systems of racism. The month never seems to fulfill its intended purpose and oftentimes comes across as a lazy attempt at making amends for hundreds of years of oppression and prejudice, and for many corporations, it simply serves as a cheap money grab. As a biracial, American-born, and bred oldest daughter, it is easy to get victimized by the stereotypical identity crisis. I fall into the acceptable category of black, presenting little semblance of a culture and bearing my mother's slim nose and loose curls. I fall into the acceptable category of black, where people feel comfortable touching my hair and telling me that if my skin weren’t black, I wouldn’t be black and that my natural combination of features is innately European. It's as if I should be proud of lacking the ethnic features that would remind Americans of how my family got here and why they had no choice but to stay. And so I sit, the non-threatening and docile kind of black, year after year, unaware that I was allowed to disapprove of the school's “Black History Month” performance, just grateful enough to see someone like me on stage.

Young, impressionable children with preconceived notions of race and stereotypes watch these men with wide eyes as they contort and juggle, laugh at their sudden outbursts, and hold their breath as they perform precarious tricks. In doing so, they reduce the entirety of black culture to a spectacle. Media as a whole strongly contributes to the articulation of identity and values surrounding culture and communities, but it also allows for the challenging and dissection of these infrastructures. My perception of this entire affair may very well be an opinion that is not entirely my own, but rather a sensitivity that I was force-fed and that has been cultivated through hours spent scrolling. Was this hypersensitivity, or “hypergratitude”? Hypersensitivity would imply caring too much, picking apart the performance, and examining how every action is directly harmful to the future of the black community. Hypersensitivity would imply writing an entire essay on it. Excessive gratitude is indicative of a deeper underlying issue: a culture that raises children to take what they can get. To appreciate all efforts and attempts, even if they are viewed as unsatisfactory. We are raised in a participation-award society where trying your best gets you the same as those barely coasting by. In expressing excessive gratitude for everything, you sacrifice your sense of self. By putting up with the bare minimum in the process, we minimize our own qualms. This harmful practice can also prevent individuals from taking a step back and examining society as a whole, making us hesitant in our questioning. In essence, it forces people to be apologetic for simply being themselves and enhances a toxic cycle of comparative suffering. I find myself reconsidering the villainization of these black men using their talents to make an honest living and turning to the system that has allowed for this event to take place at all. They are contracted to come back yearly and whether they understand the context of their performance is unclear. I remind myself that real life is not the Internet. All of my actions have consequences, and it is my responsibility as a human being to exist in my best form without intentionally squandering the potential of others. We must celebrate the past while simultaneously acknowledging the present. 

For millions of African Americans across the country, Black History Month serves as a beacon of hope, a reminder that you can persevere against all odds. The stories that we are taught are catered to the masses: peaceful and stoic leaders such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, with little mention of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. Black History Month is treated as if this allocated time should be enough to keep us satisfied about the frustrating lack of education and acknowledgement throughout the entire year. The Ancient Greeks. The Roman Empire. The Middle Ages. The Crusades. The Inquisition. The Black Death. The Renaissance. The Industrial Revolution. Colonization. French Revolution. American Revolution. The Civil War. World Wars I and II. The Holocaust. All topics exhaustively researched in World History classes. We’re spoonfed lessons about Abraham Lincoln that praise his progressive policies and the Emancipation Proclamation but fail to scrutinize the malicious intent behind his actions and how he made the conscious decision to not free those enslaved in the allied states in order to keep the states complacent. Recently, a handwritten letter from kindergarten turned up in which I thanked Abraham Lincoln and commended him for his actions. I even went as far as to call him my hero because if he hadn’t freed the slaves, I would “be segregated from my father and sold to a white master and work work work all day and afternoon." The reality is that it took Lincoln two years to properly enforce his proclamation and that there were people being forced to endure several more harvests in Texas before Union troops were sent to inform them of their freedom.

