How to never feel like you're friendzoned

                 Gentlemen (and women can take this advice too) the easiest way to keep yourself from getting in the friendzone is by never walking into it. What I mean is if someone tells you they just want to be friends and you clearly don't want to be friends, then don't. While it sounds ridiculous and a major jerk move, it saves everyone a lot of grief. First, it will keep you from feeling like you've been taken advantage of, regardless of the fact that the other person was very clear about not wanting anything romantic. Also, it will allow the other person to move on to someone who is not acting as an emotional crutch for them. It's not good when someone is acting in a capacity that normal friends would not act in. So if you just met a girl and you really want a relationship, but she does not feel the same, then just walk away amicably.
               A warning though, do not use friendship as a guilt tool. Meaning if you spend a good amount of time with someone and the relationship doesn't work out or the other person realizes you are not what they wanted, that is not an excuse to break things indefinitely. Of course you need to take time away from the person you cared about and some break ups are irreparable, but if you know things weren't working and friendship has been developed between you two, then by all means when you've rid yourself of your emotions become friends. In short, be selfish when it comes to affairs of the heart, but don't be a complete jerk to the people who have invested their time with you. 

The myth of the impartial educated white person

                                 Impartiality is the crux of academics. College leaves you feeling empowered to decipher between rampant opinion and cold hard fact. Even when dealing with the subjective territory of opinion, college makes you feel well equipped to be the rational voice of reason amidst a sea of bigots and zealots. Unfortunately these same individuals graduate from universities believing that because of their one African studies class and that one time they went to a multi-cultural food festival, they are now equipped to speak about cultural topics unrelated to them. This is especially prominent in white liberals, who believe "I'm not a racist individual, there is no way I'd misrepresent this issue." Furthermore, there exists a need for a "two-sided story", which implicitly creates a narrative that often supports agent identities. Suddenly what we find is that "truth" can only be dispensed from "calm" and "rational" individuals (who typically happen to be white). Minorities who candidly complain are quickly labeled as angry and irrational. The narrative is always "racism is bad, but..." Minorities are tired of the exceptions, we want our narrative of oppression to first be heard without a devil's advocate.
                       One might not care about the emotional and psychology needs of minorities. Regardless, the normative venues of information and framing of information make it so that racial biases exist in the resources we use to discuss many of these issues. Where Israel has thousands to spend on a reeducation campaign about Palestine, outside institutions often have to speak in lieu of the Palestinians. Where detailed statistics chronicling the academic failures of ELLs exist, we find no alternative searching for what ELLs excel at (hint: maybe it has do with Spanish?). The point is we're all swimming in the water, we're all taking in the smog and it has tainted our knowledge as well. Acknowledging this normative prison is an important first step to dispelling the notion of impartiality.
             What's worse is often we make decisions based on these "impartial" voices. A good example is when prominent University of Michigan Professor Victor Lieberman decided to do a small lecture during a University of Michigan student government hearing on the decision to divest from companies that support Israeli military operations. His intentions, while good, were ultimately biased and appropriately criticized by one of his own Graduate Student Instructors who helps him with the course. He responded back in turn, claiming that his lecture is the purpose of historical academia and academia as a whole. He claims that the issue with the critique is that it prevents the realization of "truth", which essentially makes the efforts of all humanities pointless. The reality is that while there is definitely value in attempting an impartial analysis of incredibly political and controversial topics, there is no way to learn from these exercises any definitive and all encompassing "truth," When someone like Professor Lieberman enters that arena and gives his opinion as a "voice of reason" or as an "unbiased observer", it subordinates the target identity and creates a narrative that legitimizes the agent identity for many of the reasons listened in the previous paragraph.
            This is not a call to remain at a stand still. Important decisions need to be made and our delegates cannot make these decisions uninformed. Having hearings where both sides get to speak unadulterated can help our representatives decide for themselves what is "truth" and what is "reason." Also, it gives our delegates the impetus to search out the voices of Professor Lieberman in their intended settings: academia. The end result may be the same, but at least we know we can remove our delegates. When we vote, we decide what is reason and truth to us. When we discuss difficult topics acknowledging our own biases is the first step to truth. But far too many white liberals believe their degree entitles them to a transcendent view on issues not germane to them. And when minorities speak vociferously, we are still viewed as irrational and uneducated. It is time we stopped listening to the white liberal about minority issues and asked minorities to speak with a promise not to play devil's advocate immediately (or often times in mid sentence) after they are done speaking.
             
                          

Inside Out and why flashbacks sometimes suck

                             Inside Out has a lot going for it. The concept is clever and interesting. The cast is stellar and it's Pixar so you figure it has to be good. But with the fame and reputation of Pixar comes high standards, and Inside Out unfortunately doesn't meet those standards. What I think really hurt Inside Out was their over reliance on flashbacks to provide a lot of story telling background that's supposed to incur an emotional reaction later in the movie.
SPOILER ALERT DON'T READ ANY FURTHER!!!!!

A perfect example how this telling not showing aspect is the character Bing Bong. Her entire relationship with Bing Bong is discussed via reminiscing with Joy and a brief flashback. This makes his eventual demise sad, but not heart wrenching. One might argue that the vagueness is intentional in order to allow us to project our own memories of an imaginary friend, but the odd specificity of bing bong and his magic wagon makes it difficult to do that.
                I feel the entire time the movie wants us to project ourselves into the characters, but everything seems too particular. Hockey is too particular a sport. Minnesota is too particular of a state. Riley and being goofball is too particular of a character trait. We can't pretend we're Riley or that Riley is us. Instead we just sympathize rather than empathize. And that's the main issue, sympathy is cheap. Empathy is where true emotional gravitas exists.
                My friend described Inside Out as meh and I unfortunately have to agree. Not horrible movie by any means, but definitely disappointing given Pixar's previous work.