Artificial super-intelligence (ASI) is a software-based system with intellectual powers beyond those of humans across an almost comprehensive range of categories and fields of endeavor.

The reality is that AI has been with here for a long time now, ever since computers were able to make decisions based on inputs and conditions. When we see a threatening Artificial Intelligence system in the movies, its the malevolence of the system, coupled with the power of some machine that scares people.

However, it still behaves in fundamentally human ways.

The kind of AI that prevails today can be described as an Artificial Functional Intelligence (AFI). These systems are programmed to perform a specific role and to do so as well or better than a human. They have also become more successful at this in a short period which no one has ever predicted. For example, beating human opponents in complex games like Go and StarCraft II which knowledgeable people thought wouldnt happen for years, if not decades.

However, Alpha Go might beat every single human Go player handily from now until the heat death of the Universe, but when it is asked for the current weather conditions there the machine lacks the intelligence of even single-celled organisms that respond to changes in temperature.

Moreover, the prospect of limitless expansion of technology granted by the development of Artificial Intelligence is certainly an inviting one. While investment and interest in the field only grow by every passing year, one can only imagine what we might have to come.

Dreams of technological utopias granted by super-intelligent computers are contrasted with those of an AI lead dystopia, and with many top researchers believing the world will see the arrival of AGI within the century, it is down to the actions people take now to influence which future they might see. While some believe that only Luddites worry about the power AI could one-day hold over humanity, the reality is that most tops AI academics carry a similar concern for its more grim potential.

Its high time people must understand that no one is going to get a second attempt at Powerful AI. Unlike other groundbreaking developments for humanity, if it goes wrong there is no opportunity to try again and learn from the mistakes. So what can we do to ensure we get it right the first time?

The trick to securing the ideal Artificial Intelligence utopia is ensuring that their goals do not become misaligned with that of humans; AI would not become evil in the same sense that much fear, the real issue is it making sure it could understand our intentions and goals. AI is remarkably good at doing what humans tell it, but when given free rein, it will often achieve the goal humans set in a way they never expected. Without proper preparation, a well-intended instruction could lead to catastrophic events, perhaps due to an unforeseen side effect, or in a more extreme example, the AI could even see humans as a threat to fully completing the task set.

The potential benefits of super-intelligent AI are so limitless that there is no question in the continued development towards it. However, to prevent AGI from being a threat to humanity, people need to invest in AI safety research. In this race, one must learn how to effectively control a powerful AI before its creations.

The issue of ethics in AI, super-intelligent or otherwise, is being addressed to a certain extent, evidenced by the development of ethical advisory boards and executive positions to manage the matter directly. DeepMind has such a department in place, and international oversight organizations such as the IEEE have also created specific standards intended for managing the coexistence of highly advanced AI systems and the human beings who program them. But as AI draws ever closer to the point where super-intelligence is commonplace and ever more organizations adopt existing AI platforms, ethics must be top of mind for all major stakeholders in companies hoping to get the most out of the technology.

Smriti is a Content Analyst at Analytics Insight. She writes Tech/Business articles for Analytics Insight. Her creative work can be confirmed @analyticsinsight.net. She adores crushing over books, crafts, creative works and people, movies and music from eternity!!

The rest is here:

Is Dystopian Future Inevitable with Unprecedented Advancements in AI? - Analytics Insight

Australians are inclined to wonder whether there is real understanding in the United States of the requirements imposed upon America by its world leadership, wrote historian Gordon Greenwood in Foreign Affairs magazine in July 1957.

At times there has been a tendency in the United States to assume that the essential function of an ally is to accept unquestioningly the American outlook and the American political tactic.

These words could have been written today. Australians are yet again left wondering about the wisdom and self-awareness of American leadership as the US stumbles in the face of public health crisis, prosecutes a trade war with the country that is most of the worlds largest trading partner, and sanctions International Criminal Court officials investigating alleged US and allied war crimes.

The 2020 Lowy Institute Poll, released today, finds Australians feeling unsafe, pessimistic about the economy and anxious about ties with China. These fears may have led to a bump in support for the alliance with the US: 78% of Australians say the alliance is very or fairly important for Australias security, an increase of six points from 2019.

But on almost every other measure trust, warmth and confidence towards our American friends Australian attitudes are at a low point. President Donald Trump remains unpopular with most Australians, with only one in three expressing confidence in him. The only world leaders who are ranked below Trump are Chinas Xi Jinping and North Koreas Kim Jong-un.

