Our Digital Selves

Posted on 12. Mar, 2010 by Peter Katz in Debate

Who is Madison Johnson?

Now you’re with me, Dear Reader (it was a cruel narrative device, yes, but I regret it not one bit).  But who, indeed, is Madison Johnson?  Is she, in fact, less real than the rest of us on Facebook?

I am being a bit philosophical, here, but the Madison question is the essence of an article that was in the making even before the whole incident.  It is, in part, a question of the theoretical, a question of self-construction and culture, but unlike most of the philosophy that I do, it has direct, pragmatic effects on all of us.

Take “me,” for example.  I friend you on Facebook.  You may have seen me doing something for C2, or you at least know my name, so you accept.  What, now, do you know about “me”?  You know I am in Angwin, I’m from Redding, I’m 21 (after some math), engaged to Ariane Gregory, a socialist, and think that I’m amusing as far as religious views go.  I obviously have an obsession with poetry, and some sort of issue that compels me to declare an excessive amount of majors.  My stati tend to be snarky witticisms.  That’s me.

But is it?  There’s no law that says what I put on Facebook has to be empirically “true.”  My sister and one of my friends arbitrarily changed their stati to say that they were engaged to one another; both of them set off chain reactions of excited—and then rather irritated—friends and relatives.  People declare siblings at random.  I got incredibly excited that one of my friends was into Hitchhiker’s Guide, only to find out that it was in fact a different friend who had stolen her laptop and commented on one of my comments.

Moreover, we are defined by the medium.  The way we construct our digital selves depends entirely on the programming decisions of sun-starved computer techies who are far wealthier than any of us.  You know I’m a socialist because Facebook decided to include political views, and make them customizable.  We hold a “conversation” on Facebook via stati-and-comments, and every exchange is mediated by the medium of stati-and-comments.

The “Like” button is the epitome of this phenomenon.  Do any of us really know what it means to “Like” something?  Several of my friends immediately “Like” any of their own comments; others use it sarcastically; others seem to “Like” just about anything they read.  And yet, because of programming decisions, to “Like” something is an integral part of our interactions with one another.

Medium as controller goes beyond Facebook (yes, there are things beyond Facebook, I hear).  Twitter, for example: because of arbitrary decisions, one has one-hundred forty characters to construct a self.  A program called “DigitalLife” allows one to create an entire digital persona, down to physical appearance; many corporations use this program for meetings, to the point that there are corporate task-forces composed of people who have worked together for years, but never seen one another in person.  All the interactions that those people have, have been and will continue to be defined by programming decisions at DigitalLife.  Don’t even get me started on WoW.

We use digital selves to interact in other-constructed mediums, and thereby, our digital selves are not really “our” selves at all.  Our internet selves, though they do embody in part an extension of ourselves, are not our own constructions—but they are, to the fullest extent, constructions.

Forums, or gaming personae, demonstrate the façade of digital self.  For a year or so, I was a member of a martial arts forum, until internal forum politics got me banned; I created a new login, new persona, new self, and rejoined.  Very few people are terribly friendly when gaming online, particularly since, from what I can gather, the point seems to be killing one another, repeatedly.  The person who just put a hole through your character’s head, then messaged you, “u sux n00b,” may in fact be one of your closest “friends” in a forum, or on Facebook.  Identity is inconsistent, to say the least.  These interactions are essentially anonymous, even with names attached.

This relative anonymity is, in my opinion, the ugliest worm in the apple of internet interaction.  Youtube is a cesspit of inhumanity; a cursory look on the comments of any Youtube video will not only teach one new expletives and racial slurs, but also demonstrate the horrendous cruelty of anonymity.  Without a person attached to a name, people feel free to fling whatever they would like at whomever.  We would direct your attention to the debate on the “Student Suspended over Crude Video” article, with the additional information that we had to delete at least ten comments for content consisting almost entirely of baseless mud-slinging.  Juxtapose the ninety-something anonymous-but-hostile comments with the fifteen or so named, but very constructive comments on the “Madison Johnson” article.  A name, it seems, adds a least a bit more identity.

