"Hey, Ho, What's This World Comin' To" ... Mini-Laugh for the Day ...

Upon texting a friend, I updated her on something, then ended it with, "In other news, we have blatant racist in the White House.  That is all.  What's going on there?"

lol.

Then I turned to my husband and said, "Hey, ho ... what's the world comin' to ..."

This reference to my great-great grandfather, who apparently said that regularly in the 1920s and 1930s under different circumstances,  always makes him laugh.

Apparently, my great-grandmother, known to many simply as "Mama Mann," (as their last name was "Mann") used to feed people in soup lines off her back porch during the depression, as well as host her Baptist Women's Circle meetings in her home, serving finger sandwiches. 

Every week, my great-great grandfather - who was disabled in the civil war (and generally a PIA for my great-grandmother to care for), would dress up in his Confederate Army uniform (sigh, I know), and come down the stairs so the ladies would fuss over him, much to the dismay of my great-grandmother, who was pro-Union Army.

And yet she still cared for his ignorant, racist butt anyway because he was disabled and she felt it her Christian and wifely duty to care for her father-in-law.

That was Kentucky - you had a choice to fight for Union or Confederate, you see - sometimes brother against brother.  

Most of my family fought Union, but there were some straggler Confederate idiots in my family, too - and my grandmother said my great-great grandfather Mann was Confederate, but we're not sure - that's still being researched.  What is certain is that he was sometimes difficult with Mama Mann.

My great-great grandfather would promptly eat all the finger sandwiches for himself, then proclaim loudly throughout the Christian Women's Group, "Hey, ho ... what's the world coming to, when a man can't get a sandwich in a room full of women?" ... Several times, disturbing the meeting until somebody paid attention to him again.

After about the 5th loud exclamation, Mama Mann paid attention to him, all right. 

Mama Mann was the most compassionate soul in the world, but she could get tough when she needed to.

Her daughter, my grandmother was also very compassionate, but wouldn't say "Boo" to a fly.  

Apparently, I take more after my great grandmother, lol.

Because Mama don't play ...

(No, this is not an actual pic of my great-grandmother and great-great grandfather.)

"Now, Mr. Mann, you know you very well you already ate nearly all those finger sandwiches that were for my Ladies' Circle meeting yourself, and you oughn't have, because of your sugar diabetes. So you just sit over there quietly and behave yourself until my circle meeting is over, and then if you're still hungry, I'll fix you something else."

"And if you CAN'T behave yourself, you may go sit out on the porch swing all by yourself. Hush up, now, it's our lady guests' turn to eat and speak. "

Amen!

lol

And sometimes, he found himself out on the porch swing, let me just tell you THAT, right now.  

Still exclaiming "Hey, hohhhhhh..."...  until she shut the front door on him lol.

In other words, though just 1 hour a week, when my homemaker great-grandmother had her women's church meeting, that was apparently "taboo" according to Confederate white men, who wanted women to be waiting on them every hour of every day, dang everybody else.

It's interesting that the world has changed - and yet Confederate-style white men haven't changed a bit, isn't it? 

Now there's something I bet Trump men haven't thought about - just who do you think is going to take care of you, when you get old? 

Women will, that's who - whether at home or in retirement or private-pay healthcare facilities (which are predominantly staff by women) :)

That's if you're lucky and behave yourselves - lest you might find someone has dumped your ignorant, belligerent, racist, misogynistic butts in the state nursing home ;)

Baby Boom, Revisited - 32 Years Later ...

This movie was on the Roku Channel, and I haven't seen it in years.  I was interested in how things had changed for women in the workplace since, and the answer is - not much.  Don't judge from the poster - it isn't exactly what it looks like.

JC Wiatt is a mid-to-late 30s marketing account executive in NYC.  She has lived her life exactly according to plan, graduating summa cum laude from Harvard with an MBA, making six figures, living with her boyfriend, an investment banker, Stephen (Harold Ramis).

They call her the "Tiger Lady."

She works 60 to 90 hours a week and takes no vacations - work is her life.  She claims she has no biological clock and children make her uncomfortable - they don't even have a pet or houseplants to care for - live is all about them.

Soon, the CEO asks JC about becoming a partner, but wants to be assured that she still had no plans for children in the future (which of course is highly illegal and would never be asked of a man, but is still asked anyway and never enforced).

 He tells her his wife handles the house and the kids and grandkids (and later reveals he doesn't even know their names) and decorates and "Hell, I don't even know what else she does" because he's never home - his wife is essentially hired help.

JC reassures him she has no biological clock, she's about work - period.

Then she receives a call in the middle of the night, telling her she has an inheritance coming from a long-lost cousin who died in a tragic accident.   Being that both her parents and his are dead, and neither had any brothers and sisters, his estate went to her.  The connection is bad, and she can't hear what the estate attorney is saying, but she accepts the inheritance and agrees to meet the attorney's rep at the airport to sign the papers.

A woman appears off the plane, holding a 14-month-old little girl, and asks her to sign for the inheritance.  JC asks if they can move this along, she has a business lunch to attend, and signs the papers without reading or asking what the inheritance is until after she's signed it, trying to rush this meeting along.

It is then that she finds out that - the 14-month-old little girl, Elizabeth - IS her inheritance.

Of course, this freaks her out, and the woman has to catch another flight.  JC agrees to take her temporarily until she can find suitable parents to adopt.