Australians are generally supportive of Trumps efforts to reach out to North Korea and build closer ties with Russias Vladimir Putin, but three-quarters disapprove of Trumps America first policies. Criticising the defence spending of allies, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and leaving the Paris climate accord all register very poorly with Australians.

Many more Australians aged 1829 years old have confidence in Xi Jinping (30%) than those that have confidence in Donald Trump (18%).

The Australia-US relationship has been under strain before. Many of the shifts in Australian public opinion today were evident in the mid-to-late 2000s. Then, too, Australians were disillusioned with the US and the war on terror, anxious about the climate, deep in a financial crisis. Those sentiments also dissipated with time. And Australias alliance has survived many of these rifts even the Richard Nixon years, when Australias then prime minister Gough Whitlam opposed nuclear weapons and wanted Australia to become non-aligned.

In 2020, warmth towards the US is at the same levels as in 2006. But trust has dropped even lower than that period to record lows only 51% of Australians trust the US to act responsibly in the world. This is more than 30 points below the trust that Australians expressed during the administration of President Barack Obama.

The youngest Australians polled, aged 1829 years, are particularly sceptical of the US. Only a quarter of this generation say Australias alliance with the US is very important for the countrys security, a view held by 57% of Australians over 60. And many Gen Z and Millennial Australians hold equivalent levels of trust in China and the US.

Many more Australians aged 1829 years old have confidence in Xi Jinping (30%) than those that have confidence in Donald Trump (18%).

When asked to choose the more important relationship to Australia, 54% of 1829 year old Australians say China, compared with 30% of Australians over 60. And seemingly more pragmatic, the majority of Gen Z (52%) would allow Chinese companies to supply technology for critical infrastructure in Australia, only a third of those over 45 would do the same. Half of the Boomer generation see foreign interference in Australian politics as a critical threat, compared with 28% of 1829 year old Australians.

Older Australians, who remember life in the Cold War, view China in a particularly threatening light, and seem less disillusioned with the US. The Lowy Poll shows that Australians trust in China is in free fall, and almost all Australians (94%) want to find other markets to reduce economic dependence on China. But the majority of young Australians (54%) say China is the most important relationship to Australia. By contrast, 64% of Australians over 60 say that the US is the most important relationship.

In some ways, much like the fluctuating warmth towards the US, these divides are not new. Unlike American views of foreign policy that are divided between left and right, the generational divide in Australia has been clear in the past on climate change and immigration, and now on great-power competition.

This years Lowy Poll was fielded in March well before the US descended into the depths of a public health crisis. Later polling in April revealed that all Australians were disappointed in the US response: only one in ten Australians said the US had handled the Covid-19 outbreak well, compared with 31% saying China handled it well, and 92% saying Australia handled it well.

Many Australians have been betting on Donald Trump and America first as an aberration that will be rectified at the ballot box. The past few months of pandemic and police brutality have shaken that core belief, particularly for young Australians. The reliability of Australiasgreat and powerful friend has long been a question, but it looms larger in 2020.

See the original post here:
Generation why? Younger Australians wary of United States - The Interpreter

If the current state of the world has you scared, angry or sad, Icant help. But if youre bored and its hard to imagine that boredom is not one mixer in the cocktail of anxieties during isolated lockdown Ican recommend an eerily timely new book, Out of My Skull.

With nary a dull sentence (Harvard University Press editors must have checked diligently to ensure that the authors avoided the most obvious of sand traps here), psychology professors James Danckert and John D. Eastwood trace the facets of a seemingly nebulous and trivial condition, pointing to methods of transcending the titular phenomenon. In this boring season, it feels meta to think about boredom and, paradoxically, not at all monotonous (just as reading about food is not fattening and watching sports does not improve physical health).

Boredom is a wake-up call, a message from your psyche telling you to do something different or just do something. But its not as easy as exhorting someone (or yourself) simply to snap out of it, the writers caution: We would not tell someone who is drowning and unable to swim to simply swim to shore.

Not in itself dangerous, boredom can trigger unhealthy consequences such as depression and anxiety, poor self-esteem, risky choices and a lack of purpose. Trying to escape it, we may fall into a rabbit-hole (internet addiction, excessive gaming, television bingeing), which masks but does not cure the predicament. The trick is to embrace boredom and use it motivationally: make lemonade out of your lemony mood by finding an activity that provides some kind of growth, re-engagement.