Herein lays the tension of the digital self.  In the nineties, the internet was an opportunity to reinvent the self, to “be anyone you want to be.”  Somewhere in the ’00s, with the rise of Myspace, Facebook, and other social networking sites, it became “be the real you”—which, as we’ve already discussed above, is highly problematic in itself.  Now, however, as we enter the teens, are we to be “our real selves, as we would want them to be”?  Do we still hold the illusion of our ability to construct, or do we hold the illusion of individuality, or both, or neither?

As far as I can tell from student reaction, most of us feel that Madison Johnson is an outrage.  But, why?  Is it an invasion of privacy?  Anyone who thinks that our digital selves are at all private has simply missed the entire notion of the internet.  Is it a violation of internet etiquette?  Internet custom is an etiquette in formation, a culture in transition, shaped by the medium that allows “friends” to browse one another’s photographs.  Is it a violation of ethics?

This last question is the crux of the entire issue.  The ethics of the internet are in their infancy.  Before, arguably, we had “public” and “private” selves.  Now, we have a “digital” self, a sort of grey area between.  We want our privacy, but our medium is public.  We want our public voice, but we want that voice to be respected as though it is spoken by an individual with private conceptions of self.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I do not intend to preach gloom-and-doom, nor fire-and-brimstone.  Our “selves” are not falling apart, nor is internet culture evil.  It simply is.  But its existence is perhaps one of the most important lessons we can learn, one of the most important aspects of our society of which we need to be aware.  To simply assume that the digital self is, and operate within the constraints and constructions of the internet, is truly to give up any ability to define ourselves.  We must explore, we must be aware of the constructions, and we must constantly ask ourselves how, and why, we construct ourselves the way that we do.

I am more than an info box.  You are more than an info box.  But the existence of that box, in many ways, has come to define us.  It is an extension of me, an extension of you.  We live in a brave new world, and it is up to us, the academics of our generation, to explore to the fullest digital culture, and our digital selves.

Facebook Relatability

Posted on 12. Mar, 2010 by Craig Hickerson in Debate

If I were an alien observing Earth I would guess the primary form of communication used by college students was Facebook. Between the waking moments spent in online chat and the late night status updates, Facebook has become the way young adults relate to each other. Though Facebook is a superb way to keep in touch with long lost friends and family, is it really the best way to converse with the friends you would normally see in person? Do the functions and applications of Facebook really add something worthwhile to your relationships? Let’s take a deeper look at how Facebook affects your online relatability.

When you think about it Facebook is a surreal place. Just imagine what it would look like in the real world. Friends as Mafia members who carry out their dirty duties via pokes, and seemingly normal people in a cutthroat race to get fans for Big Franks. Have we entered some kind of morbid Candyland? One of the oddest Facebook traditions to me is your first interaction with people, the friend request. When I ask someone to be my friend, I know them.  Even Big Franks is one of my old, childhood buddies. However, people of every kind love to ask for a place on my friend list. They may have some creepy message along with their request or simply a smiling profile pic, but every time I am left peering into their profile info and pictures trying desperately to remember where I met them. I would automatically delete them but this isn’t Myspace, there’s no token friend named Tom on this site! There are also those who you know but wish you didn’t. Usually they don’t feel the same way. After giving them a confident “Do Not Accept” it is only a matter of days until you are once again added and left to make the same decision. In my case, after awhile the redundancy gets to me and I’ll accept only to delete them a few weeks later. In all, this whole friend request game is absurd. It’s like slipping a little note to someone on the street asking, “Will you be my friend?” Even though the necessity of this kind of behavior is obvious for privacy and safety reasons, I find that collecting friends like Pokémon cards is a problematic format for conversing with people. This work flow becomes a game. Do people really know the friends they have on their list? Maybe, and maybe not, their mindset is that the more friends they have the better. This view—common at places like Costco—is detrimental. Confusing quality with quantity is a huge danger on Facebook and people need to realize this.