She proves she has no idea of how to carry a child, appearing almost disgusted with her, and you begin to worry because there are some women who truly aren't cut out to be parents.

She takes the child to the business lunch with an important account exec and pawns him off on the coat-check girl, eventually offering her use of her entire credit card, if she will just care for this baby for an hour.

Eventually, the baby cries so loudly the entire restaurant can hear, and the coat-check girl brings her to JC, informing her that she just threw up all over her and she needed to take her back now.

She signs Elizabeth up to an adoption-agency list, but is told that it will take several days. She assures her boyfriend they can handle, they are two summa cum laude graduates from Harvard and this is the simplest form of a human being, they can figure it out and handle it.

Famous last words.

Over the next few days, after attempting to feed her linguine carbonara (which of course ends up all over the house and she and her boyfriend), duck-taping her diaper on, bringing her to work with her in the frantic search to find a good nanny quickly, she believes that she definitely isn't cut out to be a parent.

Worse, her boyfriend assumes that because she's a woman, this will come naturally to her. Erm, no - not with zero experience.

However, Elizabeth likes her and is affectionate and playful with her, and she can't help but grow attached to her, no matter how hard she tries to be "business-like" with her.

After an unfortunate meeting with a shareholder, in which Elizabeth sprays her milk bottle on the chairman of the board, she realizes she has to do something and fast, or work is going to suffer.

It is then that she laments how women can even work at all with this going on?

It is then that she's just a little bit nicer to her secretary ;)

A call comes from the adoption agency that parents have been found and she breathers a sigh of relief - but with a surprising twinge of sadness and uncertainty.

Being that this was an open adoption, she insisted on meeting the parents before handing Elizabeth over.

Unfortunately, they are rural-America evangelicals, who make it clear right away that they wanted a white male child, but would take her because no others were available, but they'd raise her strong, just like a farm boy.

He asks his wife if "she'll do," and she answers, "Yes, sir.  Fern's gonna be a great farm hand to help our family."

"Oh,  hell no," says JC - and she walks out of the office with Elizabeth, undoing the agreement with the adoption agency and agrees to keep her permanently.

"Fern?  And she called her husband, 'Sir,' it just gave me the chills."

And how could you give up this face? :)

When her boyfriend finds out that she's keeping her - their relationship is over and he moves out.

After going through several irresponsible and scary nannies, JC decides that if she's going to do this, do it right, do most of her herself - read all the baby-care books she can get her hands on, research the best educational toys, and after hearing mothers lament their toddler babies not getting into the right preschool program at the park, she panics and decides to enroll Elizabeth in flash educational classes for her, after the mothers tell her it's too late for her to enroll Elizabeth into the right preschool unless she does this, and if she doesn't get into the right preschool, she won't get into the right prep, college, and so on.

I laugh because privileged white American moms are still like this today, actually worse - the pressures other women put on each other and their children to succeed, they go to ridiculous levels to over-schedule and over-educate their children - all work and no play.

Actually, I really wish it focused on other women more in the office, too, instead of just the men - because often women are worse on other working women than men, more competitive (see yesterday's posts). 

So she's now flexing her time.  Still working crazy hours, but also taking Elizabeth to classes.

 (LOL at the sign on the wall that says "College Begins at Birth.")


Soon, she discovers that her protege (played by James Spader, who is always good at playing a weasel) has essentially undermined her and assumed her office and all her accounts are given to him except one.

Humiliated, JC leaves, and decides to take all her savings and retirement money to Vermont to buy rural weekend farmhouse that she's had her eye on for a couple of years - sight unseen.

This is unusual for JC to take uncalculated risks, but that's why she's doing it - she felt that her calculations never paid off anyway. 

She moves with Elizabeth into the farmhouse, and discovers why she should've seen it first - the well for water has dried up, the roof caves in, and any number of other calamities that begin to eat through her savings.

Out of money and exhausted, she essentially had a momentary nervous breakdown in front of her plumber and passes out ...

... only to wake up in the office of Sam Shepard, whom she thinks is a medical doctor, revealing that she has no idea who she is anymore, nothing has gone as planned, and she hasn't had sex in almost a year or even seen another human being during the long winter.

It is then that Sam Shepard reveals - that he's actually a veterinarian lol.

Humiliated again, she storms off in a huff, and though he greets her in town, obviously interested in her, she avoids him or becomes very nervous, which leads to her often acting like the "Tiger Lady" routine, and him telling her she reminded him of a bull terrier, wound too tight, and then kisses her :)

Having no idea what she's going to do from Vermont, and with no money to move back to NYC, she decides to sell her homemade, organic applesauce (that she spent all winter making) at the local corner store - which people are buying up like candy.

It is then that she remembers the other side of herself - the brilliant marketing strategist.


With no money, and the surrounding stores refusing to sell baby foods, she begins a grass-roots level marketing campaign, buy one, get five free, in front of schools, grocery stores, parks, and street corners, and Vermont tourist attractions, and she publishes ads in all of the local papers, with testimonials (that was what you did, back then, before social media) :)

After doing so, requests come in to not only her booths, but local grocery stores are asked if they carry it - and begin to call her to ask for it.

At the time, distributing organic baby food to supermarkets was unheard of, it was an untapped market - so the story of her home-grown business marketing plan's success takes off and is mentioned in business magazines, is sold regionally at every grocery store, and she employs the whole town as her labor force.