In crisp, jargon-free prose calculated to stave off any whiff of ennui amodel of academic crossover writing Danckert and Eastwood explain that when boredom makes us sluggish or restless, we should pay attention to it and understand it. Being bored is quite fascinating and maybe, just maybe, it might even be helpful. We require asense of agency, since When this need is fulfilled, we flourish. When this need is thwarted, we feel bored, disengaged. A call to action, boredom forces you to ask a consequential question: What should Ido?

The book defines boredom in myriad ways. To be bored is to be painfully stuck in the here and now, bereft of any capacity for self determination, the authors explain. It is alack of meaning, a state of disconnection, a time when our mental capacities, our skills and talents, lay idle, our mental capacity under-utilised, accentuated by deficient attention or abreak in the flow of thought. Four telltale signs time dragging on; struggling to concentrate; activities feeling pointless; and lethargy produce the uncomfortable feeling of wanting, but being unable, to engage in satisfying activity.

Psychological studies show that bored people, seeking relief, may be prone to self-harm, drug or alcohol misuse, problem eating and impulsivity. Boredom predicts problematic smartphone use, according to one study: The more bored you are, the more likely your attachment to your phone will be unhealthy and, instead of alleviating boredom, it will likely make things worse in the long run.

At the extreme, violent and psychopathic behaviour may erupt: a German nurse suspected of murdering a hundred people claimed he killed to alleviate boredom. In a study of Danish prison inmates, many reported that boredom and the desire to seek stimulation had landed them in trouble.

Some studies report positive consequences: people may be more philanthropically generous, to recover a sense of meaning that boredom occludes. (Perhaps that is why telethons tend to be so stultifying, the authors conjecture.) But boredom, stimulating a drive to affirm an attenuated sense of identity, may also provoke political extremism and tribalism. To sustain peace, Danckert and Eastwood write, people must be able to author their own lives and find meaning. Otherwise boredom will flourish and, in turn, give rise to a fascination with violence and the glorification of war. Boredom alone will not precipitate war, but it may set the stage: When bored, we cast about looking for something that will make us feel as though our lives have purpose. A peaceful society, conversely, provides plentiful sources of happiness and engagement.

The cultural history of boredom goes back to Seneca, who linked it to disgust: How long the same things? Surely Iwill yawn, Iwill sleep, Iwill eat, Iwill be thirsty, Iwill be cold, Iwill be hot. Is there no end?All things pass that they may return. Ido nothing new. Isee nothing new. Sometimes this makes me seasick [nauseous].

Charles Dickens gets credit for introducing the word boredom into English usage (in Bleak House, obviously). A smorgasbord of other terms and tropes include the German langeweile (literally, long while: interminably stretching time); in Middle English it was spleen, in Latin acedia (which became the sin of sloth, from slow), in Italian pococurante (caring little).

William James wrote of irremediable flatness; Sren Kierkegaard thought boredom was the root of all evil, as it rests upon the nothingness that winds its way through existence. Martin Heidegger describes a continuum from superficial boredom (such as waiting for a late train as time drags on) to profound boredom, which has no object or source. It is timeless and represents a kind of emptiness in which we get a terrifying view of reality. This existentialist morass, Danckert and Eastwood write, spotlights the crux of boredom: the sense that things lack meaning.

Humanists have generated a small but distinguished collection of monographs including Boredom: The Literary History of a State of Mind (1995), by University of Virginia English professor Patricia Meyer Spacks; University of Bergen philosopher Lars Svendsens APhilosophy of Boredom (2005); and Boredom: ALively History (2008), by University of Calgary classicist Peter Toohey. Out of My Skull extends this interdisciplinarity into psychology, although certainly Mihaly Csikszentmihalyis Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (1990), about happiness, positivity and fulfilling involvement with life, is an influential predecessor.

Indeed, the final chapter, Just go with the flow, uses a Csikszentmihalyian template to explain how we may surmount boredom by finding abalance between what the moment demands of us and our ability to skillfully meet those demands. We need a Goldilocks equilibrium just right so our experiences are not too simple nor too complex, either of which disgruntles. We must feel in control, with clear options and goals that encourage us to throw ourselves into the activity at hand; boredom-prone people are good at procrastinating, talking themselves out of embarking on things.

Our lives flow most effectively when we are focused, not distracted. If bored people are excessively self-aware and anxiously self-doubting, people in a state of flow may find that all awareness of the self dissipates and their experiences, even if they require skill and training, seem effortless. For a bored person, time plods on, but people in the flow feel liberated from time. Interest, curiosity, exploration, even just pleasantly quiet relaxation, all become possible, as they are not to the person suffering from boredom.