When surfing Facebook, one of the oddest phenomena is the core of Facebook itself: the wall. Beyond the profile photo or the Info tab, the wall projects the thoughts and feelings of you and your friends for the known world to riffle through. This ability to either peer into your friends’ most current events or yell out your own gives up-to-the-second information on the emotional status. For example, as those of you who have seen the movie Avatar know, the wall is like that life-force-thing which all the creatures on Pandora are connected to. When looking at an active friend’s wall it is as if one has plugged in their fiber-optic pony-tale to their trusty steed. When I was new to Facebook this experience was complete with the whole rush and pupil dilatation effect used in the film. So much information! In addition, most of the comments and posts were so personal I had to immediately un-plug and move on to a new friend, which was usually a similar experience to the first. You see, the wall is the real life equivalent of a shouting match between people who have taken an oath to use only witty comments. The wall is a contest of packaging your personal life with clever anecdotes only to be ripped open by others who think they can do it better. Though I admit to participating in the WWE (Witty Word Entertainment) I question the positive effect it has on my friendships. Because I do love being a contributor to discussion, I participate, but given the highly personal nature of many of the comments I have to withhold my need for wit at the cost of another’s emotional livelihood, I can only handle so much of the personal drama. Frankly, I don’t feel Facebook is the best outlet.

Perhaps the strangest characteristic of Facebook society is the fact that when you are on Facebook it becomes socially acceptable to be a stalker. From perusing pictures to checking status updates, it seems odd, but then you realize this is how Facebook functions. How else does one spend hours looking at a website with user generated content? Facebook exploits human curiosity, especially when it comes to the people you know and care about. It is only natural that we are interested in those we share our lives with. I know for myself, I love looking at pictures. It always amazes me the disconnect between how I see some of my friends and the digital projection they create of themselves. Nothing shows this more than a user’s profile pic. Women in seductive poses and men showing off their muscles is the dominant trend. However, there are many anomalies. One of the most absurd are the one or two people on my friend list who actually post profile pics of famous people they think they look like instead of themselves. I have been duped several times thinking, “Who is this glamorous person?” and almost deleting them only to find out upon examination that I actually do know who the person is, they simply neglected to put a real photo of themselves on their profile. Another aspect of Facebook that amazes me is the Info tab. This tab projects the likes and dislikes, political and religious views, dating status, and contact information of a person in a highly compressed fashion. For example, a common practice currently is to be a part of an odd, unknown political party such as The Republican Party of the Virgin Islands. What does this say about a person? That they are quirky? The bottom line is that it is possible to spend hours checking out the odd things people have to say about themselves. Though a digital projection can be a legitimate way of getting to know someone, is it really the most genuine? Or maybe it is even more genuine than meeting with them face to face. Getting to know my friends in this way always confuses me. An expectation is created on Facebook to continually be fun, upbeat, and witty. This description is not who I am. So, getting to know others by stalking them on Facebook may not be the best way to capture their true identity.

The internet has dramatically changed our relationships to each other and a large part of that is thanks to Facebook. Though Facebook seems like a fun harmless way to connect there are things to consider. Facebook isn’t the real world. The organic garden plant requests and fan pages should tell you this. Personal conversations may be best if they stay with close friends and out of the witty banter of mere acquaintances.  In addition, Facebook is not a replacement for personal interaction. Browsing profiles may seem like it gives a true connection to the people you meet but browsing and stalking are very similar in the land of Facebook. Instead of leaving a comment why not ask that special friend out for coffee? Get to know them from their person rather than from their profile. In all, invest in your real relationships and use Facebook to enhance them, not create them.

Why not to hate the new Facebook

Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by Jonathan Pichot in Debate

It is in technology’s nature to change.  The frantic pace of innovation makes it such that new versions of technology are separated by months, not years.  This is further accelerated when the technology is not mechanical, but computer code.  The web, after all, is only a network of computers running software.  But this software has become an important destination in our lives.  Facebook is such a destination.  The software that runs the social networking site sits inside rows and rows of hard drives nestled in some data center in Palo Alto.  In these computers lie the stories of millions of lives: pictures, messages, videos, histories of friendships, relationships began and ended.  So, we become attached to a virtual world, a medium that allows us a new, intimate portrait of the lives of others.  When this medium changes, we react.

Facebook has had five different designs since its origins as a Harvard-only social network in 2004.  In that time it has skyrocketed in popularity, now with over 400 million active users worldwide.  It has become an integral part of the social lives of millions of people.  So, when that system changes, people react vehemently.  Every time Facebook introduces a new design, hundreds of thousands of people join groups protesting the design.  They complain on their walls and to their friends, they threaten to leave.  But in a few months, this protest subsides, and they come to accept the changes, even appreciate them.   When Facebook introduced the newsfeed, users freaked out, accusing Facebook of encouraging stalking.  Now, can you imagine Facebook without it?