It isn't long before her old company calls her and asks to begin negotiations for an acquisition, with her as a brand manager.

She says to herself, "I'm back" and goes to New York, and is offered a $3 million buyout, they create a better distribution center, $6-figure salary plus bonuses, access to the company jet.

Can you guess what she does?

If you want to watch the movie, stop here ;)

The Tiger Lady realizes - she's not the Tiger Lady anymore - and doesn't really want to be.

Now, she is 50% brilliant marketer and 50% mom, loves both and is great at both - and she shouldn't have to sacrifice one for the other.

Companies should allow you to do both by flexing time, providing childcare, and sick time for sick children without penalizing you - because those things help you perform your job better :)

She decides she's made enough money thus far to build her own distribution center and knows how to negotiate contracts - and she's going to do it herself, branching out into other organic products as she went.

And she happily returns home to Vermont with her new, loving family :)

The End :)

The point is, You COULD have it all and wouldn't HAVE to choose - if the both men AND women in the workforce could give women a little more, they'd get back double  :)

Can you tell me 32 years later why things aren't like that?

And why even though this isn't Oscar-worthy material, why we don't just make pleasant movies that make you smile anymore?

I mean, I love complex stories, I wanted to be a screenwriter.

But sometimes you just want to smile :)

The Milgram Authority Obedience/Compliance Experiment Explains Much About What We're Seeing in Society Today

So, my husband is watching Tracy Morgan's "Scare Tactics" today, in which friends pull scary pranks on their friends and film it (some of which are questionably ethical themselves lol).  One of the pranks reminded me of Milgram's Authority Obedience Experiment - and it dawned on me of how relevant Milgram's experiment is today.

For those who don't know, in 1963, Stanley Milgram, and Social Psychologist at Yale, performed a study, seeking to understand how the Nazis justified to themselves objectifying, torturing, and murdering 6 million people - and additionally, raised ethical questions as to experiments performed on other humans and animals (not only by the Nazis, but by Milgram himself).

Essentially, his theory was that if a person(s) seemingly in  power or with authority simply told a group with less power that someone deserved punishment, and ordered them to display aggression towards that person/group, people automatically believed them and obeyed - even if the order was to physically harm to other human beings.

Though people balked that people aren't that stupid, to prove the theory, he set up a fake experiment, where the the subject of the experiment was told he was helping with a psychology experiment regarding how people learn.

The subject enters the room with another person who is presented as another "study helper," but is actually an actor.  The two draw lots as to who will be the "teacher" and who will be the "learner" - except of course the cards are rigged to always have the subject be the "teacher."

The "learner" (actor) is led to another room and the "teacher" witnesses him being strapped to electrodes.

The teacher then returns to the other room to conduct the experiment.

He is told by a man in a gray lab coat, who is the presented as the scientist, that the subject, as the teacher, will be asking questions to the "learner" in the next room, and for every wrong answer, the "teacher" will administer an electric shock - and increase the electric shock with each wrong answer.

The shocks ranged for 30V (labeled "mild") to 450V labeled "very severe."

He was given audio, so that he could hear the "learners" painful outbursts.

The setup looked something like this ...

If they struggled with continuing to administer the shocks, they were given a series of prods to continue from the white-coated scientist:

Prod 1: Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.

Of course, the actor was told to give purposeful wrong answers to receive electric shocks and cry out in pain.

The study was performed 18 times, a total of 636 participants - all white males, ages 20 to 50, skilled laborers to professionals.

The results were 65% of the participants continued to administer to the full 450V of electricity to the "learner" (supposedly rendering them nonresponsive) - and 100% continued to 300V of electricity to the "learner" (enough to permanently injure them.)

There was some correlation between how physically close in proximity the "authority" was to the "teacher."

(I found this interesting, considering social media and aggression studies currently being done).
Milgram had this to say about his conclusion: 

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.

I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.

Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.

The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.'

Milgram himself only performed the experiment once, but it was performed 18 times on 636 people.  This is not the "magic" random sample standard of 1200 people - but it made a lasting impression.

It could not be performed again today because of public awareness of the experiment, which would bias the results - however, it WOULD be interesting to perform this study on women.

Essentially, it at least gave some credence to his theory that at least part of the reason the Nazis were able to objectify and murder so many Jews was that a person or person in an authority position that they respected told them to.

Of course, that's not the only piece of that puzzle - scapegoating - is another big piece.

But it's interesting how we can see that on display today - mainly with Trump.

However, see if you've ever seen this in other situations in society, which has you scratching your head about why groups of people went along with things they knew were harmful to others.

And that is Social Psychology 101.

So We're Midway Through ST-3 (Stranger Things, Season Three)...

(Updated) Still AWEsommme! How to explain the mass appeal of Netflix's Stranger Things to people who haven't seen it?  OK, imagine if The X-Files, Alien(s), ET, Goonies, Stand By Me, It, The Wonder Years, Freaks and Geeks, and any Coen Brothers' movie you've ever seen, all had a group baby, to an 80s soundtrack (that's also a hint to the plot this season) - tack on Invasion of the Body Snatchers, especially this season ;)  Part horror sci-fi, part soap opera, part comedy.

Except my husband, Mark, just said, "Exactly - except how is it like ET? The interdimensional beings (Demodogs) are monsters?"