Randy Malamud is Regents professor of English at Georgia State University and the author of Email (2019) and Strange, Bright Crowds of Flowers: ACultural History (forthcoming).

Out of My Skull: The Psychology of Boredom By James Danckert and John D. Eastwood Harvard University Press, 272pp, 22.95 ISBN 9780674984677 Published 26 June 2020

James Danckert, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Waterloo, Canada, was born and grew up in Melbourne, Australia and studied literature and psychology at the University of Melbourne before going on to graduate work at LaTrobe University and then postdoctoral research at the University of Western Ontario.

John D. Eastwood, an associate professor in the department of psychology at York University, Canada, was born and raised in Toronto. After studying psychology at the University of Toronto, he went on to a PhD in clinical psychology at the University of Waterloo and now claims that having one foot in the clinical realm and another in the basic science of cognition shapes my academic career.

Asked what led them to the slightly improbable topic of boredom, Danckert says he feel[s] boredoms sting more than Iwould like and so want[s] to understandit, although adding that his brother sustained a head injury at the age of 19 and, during recovery, talked about being bored and hatingit, which led him to want to know more about how his brain had changed. Eastwood, meanwhile, was drawn to study the unengaged mind because of my curiosity about how the structure of thought impacts feeling, as well as observations of my patients who struggled with unremitting boredom.

As to ways of coping with boredom at a time of social distancing and other restrictions, Danckert suggests that if we can calm down and figure out what matters to us most, Ithink we can conquerit. Eastwood adds that we should focus on internal factors such as emotional avoidance that can thwart our agency from the inside and leave us bored. We have some control over internal causes of boredom, and self-determination is precisely whats at stake when stuck in boredom.

Matthew Reisz

Continue reading here:
Out of My Skull: The Psychology of Boredom, by James Danckert and John D. Eastwood - Times Higher Education (THE)

Last Friday, fans of shock-jockery, giving offenceand early seasons of The Apprentice received a major blow to their existence: Katie Hopkins, the hard-right social media personality, waspermanently suspended from Twitter, the platform upon which she built her international notoriety. While celebrities typically fade into the ether when banned from social media, all was not lost in the case of Hopkins. The former MailOnline columnistappeared to swiftly pivot to a new app, Parler, which claimed to reject Twitters perceived culture of bans and would let hersaywhatever the hell she wanted.

Hopkins' fans downloaded Parler and began following and supporting hernew verified account. She posted that she was considering taking legal action against Twitter, and asked fans if theyd be willing to help fund this.Acolyteseagerly agreed and began donating to a link she posted on the site. But after $500 had been donated, it was revealed that the account was not run by Hopkins at all, but had accidentally been verified despite Parlers allegedly flawlessprocess. The CEO, John Matze, was forced to post a public apology.

The Hopkins fiasco has helped catapult this otherwise low-profile social media app to greater attentionin the UK, with right-wing commentators, Conservative MPs, and jaded Twitter users creating accounts in recentdays. However, in other parts of the world, Parlers existence has been heavily checkered and already holds particular connotations. And while its popularity may not be equivalent to that of Facebook or Twitter, its prominence is rapidly rising.

Parler launched in August 2018 and was billed as the oneunbiased social media platform. It followed in the wakeof Gab, another free speech project, which launched publicly the year before. Like Gab, Parler presented itself as a placewhere no one would be banned, have their content taken down, or even experience a brief suspension. It quickly became synonymous with Trump supporters and home to Twitter-banned icons of the alt-right.

Parler exploded in popularity in May 2019, when Politico reported that Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale was considering setting up an account for the president to pre-empt feared censorship on Twitter. The appalso made headlines a few weeks later when Saudis supporters of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman joined the app over Twitter free speech concerns (the influx wasso largeit temporarily made Parler inoperable).

Instead of retweets, usersgive echos;instead of likes there areupvotes (much like Reddit); and the reach of each post is made publicly available, with a live counter of how manyusers have seen a particular post. Its easy to find anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and pro-conspiracy theoryhashtags and, though community guidelines do exist, the repercussions of breaking them appearto be non-existent.

Endorsements for Parler from popular figures on the left or the centre are nowhere to be found. However, the app does boast the approval ofalt-right starssuch as Candace Owens, Milo Yiannopolousand Gavin McInnes. Parscale has since createdhis own account and met with Parlers chief executivein the White House last summer. And while Trump himself doesnt have an account, several of his children (his close advisers) do.