Technology has created a new sort of conflict.  The developers of websites like Facebook are engineers.  They think in distinct, problem-solving ways.  When they go to work, they interact with other engineers.  But with 400 million users, their invention is not just an engineering project anymore.  It is now a daily destination for millions of normal people.  A user interface tweak that to an engineer appears brilliant, will, to a typical user, only cause frustration.  These sorts of conflicts will only increase as our world becomes even more engineered.  The way we interact with technology is determined by an engineer.  And this interaction, as our technology encourages us to communicate, will have a profound effect on our relationships and on the way we see the world.

Technology will continue to change.  That is its nature.  If we are to survive in our brave new world of accelerated innovation, we will have to learn to adapt as the tools we use to communicate the most personal aspects of our lives change significantly and often.  Being aware of this change, and understanding the way technologies affect our lives, will help us navigate our interconnected world.  So, the next time Facebook is redesigned, because it will be, and will continue to change until it disappears, instead of complaining, learn to understand why the change was made, and adapt.  Welcome to the 21^st century.

Netiquette: Instant Message

Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by Erika Kim in Debate

Our generation has been bombarded with technology that has revolutionized the way we communicate with one another.  Before, we were limited to letters, cards, and phone calls to get a hold of someone.  Now we have other mediums of communication like emails, instant message, text message, etc. due to the flood of computers, laptops, cell phones, or any other variation or combination of the aforementioned (since now we have camera-video-phone-laptop-mp3 player-navigation-laser-toaster ovens) that we don’t know how to properly use.  Email, instant messenger, video chatting, etc. have changed the level of convenience, amount of time it takes to communicate, and the style in which we communicate.  Everything is so new (relatively speaking) that we have no set etiquette to follow and the freedom is somewhat paralyzing.  Technology has made it easier to keep us connected, but if we don’t know how to use it, it ends up making us just a little more neurotic and ends up separating us even more.

The one program I wanted to deal with specifically was any for of instant messaging programs like AIM, Facebook chat, Skype, MSN messenger, etc.  They have changed the way in which we communicate by announcing our availability to several people at once and allowing us to have instant responses.

An instant message is not a phone call.  You may be thinking, “Uh… DUH!”  But let me explain.  When you communicate using a phone, you lose a lot of context clues like facial cues, body language, and the environment around you and the person you’re communicating with.  At the same time, however, talking on the phone tends to be more effective means of communication because despite the fact that you lose all those clues, hearing the other person’s voice still has elements of intimacy, and you can almost always immediately clarify ambiguity.

It’s also one of the least elegant mediums of communication for the following reasons: 1. the disconnect between people due to the lack of intimacy, 2. signing on announces your presence and implied availability to everyone and puts you in an awkward situation where you feel a sense of obligation to start a conversation with everyone on your buddy list, 3. unlike a phone where you can hang up at the end of a conversation, there is no elegant way to cut a conversation short when you’ve run out of things to say, 4. sometimes the instant nature of messaging puts an unnecessary pressure and sense of urgency on the conversation. (One minute of AIM silence makes you paranoid about where the other person is and you mentally backtrack thinking of all the parts of the conversation that may have offended the other person).

Things are different when it comes to instant messages.  Regardless of how well you know someone, it’s easy to misunderstand or second guess what is meant via text because it’s so detached.  This is why emoticons are somewhat necessary to help the meaning get across.  For example, if you were to read “That’s funny,” without a smiley, winky face, or lol, it could have several meanings.  It might mean exactly what it says, it could be a really mean, passive aggressive comment, or it could mean they were offended by what you said.  Without some kind of smiley, winky face, lol, or several follow up clarifying comments, it’s impossible to know what a person means.

Instant messages can be tricky as well because the sense of urgency can be difficult to deal with.  Whether you just signed on or are in the middle of a conversation, if you aren’t talking with each other, you get pressured by the fact that you know that the person is sitting right there, and they know you’re sitting right there.

Another issue, and perhaps the most sad one is the fact that most instant messaging programs have a feature that allows users to sign on as invisible (invisible, of course, being the new “away”) indicating that we can’t handle the implied sense of obligation.  We are scared of connecting, yet at the same time, the reason why we sign on in the first place is to feel connected to an online community.  So basically, what has happened is there are a bunch of people who all sign in as invisible because they’re lonely, but are afraid to start a conversation or get trapped into one by another.  It’s like being afraid of the phone.  Good thing we’re scared to use the medium of communication to umm… communicate.