Me: "Well, if you think of "Eleven" as ET, even though she's not an interdimensional being or extraterrestrial herself - that we know yet - but what explains her superpowers? The way the kids find her and hide her, at first, even dress her in a wig to disguise her - it's exactly like ET. I suspect she's sort of an interdimensional/extraterrestrial (lineaged) anti-demodog, she just doesn't know it yet. But they may never say."

"Because remember, just like Eight, the government didn't give her those powers, they discovered and used them, trying to train her from childhood to be a weapon and killer. Eight was older when they discovered her ability, then stole her from her parents. However, with Eleven, her mother showed signs of psychokinetic ability already on testing, but was too old to train, so they stole her daughter, Eleven, at birth, told her mother she died, lobotomized/electroshocked her mom to discredit her as crazy to shut her up, and hoped to raise Eleven, using her gifts to train her into a weapon/killer, too, but failed - because not only does Eleven has more power than they bargained for, but more empathy and conscience."

"Eight, though older when discovered, trained better, and went 'fallen angel.' She escaped, but is full of hate for what they did to her and is obsessed with revenge and can kill without conscience or remorse. However, Eleven refuses to hate, she's too sensitive, empathetic, and incorruptible - which is a good thing, because she was also the most powerful lol."

"She's capable of snapping necks like twigs, with a simple toss of her head, or psychically spy on anyone to answer normal teenage-angst dilemmas, but she won't - she doesn't want to spy on or hurt anyone, she just wants to forget, be a normal teenager, learn to fully speak and communicate, love and be loved, enjoy the world she was never allowed to experience. But she will, if anything tries to hurt her or others, and only if an immediate threat. Even then, if you notice, she won't kill unless absolutely necessary, she'll at first find ways to just physically deter them, unless they try to take her back or whatever it is just keeps coming at her/them."

"So, IMO, the "gifted ones" are essentially like angels to combat the demons, except they have free will - they can turn fallen angel anytime, like Eight did - it's a free-will choice. The demodog-infected or killed don't have a choice, but the uninfected and anti-demodogs, do."

"Like the Aliens movies, it's the intersection of science and spiritual - science and spiritual don't have to be mutually exclusive, one explains the other and is dependent on the other, they're interdependent. But the Duffer brothers may never say, leave you to draw your own conclusions."

Mark: "Oh, yeeaaahh - it IS like ET!?! Like Stephen-Spielberg's-childhood-imagination movies in general - Super 8, too. Also Stephen-King's-Childhood-Imagination books and movies, too." 

Me:  "Yes! It's a 'Best of the 80s' tribute with a new spin."

Clever dialogue, superbly acted, wicked special effects, characters you care about, no loopholes in the plot, appropriate jumps and scares - so suspenseful you can never watch just one - as we all know, I'm a tough critic, previously wanting to be a screenwriter.  

Bravo x3, Duffer Brothers, still rocking it for Netflix for Season 3!

PS - Hahaha!  We just watched the episode where Mike asks El(even):  "Does your species like M&Ms?"

That's a direct reference to ET (and the fact that she's a girl because they had a prior argument, he got caught lying to her), except it was Reese's Pieces debut, which sent sales skyrocketing.  Movie branding works (as long as it's not overdone, which Stranger Things is pushing it ;)

God, I wish I could make money at being a library for movie metaphors , but alas, no lol


PPS - Episode 7, one more to go - Oooh, but El can be infected, like everyone else (but can remove it herself?  Or can she?  Completely?  What will happen to her superpowers?

Loving the shift from our government being responsible for opening the portal in season 1, to some members of our government doing the right thing in season 2, to Russians re-opening it in season 3 (with politicians being paid off to let them in) - perfect for the Red Dawn 80s, and perfect for today - brilliant!

Apparently, Trump Thinks This is China, And The Washington Mall is Tiananmen Square

(Updated - hehehe) $2.5 million was diverted from our National Parks' biggest day of the year, just so tanks could roll through the Washington Mall in D.C. for Trump's self-serving July 4th celebration. No news as to why - one can only guess to intimidate protesters. God bless all the Tank Men at Tiananmen Squares and Megan Rapinoes, of the world, unafraid to risk being a little inappropriate - to stand up to an even greater crazy-inappropriate - and essentially say, either by word or by deed:

"This emperor is buck naked, this inappropriateness is crazy out of control, and it needs to stop." :)
I think perhaps he enjoyed his recent stay in North Korea a bit TOO much?


Because he now thinks he's a Crazy Little Rocket Man, too - and his North Korean martial-law-esque maneuver did not go unnoticed (except with willfully-blind Trumpers).

Wake up, America - this would be your biggest "wolves-in-sheep's clothing" wake-up call yet, that the "commies" you've been so paranoid of taking over this country are actually the ones wearing Republican hats as cover lol.

At the risk of being a little inappropriate to combat a even greater inappropriate, myself - just like our founding fathers did against a tyrannical king - please allow me to now boldly say (ahem):


"Hell no, I'm not watching Tax-Evading Trump's expensive self-tribute today (that I unwittingly helped pay for, with *my* tax money?) - Trump can go F himself - twice."

"In fact, I hope someone throws a McDonald's Double-Quarter-Pounder with Cheese in front of a tank and Trump dives for it."