In the UK over the last week, Parler has become a major political talking point. Right-wing pundits, such as Tories like to party too Brexiteer Emily Hewertson and formerBreitbart UK editor Raheem Kassam, have advocated using the app in lieu of Twitter, and at least 13 MPs appear to have created accounts. Conservative activist Darren Grimes posted on Parler last night: Ive just heard from Parler there have been 200,000 UK sign ups over recent days, using the hashtag #Twexit, the apps reliable rallying cry, which becomespopular every time a new wave of people migratefrom Twitter to use it.

Hewertson tweeted about Parler on Monday afternoon, encouraging users not to use the app as an excuse to be racist. The concept is good, she subsequently posted, Its just a shame that every app has to attract extremists. Would love to see some more people from the other side of the argument on there. Needs balance.

Although Parlers mainstream popularity in the UK is only just beginning, any lingering hope of balance has already been thwarted. Despite its lunges at self-awareness through its branding and message, Parler exists as an echo chamber forhard-right views.

See the rest here:
What is Parler? Inside the pro-Trump unbiased platform - New Statesman

President Donald Trump's re-election campaign is banking heavily on its ability to turn out what it believes is his excited base to defeat presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. And at the same time, he seeks to depress turnout for Biden by defining him in ways that are unpalatable to the key voting blocs he needs to win.

But Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot and putting his campaign (and the White House) on the defensive. Take the most recent example: Trump's statement at his rally Saturday in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that he had told officials to slow down the testing of Americans for COVID-19. Days later, his campaign and the White House are still doing damage control.

Statements like these leave Trump and his allies unable to go on the offense against Biden. Trump has, for instance, sought repeatedly to question Biden's mental fitness including multiple times last week. However, not only is Biden's health not exactly a major topic of national conversation, but, when it has been, the conversation has also spawned questions about Trump's own faculties.

It all feels very much like the same playbook Trump and his campaign employed to secure their unexpected victory against Hillary Clinton in 2016, down to their repeated claims that there is an enthusiasm gap between the campaigns and that Biden has "zero energy."

Get the think newsletter.

On the surface, Trump is not wrong; his base is far more excited about him than Democrats are about their candidate, just as in 2016. However, Trump and his advisers have seriously misread the electoral landscape in 2020 if they think the metric against which they should be measuring enthusiasm for Trump is enthusiasm for Biden.

Long before COVID-19 devastated Americans and the economy and the horrific public killing of George Floyd, the American electorate was tired and angry. It is tired of the incessant drama emanating from the current occupant of the Oval Office, and it is angry at how this presidency has played out because of that drama.

That is why new voter registration surged before the 2018 midterms and actual voter turnout 53.4 percent was the highest it had been for a midterm election in over 50 years, not because of overwhelming enthusiasm for individual Democrats.

Reliable Republican voters like suburban women and senior citizens have been increasingly drifting toward Democratic candidates in both polls and elections since Trump took office, not because Democrats have been winning them over, but because Trump and Republicans have been losing them. And a recent Fox News poll showing Biden with a 10-point lead over Trump among voters 65 and older only confirms the growing problem for him.

And these are not the voters he can count on staying home and not voting.

Trump and his team's plan to secure a second term by trying to drive down voter enthusiasm for Biden and depressing Democratic turnout is built on a shaky foundation one that rests on a stunning lack of self-awareness and examination. Certainly, Trump broke the mold of how presidents are elected and behave in office, and some Americans love that. But he and his team have failed to recognize how deeply other Americans do not like it, let alone acknowledge those who are fed up with the chaos and commotion.

Voters might not have much of an opinion about or even like Joe Biden, but they are openly expressing their desire to vote for him simply because he is not Donald Trump.

The president's campaign, which is being advised by Karl Rove, would undoubtedly note that, in 2004 and 2012, the challengers to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not benefit from anti-Bush or anti-Obama voters; with relatively low turnout, those voters stayed home in too great numbers, unconvinced of the necessity to turn out or of their own power.

But Trump is neither Bush nor Obama to the voters who have serious problems with him, and that line of thinking fails to account for what Biden represents to millions of voters: stability and tranquility after a years-long Trumpian tempest. He is, unlike John Kerry or Mitt Romney, a reminder of an era of relative calm.

That is why Trump's demeanor and governing style are self-sabotaging his re-election prospects. Look at Evangelical Christians: Trump's support among white Evangelicals has dropped by 15 points since March and now stands at 62 percent. The reasons seem to be his handling of COVID-19 and the fallout from the killing of George Floyd. While the polling reflects white Evangelical voters nationally, rather than in key states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona, it is such a steep drop that alarm bells should be going off within the campaign.