The feature may be somewhat necessary because sometimes you sign on and a chat box pops up from that one “crazy girl in history class” before your buddy list even finishes loading, and you get caught in something I like to call the INSTANT MESSAGE TRAP OF DEATH.  In this trap you have two options: to either look like a jerk and pretend that you only wanted to sign on for .5 seconds, or talk to her about the nothing she had to say and end up sitting there awkwardly trying to think of things to talk about.  It’s because of people like “crazy history class girl” that we have internet problems, so let’s address this.

As dictator for life, I propose that everyone implement the following policies in order to improve/correct the dysfunctions that arise from instant messaging systems.  Your benevolent mother leader with facial hair is looking out for you:

Only message someone if you actually have something to say or ask.  One of the easiest problems to fix would be the false sense of obligation that arises from signing on.  Let people know that if you’re online and don’t message someone, and they don’t message you, neither party should/would be offended.

Don’t do the passive aggressive “I’m here but not” thing, and when you say something, really mean it.  For example, if you stay online but don’t want to chat, let people know that it’s not because you hate them; you just don’t need to be chatting.

If you’re shooting them a brief message, let them know that’s all you have to say before you say it, that way you can make a clean break on both sides.

As for other ambiguities, tell people how you operate online.  Everyone knows their own style of online behavior.  Make sure they can at least get a general idea of your internet persona so they can know what to expect.

The best thing to do is probably to make it clear to people face to face what has happened or will happen online.

Also, this is a small Easter egg and completely random tangent for people who have read this far into the article: does it bug the crap out of anyone else when they’re sending a cell phone text to someone who has a different network and the text gets cut to 160 characters?  GOSH!  Also, also, don’t send reply texts that only have the word “K” in it.

Save the Penguins!

Posted on 01. Mar, 2010 by Erika Kim in Debate

Peter Katz contributed reporting for this article.

There is a problem that has been weighing heavily on our minds since the Adventist Intercollegiate Association meeting in Washington, D.C., last year.  During that meeting, we had the opportunity to travel to St. Peter’s (The GC building) to see the Pope (Jan Paulsen).  Along the way, to build anticipation, they showed us a great many completely uninteresting desks where somewhat interesting people do mostly uninteresting things.  Of those things, the most interesting was a giant globe, where, when our guide pushed a button, all the Adventist missions around the world would light up.  She did it.  People oohed and aahed.  We were horrified.

There were no lights on Antarctica.

Do you know what this means?   There are penguins who do not know about Jesus!  Our little black-and-white brothers are every day dying without knowing their Lord and Savior.  Each penguin mercilessly slaughtered by a leopard seal (see alumna Jaylene Chung’s article on leopard seals)[1] will waddle about confusedly on the day of the Second Coming, only to be consumed by fire in the second death.  This is a crisis for our church far more important than the origin of the universe or homo***uality.

Speaking of which, just pray about this example.  Two penguins at a zoo in Germany—granted, this is a European zoo, and therefore, completely evil—Z and Vielpunkt, are homo***uals.  Yes.  You heard us.  Penguins committing the ultimate sin.  They were even allowed to hatch an egg together.  We are not sure if this says more about the Germans or penguins, but we are fairly certain that both of them need some severe evangelizing.  To the face.

In the discussion of penguin breeding habits, Wikipedia talks about their agonistic behaviors.  Seeing as we are both English majors, we do not actually understand what this means, but we do know that it is suspiciously close to the word “agnostic,” which is code for “pansy atheist.”  And whose fault is this?  Ours.

According to Wikipedia, the first penguin fossils date back to 62 million years ago.  Do you understand what this implies?  Penguins still believe in evolution.  Forget La Sierra; an entire continent believes that they came from monkeys.  Honestly, we are not entirely sure what penguins believe they came from, but whatever it is, if it wasn’t the third day of creation, it is wrong.

Two major species of penguin are the “Emperor” and “King” penguins.  Yes, you heard us.  Not only do penguins believe in homo***uality, not only are they agnostics, not only do they believe in evolution, they also do not know about democracy. This is a travesty that has moved beyond religion to the very essence of being.  As Christians, and most importantly, as Amurrkans, we are obligated to stop this madness.