Hehehe :)

James Fields, The Neo-Nazi Just Life Sentenced For Killing Heather Heyer, After Intentionally Driving His Car Into Protesters in Charlottesville - Went to High School With My Daughter

I don't talk about my daughter much online for security reasons (prior experience).  However, James Fields, the Neo Nazi just life sentenced for killing Heather Heyer, after driving his car into Anti-White-Supremacy protestors at Charlottesville's "Unite the Right" rally - went to high school with my daughter in Northern Kentucky (we lived there from 2007-2012).  No - they were NOT friends. 

I'd like to say he was a loner freak, but unfortunately, he's not alone in his beliefs - here in Kentucky, especially.

However, by many accounts (including my daughter), he was an angry, creepy, racist, little pr**k, who clearly only got worse after high school.

However, teachers were oblivious. 

One teacher even said he was "surprised" by James' actions, but knew he was a Neo-Nazi.

???

Let me get this straight - you knew he was a Neo Nazi back in high school - and you're surprised by his violence now? 

Golly Gee Whillakers - yet another US-citizen, white-male, White-Supremacist, domestic terrorist - shocker! ;)


What, are we up to like 8 white-male, US-citizen, domestic terrorists, now, just since Trump was elected?

(Let's not even do a total count because again, the stats on the majority of domestic terrorists and mass shooters actually being US-citizen white males would only strengthen my point ;)

Oh, there are none so self-deluded and willfully blind as the modern-day political right.

Regardless, Fields just got what he deserved - he was sentenced to life in prison :) 

Don't tell me White Supremacists aren't violent -  I live in Kentucky, B'God!

And let's not forget the history of violence from White Supremacists and Neo Nazis, although they would like us to forget, and pretend along with them that only immigrants and people of color commit violent crime (and pretend leftist REactions to their BS exist in a vacuum) ;).

And no, Trump - both sides were NOT at fault, like you said - ya white-trash, White-Supremacy Tool.

Mr. Goldfinch Returns - With His Whole Family!

Apparently, Mr. Goldfinch (right) found us suitable lunch dates, yesterday, because he returned for sunflower seeds today, with Mrs. Goldfinch (middle), and junior(ette?) Goldfinch! :)

(Forgive the initial shot, apparently of our floor lol)

Our Surprise Lunch Guest: An American Goldfinch :)

We've been putting out sunflower seeds every day, and every bird came a-calling, but the American Goldfinch - even rose finches.  Today, he made a surprise appearance to have lunch with us  :)

Nothing 'Spooky' IS Going On, Most Mandela Effects Are Easily Explained: Human-Memory Tendency to Merge Similarities, Over Time :)

I may not have many skills, but one thing I've got is super memory.  Thus, I actually remember these according to reality VS. public-perception memory :) For example, I heard people say Mandela died in prison years ago, but knew they'd confused Nelson Mandela with Stephen Biko (Both South-African anti-apartheid activists in the 70s/80s who went to prison, only Biko died there).  I was iffy on a couple, but my education taught me how the human brain perceives info, categorizes it, and remembers it (often in a biased manner).

Based on my education, my theory as to what is really going on with the "Mandela effect" isn't anything "spooky" at all - it's simply a very natural, efficient way the human brain has evolved to works in order to create more "memory space" for new information :)
We humans identify and categorize things immediately -  but we do so in a biased manner, based on details we believe are the important ones.

However -  over time - we "make more memory room" by essentially getting rid of subcategories of more detail by merging 2 similarities into main categories.

Thus, you have the similar details of stories of Mandela and Biko merged into one, or Mr. Peanut Planter's Guy with monocle VS. The Monopoly Guy without monocle.

I admit, I always thought the Monopoly guy had a monocle, too - but the fact is, he doesn't and never has.

However, there's nothing spooky about it -  my theory is - just how our brains and memories work over time :)

And the reason we all think the Monopoly guy had a monocle is because Planter's "Mr. Peanut" and "Mr. Monopoly"- both having similar cartoon-style and similar features - hit peak popularity around the same time (1930s).

Thus, our memories have simply merged the two characters over time based on similar features that hit peak popularity around a similar time period - get it?

Basically, think of your brain being like a PC or your smart phone, saying: "You rarely use this app, so maybe you don't need it - let me defrag it and remove some files, and transfer it into archives."

The problem is, our brains are biased on what it chooses as important data.

Thus, not all the data details transfer correctly, sometimes a files even corrupt, or it's difficult to find that archived data later on - and wham, you've got a Mandela effect.

So, nothing spooky going on, just our brains imperfectly attempting to be more efficient so as to "accept new apps" - fascinating, isn't it?

Having said all that, there is one of these - and only one of these - that I have trouble explaining myself.

Mark and I were to go kayaking today, but it's supposed to rain, so instead, we're having a Netflix binge-watching day (which are often my favorite days).

(If you're interested, currently, we're watching my husband's choice of "Black Spot," which after the first 5 minutes, I pronounced essentially the French version of Twin Peaks, though not as funny and the characters aren't nearly as likeable.  It's meh, mediocre, and I bet David Lynch is banging his head against the wall and wondering how he can sue them lol.)

Thus, I went on YouTube to look up a a full clip from Jimmy Fallon's original Lip Sync battle from years ago that apparently has been retired (the one with Stephen Merchant, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Jimmy)?

You know how you watch one video, then another, and you somehow end up in strange places, having no idea how you got there? lol

That's how this happened :)

Anyway, I watched a new Mandela Effect video, all BS and easily explained - with the exception of one, that I admit, had me scratching my head (as apparently it did other people) - because it's not as easily explained as "memory merging."