It’s easy to forget how recent slavery was when the reality is that my great- grandmother was the daughter of a slave. In the earlier years of her life, she still served as a slave and went on to instill the slave mentality in her children. She taught them that they should not own land or purchase certain items because these actions were reserved for white men. The fact of the matter is that Black people are still barred from prestigious institutions, including many of the specialized high schools. It seems impossible to me that out of a pool of applicants across New York City, only approximately six can enter in a given year. Instead of a minstrel show, delving deeper into a curriculum of information might prove to be more beneficial and result in fewer incidents of racial-based harassment. Black history is more than African flags hanging in the halls, caricatures of Black women with Afros and their distant gaze plastered on the walls. I call for the proper education of Black history and celebration of our contribution to society. America was built on the backs of slaves, and the fact that they built the entire American economy, the majority of American institutions, and still went on to innovate baffles. The potato chip, the gas mask, the mop, the door handle, the pencil sharpener, and much more were created by Black inventors. Recognizing this doesn't place Black people above any other race but rather serves as positive exposure, which long-term would prevent subconscious racial bias from forming. Any student in the crowd couldn’t have answered what region of Africa the performers claimed to be from, let alone what this had to do with Black culture. I would’ve loved some clarification about how this celebrated any person of color when half of the black students in my entire grade, which comes out to about 3, chose not to attend. There is no one end-all-be-all cure to racism, but the best way to treat it is by starting a discussion in order to really own it and to use that momentum and knowledge to rebuild the rotting infrastructure within our country and grow as people from there. Black History Month should be a time to foster thought and encourage these discussions as we remember that racism was never defeated, only hidden. 

Selina Jiang, Period 1, 3/12/24

Selina Jiang 

Period 1

3/12/24

Modern Mythology 2024

Blog #3

Literacy & Learning

As we entered the Vampire Unit in our Modern Mythology class with Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice, my knowledge of vampires was extremely limited prior to entering the vampire unit. I have never been intrigued by the whole idea of vampires and never indulged in it while most people would think about Twilight or Vampire Diaries when hearing the word vampire. I had the most basic understanding that vampires couldn’t be in the sun, sucked blood out of humans, slept in coffins, scared of garlic, and can’t be seen in mirrors. 

The book was nice to read after reading Beowulf as I could actually understand what Louis was trying to express while for Beowulf, I would read over each line multiple times trying to understand it only to find out I didn’t understand the reading properly from the class discussions.When we started reading the book, I was shocked by how the book was written as it was similar to how the fanfiction genre is written especially with the vampire-romance trope. My favorite parts of the book are where Louis is struggling between whether he wants to keep his morals or succumb to his vampire side. Anne Rice did a good job portraying Louis’ vampirism in an untraditional way by having Louis constantly switch between being a servant of God and being a child of Satan. I loved how Louis still kept his human emotions and didn’t become like Lestat who only cared about himself. For example, Louis struggled to understand how every vampire he met reveled in killing humans as he was mainly doing it to survive.

And of course with good comes bad, even though I loved the internal struggle with Louis there were parts of the book that I was just repulsed by. The way and reason Claudia became a vampire, the way the relationship between Claudia and Louis changed from a father-daughter relationship to Claudia wanting to be his lover were all really concerning to me. The lesson where we talked about the characterization of Claudia was definitely not my favorite as the whole class listed descriptions Louis made of Claudia, many of which included the combination of descriptions of a child’s body and a grown woman. We learned the word “dichotomy” which means two opposing forces of the same idea. The dichotomy between Claudia’s physical appearance and mental state is causing a rift in the relationship between Claudia and Louis as her child body is saying that they should only be strictly a father-daughter relationship while Claudia’s mature desires are asking to be lovers.

Ultimately, I think Anne Rice is a splendid writer for writing Interview with the Vampire. As mentioned before, there are some parts of the book that were notable while others were unpleasant. I love how the book can stand by itself as there is no additional information needed at the beginning and end of the book.

 

Jasmine Mei, Period 6, 03/11/24

 Jasmine Mei 

Period 6

Blog #3 

03/11/24

Literacy & Learning

As the school year comes to an end, we’ve entered into our Vampire Unit in Mythology class with a focus on Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice. Going into it, I thought that this would be something like Twilight or The Vampire Diaries, other vampire works that I’m familiar with. However, upon actually reading the material, I realized that I would be corrected. An observation I’ve made is that the pop culture works of vampirism today are merely entertainment and while Rice’s piece can also fall under that category, the symbolism and themes that she imbeds into her work makes it more of the essence than the typical supernatural-romance trope. 