The C2 therefore advocates the following.  First, we must spread democracy across Antarctica via the use of various and sundry long-range missiles.  Once the initial strike is complete, we must land cold-weather troops at key points across the continent, where they can set up road blocks and begin working with the locals to stomp out any cute little “insurgents.”  After peace has been established, and an interim democratic government has been set up, it is our time.  Armed with our Bibles, The Great Controversy, and love in our hearts, we must storm the pagan shores of penguindom and bring them to the gates of heaven.

Facing the Light: Ethnicity, Community, and Exclusivity

Posted on 11. Oct, 2009 by Peter Katz in Debate

C2 was planning on writing an article about ethnicity and clubs.  Peter Katz asked Bryonn Bain about it, and we decided that his response was better than anything we could come up with.  Below is an excerpt of that interview. – JP

C2: One of the topics we’re bringing up for discussion in this issue is ethnicity, specifically how clubs on campus have a tendency to be divided by ethnicity.  Do you have any thoughts on that?

BB:  Wow, okay, this is going to be totally off the top of my head.  I do think that one of the most exciting things about college is that you have a privilege that most people don’t have: to spend four years reading books, writing papers to refine your ideas about what you think about those books and about the world, about what is truth, justice, freedom, spirituality.  It’s important to have a marketplace of ideas that’s as open as possible to really exchange those ideas, so that you can have the greatest, most diverse pool of thought to pull from.  I think it’s inevitable that as institutions like higher education that are “traditionally” white form begin to become more diverse, there will be groups that are based on ethnicity to make them stronger, to make them better able to deal with an institution that is not used to dealing with their experience.  Many social movements go from identity to social interest; once you figure out who you are, you work to moving toward interests.  Common interests may ultimately link multiple ethnicities together.  It’s important folks don’t get stuck, but its’ important for them to have a process, to have an internal conversation within their community.  One of my friends worked at a rape crisis center, and she says that women who experience domestic violence often times move to closed ranks, to a circle of just women.  They prefer not to have men as a part of the process.  I had a student who was raped, and I was one of the first people she called, asking how to deal with the police and so forth—but I wouldn’t expect her way of dealing with a crisis to be everyone’s way.  For the young women who don’t want men involved, I think it’s important to have that space.  Racism, like sexism, also creates trauma; it is an assault, it also creates violence—sometimes psychological, sometimes emotional, sometimes physical.  Take, for example, the constant indoctrination of “white Jesus.”  It’s in part a matter of historical accuracy—we know there weren’t any Scandinavians hanging out in the Holy Land at that time—and if we didn’t have this sort of history of problems, we could not be bothered about it.  But it’s consistent with the legacy of white supremacy.  Those kind of symbols that many institutions, including the church, have not fully dealt with yet—those are the reason that we absolutely need to have groups based on ethnicity to figure out how to challenge these things.

[…]

It’s like the allegory of the cave [Plato]; you come out of the cave, step out of the shadows, and the sun burns your eyes because you see the light.  There’s a reaction, there’s pain, there’s fear.  In some ways, I think that pain is a necessary part of what this experience should be in college.  I think people who are in tune with one another should understand that there are times when those people need to be within their groups, so that they can deal with that pain, that growth, in hopes that at some point in time, there will be a space for those groups to work together.

A Clinical Study on the Viability of a Pantsless Society

Posted on 11. Oct, 2009 by Erika Kim in Debate

There is a problem on campus, people, and it’s called PANTS.  “Pants” is actually an acronym for a piece of clothing that is: Pricey, Annoying, uNnecessary, Tight, Size.  Yes, I realize I’m cheating with “uNnecessary,” and yes, I cheated with the “Tight” and “Size” thing.  I had to do it, and you will see why in a moment.  We will discuss these out of order, starting with “A” for annoying.

Annoying:

Some of the things we constantly encounter when dealing with pants are having pants constantly slipping off when we are walking or running around, and having to readjust them every time we sit and stand up.  There is no escaping this constant readjusting whether we are sitting down or on the go.