Now, because of my memory, I can remember dates, times, and nearly verbatim conversations (unless super stressed or distracted), which is why I aced history classes, and I consider myself a fairly strong history buff, particularly American history.

This "effect" is regarding WWI.

Mark asked me, "When did WW1 begin?"

I shot back "1914, but the US didn't enter officially enter until ... 1916? No, 1917, I think?"

Verified.

Which is why this next one is the only one of these that has me scratching my head - because his one actually isn't the case of our memories merging 2 similarities over time.,

So, we all knew that Pearl Harbor got us into WWII, right?

But I had always been under the impression that nothing really got us into WWI, except increasing pressure from our allies (the whole war being political and started by the assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand to begin with).

So, you think I would remember - or at some point, I would've been taught in American history - that there was a massive terrorist explosion (supposedly performed by German spies) in New York City in 1916 that partially destroyed the Statue of Liberty, and was responsible for not only the Espionage Act of 1917 and the creation of the first US domestic terrorism agencies,  but the biggest reason why we entered the war - and it was called Black Tom Island.

I honest to God never heard of this event until today?

It doesn't freak me out or anything, but I am having trouble explaining why most of us don't remember this/weren't taught this in US history?

In fact, one of the commenters claimed to be a HS American-History teacher, but had never heard of this event either - but I think it sent him into an existential crisis! lol

Because this one, you can't explain away by merging memories of two similarities over time - so how to explain it?

(I don't watch these because I believe in Mandela effect, but because I find the way the human brain works, and false-public memory aspect, fascinating.)


And there you have it - that is the only "Mandela Effect" that stumps me and I can't easily explain by the way human memory works over time (which is the aspect that I personally find fascinating about these) :)

PS 

Mark reasoned: "Maybe the reason we didn't know is because of lack of national communication, lack of media in general, which had improved by WWII.  People relied on local newspapers.  By the 1930s, we received more national news, and movies had newsreel trailers before movies and at intermissions, whereas they didn't in WWI?"

Me:  "Well, that sounds plausible - but it doesn't explain why I know that the Titanic sank on April 15, 1912, without even looking it up (which I knew before the movie, mind you, because my grandparents saved the local newspaper clipping )  - which occurred 4 years before Black Tom Island?"

"You mean to tell me this major terrorist event on US soil by the Germans, that essentially obliterated from existence a tiny island in NY Harbor and partially damaged the Statue of Liberty - and was essentially the 9/11 of their day and a major impetus for our entrance into WWI - most of us have never even heard about this event and were never taught about it in school, but even local newspapers published the Titanic and WWI events?"

"So there goes that theory, too.  Even my country-Kentuckian grandparents knew about the Titanic from a saved newspaper clipping from 1912, but never mentioned Black Tom's Island, that just seems weird to me. lol." 

Mark: "Maybe the name of the island is controversial as knowledge about racism increased, so the education system glossed over the event due to the name of the island, in shame?"

Me:  "Hm, well, it appears tiny Black Tom's Island itself was essentially blown off the map with  the explosion, the remnants were almost immediately incorporated into Liberty Park - and we all know it wasn't due to racism - racism and racial segregation was standard, accepted practice in 1916, even in NYC.  People made no attempt to hide their racism in the 1910s."

"Plus supposedly Kaiser Germans were responsible, who were white, so? Could it be because they were white, and it happened on US soil -  it didn't fit the narrative about people of color versus whites?"

"Nah, that doesn't make sense, either -  because at the time, we were looking for justifications to get involved in the war, and anti-Kaiser/German propaganda was high.  So why wasn't this event more broadly used and popularly known as justification, as Pearl Harbor was for WWII?"

"Plus again, racism was standard, accepted practice in 1916, even in NYC. White people didn't NEED a political narrative to hide white crime because people were already conditioned to wrongfully assume people of color were up to no good and at fault, if left to their own volition, and therefore "needed" whites for that "benevolent white patriarchs" bullshit, even in NYC.  So even race theories are a stretch."

"So I gotta admit, this one's a stumper.  I'm sure there IS a more plausible explanation for why virtually no one remembers this being taught in American History than "alternative universe" theories or CIA-mind control (LOL) -  I just can't find it yet." 

Mark:  "Well, as far-fetched as it may sound, there are those who believe that with all these US-soil events, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and maybe even Black Tom's Island, the US did it to themselves, to turn public sentiment towards war.  Because remember, up until Vietnam, war in the US was a money-maker.  Didn't Wilson want some big international co-op deal like the UN or something?

Me: "Oh my gosh, now, you may be onto something with that one.  Because Wilson had tried unsuccessfully for years to establish the League of Nations.  The LON was not accepted and established until 1920 - a little over a year after the war ended! :)"

"Wow, I really hate to even think like that, especially without any evidence - it feels I should next don a tinfoil hat, but unlike the others, that explanation at least makes sense, and the timing of the LON is odd -  and as I've always said, from Hillary to Trump, to Kavanaugh to Blasey-Ford - though we should always presume innocent until proven guilty, lack of evidence does NOT automatically mean innocence, either - so that possibility cannot be excluded, like the others on the table."