But with each and every outlandish utterance or tweet, Trump fuels the exhaustion and anger voters are feeling toward him, rather than toward the system, and pushes away voters from key voting blocs that he desperately needs to win. Biden might not have as much enthusiasm from his base as Trump, but Trump certainly is enthusiastically pushing voters toward Biden.

While he and his campaign naively still hope that they will be able to direct the focus on Biden, both the media and voters are not about to ask, in the midst of a pandemic, a recession and a conversation on police reform, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Original post:
Trump thinks he'll win because voting for Biden is boring. But voting against Trump is exciting. - NBCNews.com

By K. J. Moran

On Monday evening, June 22, 2020, the Board of Flying V Theatre Company terminated Cofounder and Artistic Director Jason Schlafstein following a weekend of sexual misconduct and harassment allegations published against him across social media. At the same time Associate Artistic Director Jon Rubin tendered his resignation.

Just three days earlier, the morning of Juneteenth 2020a day that should have been reserved to honor and celebrate the history and resilience of Black folks fighting against racism in the United Statesa thread appeared on Twitter accusing Jason Schlafstein of sexual misconduct. The anonymous first-person allegation claimed that Schlafstein had abducted her while incapacitated at a party and taken her to a second location without her consent. The thread also alleged he later invited this same woman to audition for the company and asked her out during the audition. Within two hours a screenshot excerpt of this thread was shared in public posts and private groups on Facebook, where the allegationswhich Schlafstein denieswere quickly echoed by others.

For years, working artists have relied on the whisper networks of DC theater to hear which theaters to avoid, which artists were abusive. But as the Facebook posts gained traction, dozens of actors and designers came forward, no longer whispering but screaming, demanding a statement from Schlafstein and Flying V. Multiple stories of Schlafsteins alleged verbal abuse and sexual harassment were shared, some dating as far back as his days the University of Maryland in the mid-aughts. Saturday afternoon Schlafstein responded on his Facebook page in a public statement, in which he apologized for the hurt he caused:

I take complete ownership of these mistakes, for which I have been and remain extremely sorry and ashamed. To be specific and clear, during that time I asked out women who were working for or were connected to Flying V or otherwise expressed my interest in them, and that was and is not acceptable. Im embarrassed that I had to make that mistake and to be appropriately called out to have seen the problematic nature of those interactions and that pattern of behavior. I am absolutely aware now how those actions, however unintentioned, fall into a predatory paradigm While I have never intentionally tried to make anyone feel uncomfortable at Flying V or acted with malice, this does not absolve me in any way of my errors. I do want to state emphatically that while I have been critically unaware of how my position has affected the view of my actions in a moment, I have genuinely never tried to actively use my power or position for sexual or romantic gain. I fully respect and understand my actions have been interpreted and received in that way, which is legitimate, but it is important for me to clarify that has never been my strategy or goal.

The post received extensive backlash and calls for his resignation, and within five hours Schlafstein deleted his account.

The Board of Directors released a statement Saturday night detailing the Boards decision to put Schlafstein on administrative leave:

The result of [the Boards 2017] investigation was a determination that Jason had inappropriately crossed professional and personal boundaries by expressing romantic interest in female members of the community in a way that could reasonably be understood as an abuse of power. After a series of meetings with Jason and other Flying V stakeholders, the Board decided that the issues identified did not warrant termination, but that any future recurrences of similar behavior could alter that decision. This determination was made in significant part due to a serious commitment by Jason to do the work necessary to understand his position of power within Flying V and to avoid actions that could cause any member of the Flying V community to feel that he was using his power for personal gain.

Community members continued to rally in the comments for Schlafsteins resignation or firing, particularly in light of the Boards admitted prior knowledge of Schlafsteins behavior. At a special meeting Monday night, the Board fired him.

Jason did not lose his job or his company because of one mistake or even a pattern of mistakes. The upheaval at Flying V is not solely because of Jasons personal failings or those of the Boardit is a direct result of white and male supremacys hold on nerd culture and American theater. Flying V failed its community this weekend and over the years because it was designed to fail since its inception.