Interview with the Vampire has been a refreshing read since our last book, Beowulf. I found that I could read the text and actually understand what Louis was trying to tell us. When reading Beowulf, I would try to understand what was going on but despite my efforts, the class discussions and conversing with Ms. Fusaro would only show that my interpretation of the text was entirely off most of the time. Interview with the Vampire didn’t appeal to me just because I was able to understand the text, but I was also drawn to the themes present. I found it impressing how Anne Rice was able to portray the inner battle of good vs. evil within Louis’s character. I think this part stood out to me because it gave Louis’s vampirism a level of depth that we don’t typically see in the traditional vampire. Like Louis’s understanding of what a vampire is, the media often portrays them to be monsters and “children of Satan”, as Louis puts it. But the constant back and forth Louis has with himself on wanting to be a servant of God, but also not being able to help his new nature gives vampirism a whole new definition that I’ve never seen before. 

Although there were aspects of the book that I thought were incredible, there were also parts that I felt repulsed by. The entirety of Claudia’s character and how she came to be was very strange. Claudia came into Lestat and Louis’s lives when Lestat turned her into a vampire. This, in itself, was horrible as there was no mention of consent for various reasons: not only was Claudia a child and cannot give consent but she really wasn’t given a choice at all. Lestat decided to bring Claudia in for his own selfish desires, thinking that with a child, Louis couldn’t leave him. At first, I interpreted Claudia and Louis’s relationship as a father and daughter solely. It was clear that both of them hated Lestat and found solace in each other through this shared hatred. However, as Claudia grew in age, her relationship with Louis seemed to take a turn. Louis was meant to be her father, stepping into the role when she was just a child, yet he was describing her in a way that a person would speak of their lover. This reminded me of the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, the concept being the pedophilic nature of a man and the way his mind sexualizes a 14 year old girl. The book is written from the perspective of the man and so it’s told from a standpoint where it seems as though the young girl is aiming to seduce the grown man when in reality, it’s the man’s perverted mind that leads him to believe this. Though the text doesn’t insinuate that Claudia meant to seduce Louis, the idea of pedophilia in Rice’s book reminded of Nabokov’s Lolita. I also posed the question of morals and ethics in Claudia and Louis’s case since Claudia is only a child physically but at this point, she has the mind of a grown woman. Despite this, Louis still raised Claudia as his own and that would bring the question of grooming into the situation. There’s also the factor of whether or not Claudia consents to this position. As someone who’s watched the movie and is currently reading the book, I’d say that Rice did not create Claudia’s character to have a romantic relationship with Louis. However, I do remember the movie taking a different approach in which Louis is the one who insists on their strict father-daughter relationship and it’s Claudia who seeks Louis as a lover. 

All in all, I think that Anne Rice is an exceptional author for writing Interview with the Vampire. As I said, there are parts of the text that amaze me and then there are others that make me feel uneasy. Oddly enough, I like that a singular book has that duality because it allows me to question the characters, the author, and myself. Though I’ve watched the movie, it’s clear that it doesn’t parallel the book entirely so I’m excited to read more and see how Anne Rice concludes Louis’s story. 

Amy Chen, Period 6, 03/22/24

 Amy Chen, Period 6, 3/21/24

Modern Mythology 2024

Literature Circle - Modern Myths 

The Witch’s Heart

I did my norse project on Angrboda and her children, and through my research I found that there was basically no information written about her in the original sources. Through the recommendations, as well as my own interest in seeing an interesting character not fully expanded upon fleshed out. I decided to read The Witch’s Heart.  

The Witch’s Heart does not have chapters so I will just be reacting to various scenes from Part I, which takes up roughly half the book.

The book begins with an introduction of the witch, known in her current life as Gullveig and she teaches Odin and the Vanir seid. Odin wants her to give him information about the future, but Gullveig refuses. She is stabbed through the chest, burned and reborn 3 times. She eventually flees, but her heart is left behind. Immediately, the first questions I have are: who is she and how does she have the power that she has? I know from the Norse mythology unit that despite their immortality, even gods can be killed, so how is Gullveig able to resist death and be reborn three times. I expect these questions to be answered further into the book. Loki retrieves the heart and looks for the witch, who now has taken on the name, Angrboda. I’m surprised by Angrboda’s lack of reaction to meeting Loki. She has recently been betrayed and killed 3 times because of it, and somehow she is not wary of a stranger who has tracked her down. And even more so after Loki reveals himself to be the blood brother of Odin, the very man that had turned on her. Perhaps his return of her heart is enough of a gesture of goodwill to her, but I still find it odd that she would take a man she has only recently met into her home, despite the fact that she sees him as a “wild” and “sly” individual, two characteristics I would immediately stay wary of. 