It’s also annoying when you’re done with a meal and have that food baby pouch that is impossible to hide because your pants let it all hang out.  For those of you who wear pants that have legs that are too long, constantly pulling them up to keep them from dragging on the floor can be annoying as well.

My personal favorite is when it’s raining; pants do an awesome job of soaking up water and clinging to the back of your calves.

Size:

If you’re one of the lucky few who can buy whatever pants you want because your body is that perfect, I congratulate you.  Then, I will probably spread rumors about you and slap a sign on your back that says “I am a jerk who fits into any pair of pants I want; kick me.”

Remember that one time when you had those perfect pants that hugged you in all the right spots?  Neither do we.  Ask yourself, how many times have you been in a fitting room thinking, “These pants are so flattering!  They were made just for me!”?  Think long and hard about that, and then while you do I’ll answer that question.  Pretty much NEVER!

You have idioms like “fits like a glove,” but you never hear people say “fits like a pair of pants/jeans/bellbottoms.”  It’s no wonder why that hasn’t caught on.  It’s because there is no such thing as pants that fit correctly.

Usually they are too tight on the waist while being too loose on the legs (or vice versa), the legs are too long or too short, or the way the pants fit gives you makes your behind look like two deflated balloons.  If the pants fit you, you want it in a different design or color, and of course, they no longer have it in your size.  In the end, we all settle for the pair of pants that are the most compatible with our body types, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a compromise.

Pricey:

Then there is the matter of paying for them.  We go to the counter, and the cashier asks you for $70 to get a pair of jeans that kind of sort of fits.  Either you pay $70 for socially acceptable pants that fit funny, or you get pants for $15 that look like something that came from a different century in addition to fitting funny.

Tightness:

The latest trend of skinny jeans for both girls and guys has been questionable.  They work well for girls who wear them with boots, and they can be pulled off by some guys as well.  Personally, I like slim fit jeans, but when they’re so tight they start to look like stockings… yyyeeeeahhhh…

Whether you decide skinny jeans look good or not is completely up to you.  Aesthetics aside, as a general rule of thumb: if the pants you are wearing cut off the circulation from your upper body to lower body, it would be wise to consider wearing something else.

We’d like to hear what you have to say on the skinny jeans debate.

uNnecessary:

From the points I have made above about pants having more cons than pros and being inconvenient in almost every way, we can conclude that pants are indeed unnecessary.  There are always alternatives that are infinitely more comfortable and practical, like dresses, skirts, and robes!

According to some studies done by Totally Bogus University College Establishment Research Facility, there are certain types of pants that cause infertility.  This means pants kill babies.  You don’t want to be a baby killer do you?

Here are some tips on how to avoid being a baby killer:  Ladies: Wear dresses. They are comfortable, pretty, and they flatter every body type.  Skirts with or without leggings will also work.  Fellows: Wear kilts.  It’s all you can do, really.

Worship Credit: Things About Which Everyone Loves to Complain

Posted on 24. Sep, 2009 by Staff in Debate

Everyone hates worship credit.  It’s a fact.  Even ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics on the back of ancient pews frequently convey some sort of message about being forced to go to another cookie-cutter sermon on Raa or Set.  People complain in myriad ways, from grumbling to writing letters to newspaper articles.  The response is basically consistent: deal with it.

Last year at a pre-vespers, I had the honor of having a conversation with former president Dr. Richard Osborn about this subject, and he communicated the same message I had received from other authority figures.  PUC depends on donations from its constituents and alumni, because they keep coming, whereas your $30000 per year ends after four years (or five or six).  Most of those constituents and alumni want worship credit.  Ergo, there is worship credit.  Q.E.D.

It’s not all bad.  It can even be enjoyable.  And it can be terrible.  But the fact is, it’s a requirement, and that’s how things go.  Despite the many dissenters, including the occasional faculty member, some people very much enjoy Vespers and Colloquy, and are definitely correct in saying that it is our worship services that set us apart from secular colleges.  Part of the cultural benefit of being an Adventist and getting healthy food, quality education, and safe environments also includes being a part of a community that tries, sometimes even successfully, to worship together.

The fact is that, at least for now, worship credit is here to stay.  Feel free to complain.  But because some people do get a blessing or a benefit from the services, try to do it quietly.

Tips:

-          Don’t forget your ID card.  If you think that required worship is silly, you’ll think it’s even sillier when you don’t get any credit for it.