Flying V has held a unique place in the DC theater scene for almost a decade. Since its founding in 2011, it has been the nerdy home of 90s nostalgia, video game tributes to Chekhov, comic book wrestling matches, and all types of theatre for people who dont think they like theatre. Its mission is to disrupt the structures in traditional American theater that have shown us the same tired interpretations of Shakespeare and Ibsen for centuries in favor of creating space for new and devised work. Its vague call for audiences to expect awesome, be awesome represented the quirky, geek theater Flying V became known forwhere high culture met pop culture and, inevitably, rape culture.

Sexism and white supremacy were woven into the DNA of Flying V by the very nature of whose stories were told, and who was chosen to tell those stories over the companys nine seasons. Whether intentional or not, Flying V created a space to share art by and for white men. It was not until the companys fourth season that they included women in director or playwright roles. While there have been a few Black directors and devisers, there has yet to be a full production at the company by a Black playwright. As the company grew, more people of color and women were employed as designers, actors, and even staff, but the people in power remained overwhelmingly male and white. As of January 2020, men comprised 71 percent of the staff, 58 percent of the company members, and 70 percent of the Board of Directors. No women of color are on staff, and no women were in the top three positions of the company until the recent hiring of their first female managing director.

At first glance, these may seem simply like hiring choices, but a choice in hiring or producing does not stand alone: it is indicative of the cultural mores and institutions that uphold those in power, even if they do not deserve to be. Jason is not Flying V, and Flying V is not Jason, but his legacy is deeply entwined with the gender and racial discrimination that was key to Flying Vs commercial and critical success. The thing about whiteness, and the thing about patriarchy, is that they are detrimental to everyone, including the oppressors. Flying V suffered in its first years when their first seasons were primarily written and directed by white men. Commercial success came only when they expanded the voices includedit is no accident that the first writing team to include a woman at Flying V created their highest commercial success to date (You, or Whatever I Can Get).

When I first started working at Flying V, I was struck by how male the community was. I always feel uncomfortable in predominantly male spaces, particularly theatrical ones, because I have survived sexual abuse at the hands of an actor. I asked a friend who had worked with the company before if it was a safe place for me to work. She assured me it wasshe, like me, had never heard anything bad about the men who worked there. The way she put it was, YES, Flying V has dude energy, but its nerd dude energy. Theyre safer than most men. And, like many of us, I assumed she was right.

Yes, I was surrounded by men. But these men were not as harmful as other men. These were men who, like me, enjoyed nerdy pursuits and believed in fighting for a common good. These were not the hypermasculine men to be afraid of. I had come to trust them. I had come to trust Jason, even asking him to be a reference for future theater jobs. I had come to trust Jon as an intimacy director and mentor, already hoping to hire him for future projects. Slowly, I began to feel that yes, this was a male space, but might there be a place for me?

I joined the flock at Flying V during their 2019 seasonfirst as front-of-house manager for Were Gonna Die, then as a writer on the devising team for Crystal Creek Motel in the fall. These experiences were made great largely by the women and people of color on the teams for these shows: Farrell Parker made me laugh and cry nightly in her performance of Young Jean Lees heartbreaking concert-play; Wendy Wrobleski and Zia Hassan slayed as the opening acts for Parker; Kelly Colburns pieces in Crystal Creek Motel were some of the most well-directed and achingly beautiful vignettes I have seen on a Flying V stage; Navid Azeez has taught me more about vulnerability, revision, and leadership than most of my college professors. They were the ones who created home for me and many others at Flying V. Why did it matter which white men were in power if my daily experiences with the organization were overwhelmingly dominated by creating art with women and people of color?

It turns outit matters a lot.

Before my time with Flying V, I was sexually assaulted by another student actor in the department of Theater and Performance Studies at Georgetown University. This man was classically handsome, popular, a former athlete and current frat brofor all intents and purposes, he was an alpha male, and I should have known better, because I had been told by other women to know better. This was not the sensitive creative or intellectual director who had been determined sexually safer by my peers. This was the rich, popular, white boy who went into acting for power and prestige. He was not a Jason.

But I met plenty of Jasons throughout college: soft white boys determined to become playwrights better than LaBute or Mamet, sad white boys who wrote poetry and lamented why women wouldnt date them, wannabe white director boys who analyzed theater and video games and wrestling with the same fervor as Jason, as many of the men in Flying V. These boys were largely perceived to be safer than the men like my abuser, since nerdy interests have historically put these men on the outskirts of society and perhaps made space for them to more readily empathize with other marginalized groups. This was also perceived to be true at Flying VI witnessed firsthand the passion of Jon Rubin, who has dedicated so much of his professional life to intimacy direction and education; Lee Liebeskind, former associate artistic director, who intentionally sought the voices of women and people of color in his curation of Crystal Creek Motel; even Jason, who from the first time I met him emphasized how much he wanted Flying V to be a space for artists of all experiences.