Angrboda’s new home is a cave located in Ironwood and she begins building with the help of a huntress giant she meets in the woods. They establish a trade relationship, where Skadi trades the potions that Angrboda makes and splits the profits with Angrboda, that eventually develops into a friendship. The progression of the story is very nice and domestic, but I cannot help but be immediately apprehensive, since this is a drastic jump from the events of the previous part. It feels like the start of a calm, before the storm that will eventually hit. This feeling is exacerbated by the already existing door hinge, which I believe may have been Angrboda’s previous presence here in a past life, as well as the fact that Angrboda doesn’t know if she was not the mother of the wolves in the tales of the area, acknowledging it as a possibility. If Angrboda has built a life here once before, and it ended with the events that happened at the very beginning of the book, what's to say that events of a similar nature will not happen again? And then, the last part of the scene, “Maybe things will be different this year, Angrboda hoped. Every spring Ironwood seems a bit greener. But perhaps it’s just my imagination.” (Gornichec), basically confirms that something will definitely happen and go terribly wrong. 

Angrboda and Loki’s relationship continues to develop as he continues to visit her sporadically. They tease each other and Angrboda says at one point “‘I still am a powerful witch, and you would do well not to forget it.’” (Gornichec). Clearly Angrboda is powerful, if she is the one to teach the Vanir and Odin seid, as well as her gift of prophecy, and her ability to be reborn, but now I question why she did not fight back against the Aesir at any point when she was being burned and killed. Maybe she had not initially wanted to harm others, but after the first time she was reborn, why had she still not defended herself against people who were clearly willing to kill her? 

Loki eventually comes to Angrboda with his mouth sewn up, and Angrboda nurses his wound, taking out the harsh stitchings and applying a healing salve. Loki shares the story of how it came to be, him cutting off Sif’s hair, the dwarves, and the deal he makes. Both Loki and Angrboda seem to suffer from association with the gods, although Loki does bring it upon himself, despite the good that they have done for them. Angrboda teaches Odin seid, and Loki’s trickery does procure them “things” (nice ones), but in the end the gods do not care for them in the slightest in return as Odin turns the Aesir against Gullveig, and as Thor and Frey hold Loki down as the dwarves sew his mouth shut. Angrboda goes out berries the next day and hears the whispers in the woods, of women, children, and wolves. She discovers the ruins of where someone used to live. Which definitely cements the idea I previously had that she had lived in the area before and was the mother of the wolves in the stories or connected to them in some way. 

Loki leaves and when he returns again he tells her about the builder who has offered to build the Aesir gods a wall in exchange for Freyja, the sun, and the moon, and once again the difficult situation he has put himself in. The fact that Loki once again brings trouble to himself by opening his mouth, which he has been told to shut multiple times, makes me think perhaps he is a little stupid, despite the fact he is known to be sly and clever. Maybe the fact he is sly and clever is why he does these things. Maybe he lives for the thrill of life on the edge, tricking and outsmarting others under high stakes. And once again, Loki returns to Angrboda, with the consequences of the situation he has placed himself in, pregnant in the form of a horse, giving birth to Sleipnir, the eight-legged horse, who he gifts to Odin. Sleipnir is not well received, or rather Loki is not after the arrival of Sleipnir. The Aesir gods judge and scrutinize Loki, with disdain, but Loki says to Angrboda, “I would rather be considered disgusting and shameful among the rest of them than be alone like you” (Gornichec). Loki craves for companionship in any way he can get it, taking on his mothers name, Laufeyjarson, despite the fact he calls her “a piece of work”, in an attempt to appear more Aesir, as opposed to his father who was a giant. Why would Loki play cruel tricks, such as cutting off Sif’s hair, that do not gain him any favor amongst the gods if he is so desperate to stay with them? The actions he takes seems counter-intuitive, and his desperation for company is strange as well, which I speculate could stem some issues with his identity, not belonging with others, or maybe prior relationships like with his mother, who he seems to have a type of distaste for. 

