On Blankfaces
scottaaronson.com
scottaaronson.com
> Today, those same conformists in my age cohort are more likely to condemn the Harry Potter series … Naturally, then, there was nothing for me to do but finally read the series!
I think this type of smug contrarianism is more in want of a shorthand label than the age-old trope of bureaucracy-abuse. The type of person that feels the need to spend 1/3 of an opinion piece painstakingly justifying the use of a pop culture reference that, yes, he knows, would be outrageously juvenile and plebeian for a man of his station, and must be accompanied by a warning so the sheer dissonance does not distract from his very important point.
Surely a man of his “brilliance and creativity” would realize that “Blankface” will only conjure the image of an emoji in the minds of conformist plebs :|
From my (thankfully limited) experience of working with customers, it's occasionally a case of "I actually mostly agree with the rule and think you're causing a scene over nothing, but saying so directly would only make you more irate".
The anecdotes given have a certain smell like they've been filtered through viewpoints distorting things in favor of the author or their family member, and that in reality there's probably a reasonable alternate side. For example I'd guess "the blankface lifeguard made up a new rule on the spot that she needs to retake the test" turns out to be something like the pool administration introducing a new ability check for under-18s, and the idea that the author's daughter "passed" but got failed by the lifeguard is more along the lines of the author thinking she deserved to pass but the lifeguard being the one actually capable of making that decision. Or the "more and more convoluted bank details" anecdote - if the *same form* is being sent back then it sounds like the author initially missed fields on it.
Definitely not to say that there aren't people and scenarios just like what the author describes, and not to say it's not a real problem. But deciding that "thousands" of my interactions must have gone the way they did because the other person wanted to make others miserable feels like it's potentially taking the easy way out to avoid self-reflection or sincere attempts to understand. Reminds me a little of 18:46-21:52 in https://youtu.be/TebCHHCw9rY?t=1126
Indeed.
> The reason I disagree is that a blankface is someone who freely chose to dehumanize themselves
This sounds like an excuse that would work for almost any kind of dehumanization.
Although i think in this case its a bit of a tautology - the fundamental feature of beurocracy is its dehuman-ness. Any descriptor of that is going to be dehumanizing because fundamentally that's what its describing.
Using the term blankface would at most get you some blanks stares in return. Unless people mishear you pronounce the "n".
Brilliance and creativity correlate with nonconformity, but general intelligence probably doesn’t [0]. At least, in my experience, many people apply their (higher than average) intelligence primarily to ‘hoop-jumping’—complying assiduously with the norms of the system. When people with less general intelligence are sticklers for the rules, it’s usually because they aren’t empowered to make an exception: a fast-food worker won’t give out extra sauce packets because consultants with Ivy League degrees calculated logistics and revenue projections that can’t tolerate the slippage.
Given that smarter people can justify anything more easily, it stands to reason that idiotic rules would be more easily justified as one gets smarter.
[0] terms defined by one's propensity to obtain useful answers to important questions (brilliance), high scores on hard tests (intelligence), and surprising solutions for typical problems (creativity).
I agree that blank face is problematic, dehumanizing. Yet, Karen seems worse
What's dehumanizing is showing up for a BBQ in a park, and having a white woman waddle over and demand you show her your permits and then call the police, when she has literally no evidence whatsoever that you lack a permit other than your skin color and her prejudice *and it's not her job or business in the first place to enforce permits*.
What's dehumanizing is being an accomplished, educated Harvard professor and getting arrested in your own home because some white woman saw you at the door of your fancy home in Cambridge and thought you were "suspicious"
Maybe you should be more concerned about systemic over-policing of people of color, which seems to raaaather often be initiated by a white women minding their own goddamn business. Like, seriously: these incidents never involve PoC bringing in the police, and it's very rarely white dudes. It's damn near always white women.
If a white dude keeps the knee for 9 minutes on the back of a man and kills him … the white women are the problem.
They are the ones who dehumanise …
Sorry, but that’s a text book definition of misogyny: hatred or contempt for women or girls. It is a way of keeping women at a lower status than men.
In any case: the term "Karen" well before it was an internet meme was coded language for people of color to talk about white women exploiting their gender and racial privilege to boss PoC around when they're doing something the Karen doesn't like. --- Edit: my bad, I had Karen confused with "Becky." Becky is the term used by PoC to describe privilege-abusing white women. ---
Sidewalk Susie, Permit Patty, and BBQ Becky. All white women confronting people of color for doing things they don't like, bossing them around and when that doesn't work, siccing the police on them, because they know that cops come running for white women. No "blankfaces" to be seen.
It's also used by people in the service industry to describe white women who try to order them around and are abusive because they think they're entitled to special treatment. Karen is a Karen not because she wants to "speak to the person in charge" but because she thinks she's special and important...and in turn demands to speak to people in charge. A store or restaurant employee who loses their job if they don't follow a company policy is not a blankface.
I had no idea.
> Karen is a Karen not because she wants to "speak to the person in charge" but because she thinks she's special and important...and in turn demands to speak to people in charge.
I feel like that was the original use of the term and then it grew to anyone who wants to "speak to the manager" and then to white women being racist.
> A store or restaurant employee who loses their job if they don't follow a company policy is not a blankface.
Depends on the policy really.
I have to say it‘s amazingly well crafted and holds up as world literature.
Important: Voldemort just gets his power from people who go along, who dehumanize … We need to stand together despite all of our differences. Harry is not the chosen one or has any special power. There are no clear good and evil lines (it’s complex: the most impressive, likable and heroic character after the last book is Severus Snape :) that twist really got me.
Say what you want about Rowling, but her storytelling is amazing (playing with troupes and expectations).
There are some cringe worthy parts, yet any of the great literature works I reread has them. (Lord of the Rings, the great gatsby, how to kill a mockingbird… )
The wiki entry is a quick read, and he categorizes jobs that really don't improve the world, thus they are Bullshit Jobs that drain the economy. The challenge of course is where to draw the line....