*I need to add, here, that by that I do NOT mean we need to assume every accusation made contains any truth at all, especially when it comes to politics, and trying to prove those false is often like trying to prove someone murdered a unicorn - which you can't - because you have to prove the existence of unicorn in the first place lol.
I'm just saying that when it comes to an actual crime, just because no evidence has been found doesn't mean the crime didn't happen or a suspect is innocent.  That doesn't make the suspect guilty OR innocent actually - it means there's not enough evidence - period.

(i.e., a body or murder weapon is never found, but the person was never seen again. A woman was raped but was afraid to tell anyone until years later when all evidence is gone, etc.)

But in this case, unlike a unicorn, we DO have have evidence this major world event existed in the first place - but what's missing is why this major world event has been virtually ignored in American History - but all we have is a timeline of circumstantial evidence, which isn't true evidence at all - it proves nothing.

Mark: "Yeah, and remember, I'm a former Army ranger.  I know for fact, shit gets covered up, based on personal experience - and it happens under every US president.  People are extraordinarily stupid, if they think Trump isn't the worst liar/cover-upping con of them all.  They've all seen him contradict himself, lie, and try to hide stuff (including his tax returns, college records, military records, thwart investigations which no innocent man would do), right in front of their faces, all day, every day, since day one, and they still blindly trust the man, it makes no sense.  We all saw/heard the video of Trump saying, "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support," and they cheered it on, it's unbelievable that that's okay with people!  People are stupid sheep, blinded by wanting to believe something so badly, they can't see the forest for the trees."

So, has my husband solved this mystery of why none of us were taught about the terrorist explosion of Black Tom's Island essentially being responsible for pulling us into WWI?

*shrugs*

(And yeah, you probably don't want to play Trivial Pursuit with me.  I'm a font of useless skills and useless information such as dates, times, events, and conversations lol.)

Why People Still Victim-Blame in Cyberbullying Situations in 2019

(Edited). Cyberbullying is started by 1 person enlisting at least 2 friends to attack/smear to instigate gangup.  The most common causes are retaliation for rejection and/or to discredit the victim (to avoid taking responsibility for something the bully did).  Mob-mentality/scapegoating causes gangups, but this article explains::  "When bullying occurs, people often place the blame on the shoulders of the victim. Most of the time, they falsely believe that if the victim of bullying were somehow different, then bullying wouldn’t happen. They might even ask the victim: "What did you do to cause it?" But bullying is never the target's fault. They do not need to change or be different in some way to avoid being bullied. Change is always the bully's responsibility."

In other words, otherwise nice people see a gangup forming, and assume mob rule makes the mob right - they assume there must be some logical reason everyone is jumping on - though that is rarely, if ever, true, and if anything, it's the reasons already mentioned above.

They will first will look for anything the victim might have done to bring the attack on themselves, typically basing it unfairly on the victim's current normal emotional reactions to being bullied - confusion, expression of sadness, fear, cursing, fighting back. This, of course, reverses the order of events, but nevertheless gets used as "proof" the victim deserved it.

The most fascinating phenomenon that occurs during cyberbullying situations is how many people will actually approach the victim with "advice" on how the victim should change their behavior, instead of the bullies :)

"Maybe if you didn't post personal information that could be twisted." 

"Maybe if you hadn't freaked out"

"Maybe if you hadn't posted personal pictures."

"Maybe you love the attention and drama of it all."

"Maybe if you just ignored them."

"Maybe if you hadn't said what they were doing was creepy." 

"Maybe if you'd shut up and just go away."

"Maybe if you'd just gone out with them when they asked."

"Maybe if you hadn't told them to stop it, knock it off, or F off ."

In this way, even if they don't help attack or cheer the bullies on, they are still helping the bullies out, because they're insulting/blaming the victim for their own attack, too.

Often, they genuinely believe they're helping, not even realizing they are helping the bullies.

Making it worse is the bully and friends will play the victim to justify themselves - even lying about the victim/projecting their own behavior on the victim.

Thus why it's hard to tell the difference - especially if the victim fights back.

(***This is why it's important to figure out who the real victim is before taking action - because both sides will claim they're the victim. ***)

However, this should be your first clue ... 

(Unless there's a weapon involved) many against is one never a fair fight ;)

Additionally, here's an interesting aspect of a study done in 2013 about why people blame the victim in cyberbullying:

"Participants attributed more responsibility for the bullying incident to the victim when the victim was presented as extroverted and very open in revealing personal information. This diminished social support for the victim. The effect was partially mediated by the victim's perceived attractiveness."

I found this fascinating - because in other words, the reasons for real-life bullying are often the exact opposite reasons for bullying online.  In real-life, it's often those perceived as introverted and less attractive that are bullied, but online, it's typically the opposite.

That doesn't mean one type of bullying can't happen in the other setting, it certainly does - but it's interesting that one incidence is higher than the other online and vice versa, isn't it?

Lastly, I found this study/white paper the most fascinating - it explains to me something I've wondered for a long time - why people you know to be otherwise very moral and empathetic people can engage in cyberbullying gangups, cheer it on, or give unsolicited "advice" to the victim that they should change behavior instead of the bullies?

The study/academic white paper is based on the work of Albert Bandura, renowned Social Psychologist explaining why otherwise moral people help the bullies instead of the victim.

The simple answer is - they exhibited higher levels of "moral disengagement" than others.

"Moral disengagement" doesn't mean they don't have morals, or even lack empathy - it means that when an individual's actions aren't consistent with their self-concept and their own moral code, to ease that cognitive dissonance, they disengage from their morality and empathy, through justification, rather than take responsibility - even make themselves the victim. 