Angrboda and Loki spend their first night together as their relationship continues to progress, and they continue to talk the morning after. Loki says “I tire of control…But I don’t want to be alone.” (Gornichec). Again Loki’s desire to not be alone is expressed and he does propose marriage to Angrboda, which I feel is irresponsible, considering the clear issues he has with relationships of any kind. Angrboda falls pregnant after the night with Loki, and as winter approaches, Skadi insists on Angrboda coming with her to her family’s home to keep her and her child safe, when her incompetent husband (who she doesn’t know if Loki) clearly is not around to do so. Skadi is extremely justified in her judgment of Loki, as he leaves Angrboda, as he always does, with child, although he does not know, and immediately after proposing marriage and desire to be with her. Before she sets off, Loki revisits Angrboda in the form of a bird and tells her of his business with giants and golden apples, another one of his misdemeanors of his own doing. The fact that she is his wife, but yet Loki only visits and does not live with her, is something that does not sit well with me. Angrboda is now with Skadi and her family. Eventually news that Skadi’s father, Thjazi, is killed because of Loki reaches them, and Skadi falls into a rage, demanding vengeance for her father’s death. The line “But the concept of vengeance was something she could not yet grasp” (Gornichec), caught my attention. When Angrboda (Gullveig) was burned by Odin, perhaps she did not fight back because she did understand what it meant, but it only opens further questions on why she does not know. 

After the winter passes, Angrboda returns to her own home and Loki comes to visit, with starling news. He has taken on an Aesir bride, Sigyn. His attitude is dismissive as he brings up his other wife’s pregnancy in front of another wife, which he has just learned to be with child as well. I was previously unsure if Loki knew of Skadi’s existence earlier when Thjazi was killed, but he confirms he did, and he got her father killed regardless, which further displays emotional incompetence or just callousness, as he is responsible for the death of his wife’s friend’s father, a relationship he should likely keep in his interests to maintain. Loki lives amongst the gods who do not trust him, but he wants to be with others, and I feel the two make for a painful, dysfunctional coexistence. 

Angrboda miscarries, but is able to bring her back to life with magic. A mysterious presence appears in Angrboda’s head, who she suspects is Odin. Angrboda goes into labor and Hel is born with an odd condition, where the flesh in her legs seem to be dead, which Angrboda believes to be a remnant of the magic she uses to bring Hel back to life. I like the explanation that Gullveig provides for Hel’s state of half-living and half-dead is actually explained. Hopefully the birth of Jormungandr and Fenrir will also be explained. Angrboda “Keeping a lookout for her troublesome husband, never getting her hopes up” (Gullveig), is something that she should not have to do. Loki knowing that she was pregnant, and claiming that he cared for her, should have given her the security that he would regularly come, not something that she has to “lookout” for. And Loki finally returns, 2 months after the birth of Hel. Claiming he couldn't come because he would never hear the end of it since Sigyn had just given birth a week ago. But, there were the two moons in between that and the birth of Hel, which he should have known was coming, and should have come to visit Angrboda in that time. 

Angrboda tells Loki of the dreams that she has, the presence in her head. Loki says does not want knowledge of the future like Odin does because it's “another form of control” (Gullveig), something he has previously stated to be tired of. But this brings up the question why does he not leave the aesir gods since he is entirely under their control there, such as his “forced” marriage to Sigyn. He would not be lonely anymore  without the gods, since he now has Angrboda and their daughter, Hel. Angrboda brings this up too as well, and he doesnt design her with an answer. How much does he really care for Angrboda if he still decided to take an Aesir wife despite being married to her and won’t stay with her even after Angrboda explicitly brings it up.