-          Don’t sit in the back and talk obnoxiously loudly.  It’s not the speaker’s fault that we have to be there, so we should at least be respectful.

-          Get your credit done as soon in the quarter as possible, or at least have a plan.  You don’t want to be left with 20 credits to go with only two weeks left.  Plus, if you finish early, you can either stop going, or go and simply enjoy it for what it is, rather than a requirement.

-          Pre-vespers is where it’s at.  Only one credit, but good food, and people you like.  Do it.  Make friends in lots of departments and get invited to their pre-vespers.  (PS. English Department pre-vespers have the best food, and we’re not just saying that because we’re biased)

Dorms: Things About Which Everyone Loves to Complain

Posted on 24. Sep, 2009 by Staff in Debate

Sex-Segregated Dorms

Want co-ed dorms?

Not happening.  See the constituents issue above.  And then imagine your roommate, next-door neighbor, or bathmate doing what he or she does in Winning Parking Lot in the room next door.  Or in your room.  Be thankful.

Curfew

The only thing people hate more than worship credit is the dorm curfew.  Freshmen have to be in by 12:00 every night but Saturday, and everyone else by 1:00, plus an additional hour-and-twenty-nine minutes if you have the pinks left over.  Weekend leaves are also a pain, especially because if there is not going to be an adult present on a co-ed weekend leave (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary for Dorm Policies defines “adult” as: Not you or your friends, no matter how old they are), you can kiss it goodbye.

This is one issue that the C2 is more than willing to see discussed, because as far as we know, it has little to do with funding, and more to do with tradition.  We suppose you could be thankful that this isn’t the era that required chaperones if one wanted to leave campus, ever, with a member of the opposite sex.

And, there’s always hope.  The day you turn twenty-one, all you have to do is call your dorm at 11:00pm if you’re going to be out, and voila, you’re free.  So for those of you under that age: keep on pressing on.

Tips:

-          Give yourself margin of error.  It will always take a little longer than you think, and it really stinks to come in at 1:31am or 2:31am and then be on restriction for two weeks.

-          Honestly, why would anyone want to be out at 2:31am during the week?

-          Never say to yourself, “Oh, I’ve been out late before and never gotten pinks.”  It really depends on your dorm, the desk worker, the dean, and how late you are.  Some days, 2:45am and nothing.  Other days, 2:23am and restriction.  Trust us.

The Caf': Things About Which Everyone Loves to Complain

Posted on 24. Sep, 2009 by Staff in Debate

Two years ago, the cafeteria was outsourced to a company called Bon Appétit after the previous manager quit.  Food is now provided by the green-minded, organic-food-selling, health conscious Bon Appétit; from campaigns to reduce waste to locally bought produce, Bon Appétit is all about presenting an environmentally-friendly image to the yuppie world of academia.

While it sounds mostly lovely, there are the inevitable complaints.  Food variety waxes and wanes with the season and motivation of the staff; some days, it’s adventurous and exotic, other days, it’s burrito deck.  Again.  The prices are generally prohibitive, unless you know what you’re doing.  If you consume as much as, say, a normal human being, you will go over on your minimum board.  Welcome to capitalism.  On the other hand, it’s food, and it’s generally available and edible, sometimes even with a smile, or at least a commiserating grimace.  It’s far better than it was before Bon Appétit, for those of us upper-classmen who recall mystery veggie-meat covered in mystery-sauce for every meal.  Things could be worse.

For all the discussion you’ll hear, you probably won’t see any more articles on the caf’, because there is one every year.  The food can be disgusting or redundant.  There is no meat, and won’t be, because like worship credit, the constituents pay the money that matters.  So sit back, join in the grumbling, and enjoy whatever variant on veggie-food you’re eating.  Bon Appetit.

Tips:

-          Drinks are costly.  Avoid buying too many.

-          Certain combinations of foods will be cheaper and more filling.  Soup is always a good option.  Try to figure out what some of these are.

-          Eat in your room for breakfast if you’re worried about going over.  You only get about $15 a day, which is maybe enough for two meals.

-          Make good friends with lots of girls.  For some reason, a lot of them only eat about three leaves of lettuce a day, and they’ll be more than willing to share their card once midterms are past and they’ve only spent $5.