In other words, people who exhibit higher levels of "moral disengagement" regularly suspend their morals and empathy through self-justification.

In the most basic terms, they were studying essentially 4  groups of people observed in group cyberbullying situations:

1)  The bullies. 
2)  The cheerers-on/hop-ons/victim-blaming "advice-givers."
3)  Those who did not get involved. 
4)  Those who stood up for the victim.

Though everyone has had at least one poor-coping moment of "moral disengagement" at some point in their lives, what they found on testing was that Groups 1 and 2 had higher/more frequent levels of moral disengagement, where as Groups 3 and 4 had lower/less frequent levels of moral disengagement.

Oversimplified, they have morals and empathy, but instead of adhering to their own stated moral code, they apply their morals and empathy based on subjective/random snap-assessments of what they perceive they "deserve."

So the  first 2  groups have a moral code that allows for situations that justify group-cyberbullying, but the latter 2 groups have a moral code that never allows justification for group-cyberbullying.

Even more interestingly, those with higher levels of moral disengagement will continue to justify their bullying long after the event, rather than experience remorse for their actions.

It doesn't mean they can't experience remorse, they certainly can - it's just means that in certain situations, they will avoid feeling remorse - and they will often continue to blame the victim long afterwards, even bully them further - just to shut them up so they don't ever have to look at themselves and address the cognitive dissonance between their moral code and their actual behavior.

And you can see how being online makes it easier to "morally disengage," for those already so inclined ;)

Fascinating stuff.

I also read 4 studies showing (varying by study) up to 80% of cyberbullying is instigated by females (often more subtly) and that up to 80% of cyberbullying victims were female.

HOWEVER - Females were twice as likely as males to stand up for the cyberbullying victims,  whether the victims were male or female - whereas males tended to "hop on" the side of (male or female) bullies more often than females.

*All 4 studies on gender and cyberbullying proved this to be true (though the percentages sometimes differed significantly).

Interesting, huh?

Having been cyberbullied before myself, after reading these articles today, I have just now finished parking in draft every more personal post I've written except the change in email addresses (and some documentation of a chronic cyberstalker/cyberbullying/impersonation situation :)

Email Address Change: Multiple PayPal Accounts Hacked Through A Specific Former Employer

Last night, a contract company (that I still occasionally pick up work for) emailed us that several contractors didn't receive their pay.  The email stated the hack was internal - someone used our contractor company and email passwords to get into Paypal accounts and take contractor pay.  I was NOT affected, but have my suspicions as to who's" internally" responsible.  Several of us reported some pretty creepy privacy/security issues last fall, but were ignored.  Of course they're now trying to pin things on anyone who stood up to them or reported it to management - it's called retaliation - Duh?

Regardless, I've asked the company to close my account permanently and I'm changing my personal email address for security reasons - I've seen enough at this company.

Here's the bounce-back email you'll receive when writing to my current email address.  If you are not this company, but would like my new email address, contact me via phone or through this email and I'll send the new one to you :) ...

As stated in my email, due to your email, last night, stating the discovery that several of your freelancers' Paypal accounts were hacked and thus did not get paid, last week (interestingly using XXXX passwords and emails) -  as well as prior experience on your company forum in November -  I wish to have my XXXX work account permanently closed after receiving my pay on Monday. 

Several of us warned you repeatedly about certain individuals potentially becoming a liability for XXX, but we were ignored, and now here we are - people's accounts are being hacked and not receiving pay.

No more chances, I'm sorry.  You should've done something before now.  No hard feelings, but XXXX is clearly not a safe place to work.

Please delete my work account and do not send me any further correspondence.

Sincerely,

Chrystal Chaplow

PS - I think after the Virginia Beach shootings of coworkers, and our pay being  hacked by someone internally at a contract company I still intermittently work for, I've seen enough - especially  online - I'm hibernating like Rip Van Winkle for the next 20 years lol.

No social media, no work forums - nothing.

(No worries, I contract for another company most days who are super cool :)

The world is getting a crazier, angrier, meaner, and more dangerous place and it's on both sides of politics - and most of the people acting innocent are the very ones responsible, so everyone's so shocked when they discover it's them :/

Though it may feel safe because you're in your home, even at work,  it isn't safe for anyone.

Please stop blaming the victims for crimes like these, assuming they brought hacks, crime, violence and bullying, online or real life, on themselves - and please be aware of retaliation behavior towards those who tried to report these things to management or authorities!  

(Reporting a crime to management or authorities doesn't make them deserving of false accusations, hacks, crime, violence, or bullying either.)


I was lucky this time, I wasn't affected, but some fellow coworkers were.

But this happens by the thousands to people, every day - and companies ignoring reports about certain others creepily violating privacy/security issues certainly isn't going to magically make those problems go away.

In fact, if they're allowed to remain in the work environment without consequence, not only will they get worse, but of course they'll try to pin their own misdeeds on anyone who reported them, to retaliate!

You cannot teach or train grown adults in ethics and integrity - by adulthood, you either have ethics and integrity or you don't.

All you are doing with such "training" as a consequences is teaching them how to better hide unethical, even criminal, behavior.

Just because you haven't been bullied, hacked or even shot doesn't make you a smarter, more diplomatic, tougher or a better person - you're just incredibly lucky.

Take care all