Once again, Loki leaves. Skadi comes for a visit. I agree with everything Skadi says about Angrboda’s husband using Angrboda like a plaything. Even if Loki does appear to care for Angrboda and Hel, he does not do enough and it is shown through their interactions. “Later on, Angrboda was the one who had to wash the sticky layers of honey” (Gullveig), because Loki is the absent parent. Loki comes, has his fun with Angrboda and Hel, but does not uphold the duties that he should as a father and husband, proving Skadi’s point. He is the fun parent to Hel, but only fun because he ultimately does not conduct the bulk of the care and effort it takes to raise children. Angrboda, once again pregnant, goes into premature labor and gives birth to Fenrir, a wolf, which Loki is disappointed by. She further contemplates her relationship with Loki and the chanter that she hears in her mind. Loki using “arrangement” and “keep it up” to address their marriage is definitely a big indicator of his dubious loyalties. Angrboda keeps track of this in her mind and doesn’t forgive him, but I feel as if she doesn’t do enough to fight him against it. She does not fight back, for her marriage and children, a reflection of the first scenes when she is killed, where she does not even fight back for her life. 

Loki returns once again, after Sigyn has now given birth to their second son. He finds that Fenrir had bitten Hel in a frenzy and calls his own child a savage. He himself acknowledges his shortcomings, “I don’t know why I do the things I do. I can’t stop myself.” (Gullveig). This might be true, might not be, but I feel it to be a weak excuse regardless. If Loki himself acknowledges this, he must be aware to an extent that he is not competent as a wife or father. And yet he has decided to take on two. Loki continues to make mistakes, calling his children with Angrboda “monsters” after Jormungandr, a serpent, is born, when he is worring about the stories that will be told about him. 

All in all, most of my thoughts from the first part of the book revolve around Angrboda’s relationship to Loki, and how Loki generally fails to be what he should and can be. Loki refuses to leave the gods, when Angrboda provides him with what he has wanted and he clearly can be happy with her. But, in the end, despite how he claims to not care about how he is perceived by others, he still wants the worship and reverence that is given to the other gods. Angrboda seems to be blinded by the love that she has for Loki to see, or to acknowledge, this aspect of Loki until the end. 

Thomas Vayos, Period 6, 02/13/24

 Thomas Vayos

Blog #3

Due February 13th

Deadline Extended

SOCIOPOLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

INITIAL PREMISE: There are no longer “safe” spaces online for kids to engage with. Why?

Kids Are Using Social Media More Than Ever, Study Finds - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Often when discussing internet safety, we only think about the overt, explicit threat of a malicious actor taking advantage of somebody, usually younger, less inoculated in the doctrine of web security. The implicit threat posed by the easy, mostly unconsidered access to information – more specifically bad information or social and political indoctrination – is rarely taken into account. As more people use the internet, both young and old, it is important to expand upon our dilapidated understanding of what it means to remain safe on the internet.

QAnon is a barely comprehensible conspiracy theory which began circulating on the /pol/ board 4chan, a subsection of an imageboard (4chan; essentially, a social hangout) dedicated to politics. Preying upon the heightened emotions and fear of mostly older people during the 2020 election, a religious fervor and cult-like fixation on the words of “Q” – a volatile title, passed around from whatever posters on 4chan could feign pre cognizance about the future of the “election scandal” – developed quickly, spreading a false hope across the population which believed that the election was cheated. Adding fuel to the fire, the paranoia surrounding the belief in the election hoax was compacted with the outrage of believing that a select group of elites (associated specifically with the democratic party) were involved in child-*** trafficking rings, or otherwise involved in occult rituals to extract “adrenochrome” (essentially life force of babies)

This false hope quickly became a form of codependence. Although we can point to the outspoken believers of the QAnon conspiracy, some of whom were present at the January 6th riots (the most famous being the “QAnon Shaman;” the guy with the weird horns, staff, and facepaint), that does not speak to the most common experience people have with QAnon members. Often, the QAnon conspiracy affects close family members: mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles. QAnon Casualties is another subsection of another imageboard (Reddit), dedicated to giving members of families affected by the indoctrination of QAnon a platform to speak on how QAnon changed their loved ones. Most of the stories are hard to read, but are useful in understanding the long-term impact of QAnon.

QAnon is not the first, and certainly not the last, conspiracy to gain widespread fame through the media, but it remains a prescient and important example of how the internet can amplify the effect of harmful information and the voices of political and social indoctrination.

