Nothing but Farce

New twitter account preserves campus stereotypes for humour

Last month, a Twitter account which self-describes as a, “Local account for all things satire,” popped up.

So far this account, named Campus Crow, has posted 36 tweets indulging in StFX stereotypes, poking fun at some faculty, and more humorous content. I can’t blame anyone if they haven’t heard of this; Campus Crow has 307 twitter followers, and typically gets 2 retweets per post. They do tend to get an average amount of likes, usually falling between 30 to 60 likes or more.

Among their most liked content includes, “Finance Major Realizes Return on Bag of Refundables From StFX Hoco Not Enough to Cover Damages of Hole Punched Into Wall...” and, “Student Who Can’t Wake Up For 8:15 Class Attends an 8am Power Hour on a Saturday”, with 92 and 106 likes respectively.

A quick glance at Campus Crow might tip off some readers as being directly influenced by The Onion, a famous satirical news website. Certainly the headlines are inspired by The Onion, having the same sarcastic tone. The Onion’s articles usually come in two different styles: things that ‘everyone is thinking’, or professionally written articles that are hilariously untrue.

Campus Crow is emulating the former, but since it is related to StFX, the types of jokes they can post are stricter. Most of Campus Crow’s posts are related to StFX’s party reputation, residence stereotypes, or jabs at everyday life on campus.

As Campus Crow is restricted to Twitter and its small character limit, I’m not sure if it can really be called satire at all. With The Onion, the joke doesn’t stop at the headlines. The real satirical element is found in the content of their articles.

In the article, “Tour Guide One Stop Behind Clearly Giving More Interesting Tour”, the joke isn’t just that it’s a thought many people have had before.

The joke is in the continuation of this premise, by way of fake interviews and situations to prove that one tour guide was, indeed, boring. I

n addition, Campus Crow’s inspiration is criticizing the sensationalism common in news websites. Basically, satire is a perfect word to use to describe The Onion and other sites of its ilk. But when you don’t have the context for these headlines, the joke is left half-finished. Obviously, Campus Crow is meant to be a Twitter account posting quick jokes, using stereotypes and situations any StFX student could understand.

Do I find them funny? Well, I suppose so. I’ve seen all 36 of their tweets and most of them I found a little funny, but nothing made me really laugh. Honestly, the things Campus Crow chooses to make jokes out of might be a little too predictable to be effective.

Photo: Twitter @CampusCrow

So is Campus Crow satire as it claims? I don’t think so. To be satirical is to be critiquing something, and I’m not convinced that’s what Campus Crow is trying to do. That then begs the question, what kind of effect does this Twitter have on the StFX student body? Setting aside the fact that Campus Crow’s reach is relatively small, there is something kind of problematic in making fun of stereotypes without any sort of context. Even as a joke, stating negative stereotypes about certain residences without any kind of critique arguably promotes the stereotype rather than call it out. In between this semester and the last, StFX made some tough decisions about many residences. Lane is no more, and University Ave is now co-ed. There has been an obvious attempt to change residence culture at StFX.

Taking that into account, maybe we should all be more mindful about how we stereotype different residences and try to foster a more positive atmosphere. Although I don’t think that Campus Crow is very relevant when it comes to negative stereotypes (like I said before, the account is harmless and doesn’t have a huge audience), it will be interesting to see if this account continues to gain followers and see what part of StFX student culture it jokes about next.

Divisive Discourses

The underlying problems with identity politics

Humans, as social primates, require membership and responsibility in groups to feel a sense of belonging and meaning. It is a reality embedded deep in our psyches, stretching back to the days of painting in caves. And yet I feel that in some ways, these ancient motivations are at odds with what modern society currently offers. People are increasingly isolated, devoid of meaningful relationships and membership in meaningful groups. Social media’s prevalence has served to erode the social competence of a generation. Many people go broke just to educate themselves sufficiently to land a job that they hate. Anxiety and depression rates are skyrocketing. It seems that we are no longer living, we are enduring. Thanks to this new modern and depressing world we live in, we look to superficial replacements to provide us meaning, yet they only serve to damage us.  One of the manifestations resulting from this increasing chaos and quest to fill a void of meaning is identity politics.

Identity politics refers to the tendency for people to form exclusive political alliances based on a particular aspect of identity, and to lobby and work for achieving the perceived goals of the social group with which they identify. The result of this has been a widespread fixation on what separates us as people from one another, as people reduce their ability to think critically to the frame provided by their group. Combine this tendency with the already present shortcomings of modern life for some people, and it is a recipe for ideological extremism. This rapid breakdown of a cohesive national identity into sub-identities is eating away at rationality and causing mass polarization.

White supremacist, social justice warrior, radical feminist, postmodernist, racist, sexist, alt-right, alt-left, communist, neo-marxist, etc. These are labels which, if you pay any attention to the political spheres, you have heard applied to people in the news, on social media and in conversation. Undoubtedly there are times at which certain labels such as these are warranted. However, perhaps you consider that these terms are also applied ubiquitously to individuals and groups alike in order to disarm and delegitimize them for benefit of another group or individual.

Individuals in today’s identity groups are frequently static with their ideology and identify personally with it. This is unideal at best. When political discussions arise among ideologues, it is much more likely to devolve into an emotionally charged argument if someone’s ideology, their personal identifier, is being put into question. There is a shocking amount of confirmation bias, echo chambering, no exposure to opposing viewpoints and people who claim to speak for all of their ‘identity’. These bubbles are formed and can be hard to escape from. One should instead identify with the version of themselves which transcends understandings, beliefs and attitudes, never taking their status-quo for granted. It is easy to get stuck and comfortable in a given state, but this must be avoided. What is comfortable and easy is rarely worth doing.

Furthermore, the obsession with grouping and classifying everyone based on these identifiers creates an ‘us versus them’ atmosphere which only serves to breed resentment and deepen divisions. Everyone is different. People hold a collection of many different viewpoints, values and beliefs, some of which together may be at odds with a traditional ‘left and right’ spectrum. This shows just how arbitrary these groups actually are.

What transcends all these groups, divisions, and arbitrary differentiators is something that applies to everyone. Meaning. Belonging. Love. Responsibility. Purpose. We all inhabit the same planet, we all live what can sometimes be a tragic, malevolent existence. We should be working together to give our short time on earth new meaning, and that means breaking away the divisions of identity politics. Until we can listen to each other, until we can sit at the same table without yelling and until we can speak to each other on a wave length that will be universally understood, progress will be made for no one.

Some argue to be in the middle is to stand for nothing at all but in my opinion, to be stubbornly and unapologetically on either side is to not stand for one’s self.

---