An even more recent example, this one targeting young children and teenagers, is the “Red Pill Movement.” Taking what we know about kids, that being:

1. They’re pretty dumb (it comes with being 5 years old)

2. They’re impressionable

3. They want to be entertained

And what we know about teenagers, especially young men:

1. They’re often told that they are responsible for becoming breadwinners for their families

2. Often face societal pressure surrounding emotional expression

3. Want to feel validated

We can boil down how perpetrators of the “Red Pill” target these two groups with almost surgical precision, on both streaming platforms like Twitch and Kick and short-form video platforms like TikTok.

On Twitch and Kick, streamers like Adin Ross and Sneako sell and stunt fast-moving lives meant to entrap young men in an illusion that they, too, can live the “dream:” fast cars, fast planes, living across the globe, with plenty of women* (*although toxic masculinity permits that, while being physically attracted to women, you cannot “love” them, at least not in the same way they love you.. They would even go as far to say that most women are gold diggers, while in the same breath seeking their approval.) Once they have you sold on this illusion, they can get you to accept any number of choices about your lifestyle and mentality, all in the vain hope of achieving what they have. Often, this includes the thought that women are lesser, – as one fan puts it: “F*** the women! F*** the women!” – that most people are trapped in the “matrix,” (usually embodying liberal ideals, most prominently those involving equality or gender and sexual identity) and that the only escape from the “matrix” is to become rich (through dropshipping.. Because they believe going to college will indoctrinate you) or die trying.

Sneako Meets His Oldest Fans

Andrew Tate, the “father” of the “Red Pill” however, mostly maintains his presence on TikTok. He uploads short clips where, sometimes, he only speaks one word, followed by music and a clip flaunting his lifestyle which, similar to the aforementioned Sneako and Adin Ross, is filled with expensive luxury goods, planes, and cars. The epitome of this content is a woman asking Adin Ross, “What would you do if I made more money than you?” and his response being a simple “Impossible.” It’s not meant to make sense, or make you think, but to sell you the image of an “alpha male.” He does not need to justify what he says; if you’re properly indoctrinated, you will understand what he means and make the justifications for yourself. If you’re seduced by the life of exuberance they show off, then you will believe, as they do, that a woman out-earning a man is simply impossible.

Through TikTok and streaming platforms, this harmful, misogynistic ideology misleading young men has entered classrooms of children as old as 6. QAnon and the Red Pill serve as sobering reminders that the greatest threat of the internet is not the ominous, lurking predator, but access to subversive ideologies, often without the skills to critically think about what the preachers of these ideologies are saying.

Teachers and Parents Talk About Andrew Tate's Influence on Kids (businessinsider.com)

Ray Chen, Period 7, 3/15/2024

Ray Chen 

Modern Mythology 2024

Period 7

Blog #3 

In "The Interview with The Vampire" by Anne Rice, it demonstrates social pressure and the result of being different. When we take a look at the world that we live in now, where judgment and prejudice are more and more around us, the novel's depiction of Louis and Lestat as vampires really embodies the experiences of the people who face discrimination because of their differences, it doesn't matter if it is their race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other feature of their identity.

The characters of Louis and Lestat became instances of the taking of rejection. In this case, the reverse is true; it is the human world that gives specific roles to the vampires and, as the result, questions the established norms and beliefs of this world. They are designated a "separate" status, given more powers, but getting harm in return, by being belittled and shunned by society just for being different. This connects with the way that some people in the present are marginalized. Those who do not share the same beliefs with the majority are constantly seen as different and pained.

Similarly, the ties between Louis and Lestat bring about analysis of that which is experienced by those who are queer. Their love is unlike the traditional form of romance and partnering, and as a result of that, the cannon of acceptable relationships is changing. Having evidence only in the world which is run by heterosexuality, their unusual love is refuted with neglect and prejudices by the people around them. This again points to the fact that such people have a very difficult situation to be in whereby their very being and significance to them are invalidated or even immoral by those who are in charge of society's- everyday life.

The book expresses the nature of vampires as outsiders as well as victims who suffer viciousness and sheer cruelty just because of who they are. It stresses the need of being tolerant and open to all kinds of diversities and cultures while sharing. On the one hand, "The Interview with The Vampire" is depicted in a world of fantasy. However, on the other hand, the same themes of prejudice are considered as parts of the real world humans are faced with in real life.