These men were aware of Flying Vs white man problem. They knew their theater was largely made by and for white men, and in the last few years, they had tried to address that head on. Even in this self-awareness, they failed us and so many who uplifted and supported their work. To me, this makes Jasons actions and the complicity of Lee and Jon so much more of a betrayal. They had played the role of the self-aware white man, and they had played it well: I had trusted these men and their word. I had come to the conclusion that Flying V might be growing into a place where all nerds could convene and create theater together, even if it was headed at the time by three white men. I falsely reasoned that men of the nerdy experience might benefit a little less from the power structures that have historically held up other white men, and take substantive action to include nerds and theatermakers of all experiences in their art. But power is a tricky thinga white man still benefits from patriarchy more than I ever can, and the isolation and ostracization of nerds is nothing compared with the structural misogyny and systemic racism entrenched in our society and our theaters. Even though Jason knew of his abuse of power, there is something inherent in the patriarchal structures that allows men to believe they deserve to continue holding power, if only they apologize, if only they are aware of their problems.

I remember being in a playwriting class once where I was the only woman, surrounded by men like Jason and Jon and Lee. Self-aware boys who were educated on their privilege, who knew they were blessed just by nature of their birth. They wrote about aliens taking over the earth, and fantastical versions of Jesus Christ, and dolphins in the Potomac River. I wrote about being raped.

It is a privilege to write from your imagination instead of your nightmare. And Flying V, for a long time, has preserved a space for white men to explore their imaginations while setting into motion nightmares for women, nonbinary folks, and people of color in their own community.

But it is not their community anymore. There have been calls for the dissolution of Flying V in the wake of these allegations, but I believe now is the time for the company to be entrusted into the hands of those in the company who made Flying V a successful and beautiful theater. It is a place where folks like Navid, Wendy, Zia, Kelly, and Farrell should be in chargewhere Black voices are prioritized, where women and other marginalized gender experiences are put front and center, where those in power put in the work to amplify everyone.

Flying V is not the first company where white men abused their power in our community, and it will not be the last. But, it has also been a place in my experience that has started to do the work of uncovering the structures that allowed to keep Jason in place. If we listen to women, if we listen to Black folks, if we listen to people of color, it can be the place where we make an example of how to rebuild a company out of fire. It can be the place where the phoenix rises from the ashes of change and begins to fly in formation again.

K. J. Moran is a DC-based playwright, performer, and writer. A graduate of Georgetown University, she now works as a teaching artist and writer across the District. Her work has been performed at Georgetown University, the Kennedy Center, Flying V, and Theater Alliance.

See the original post:
Why a whisper network turned into a tornado at Flying V - DC Metro Theater Arts

Corporate America is complicit with this culture of racism.

Benish Shah, the New York-based chief growth officer for business gifting company Loop & Tie, minced no words in sharing her insights on race, protests and the workplace with Palette Group founder and Creative Director Nate Nichols during Thursdays Allyship and Action Summit, a virtual conference of panels, fireside chats and breakout rooms designed to find solutions for diversity and inclusion in advertising.

A former Philadelphian, Nichols and his colleagues came up with the idea for the summit and its accompanying pledge for action on June 2, a day known to many social media users as Blackout Tuesday. With discussions on race and equity, the summit was designed to educate professionals of all backgrounds on antiracism practices.

In addition to raising awareness for allyship and action in the advertising industry, companies are being invited to sign a pledge for a more racially equitable industry, and their progress will be tracked via the Allyship and Action website.

Were developing a technology platform that companies will use to post their latest evergreen or tentpole campaign projects, Nichols told Technical.ly via email. Theyll upload their staffing plans, well connect with the individuals that were on the project for them to self-identify and report that data back up to the companies page. Well have a minimum number of projects that must be equitably staffed for organizations to remain certified. The goal is to have brands and agencies be transparent and hold each other accountable.

Shah participated in one of the summits fireside chats with Nichols Thursday afternoon on how companies can support employees from diverse backgrounds in this moment. Technical.ly tuned in for their conversation and caught these three key takeaways:

Shah believes that white people should not be resistant to correcting themselves when saying improper things about race.

Its more about saying, I clearly said something wrong, Im sorry, how can I do better?' said Shah, who recently published some guidelines for discussing trauma at work. If you become defensive, you lose them. Dont make the trauma about yourself. Its about genuinely showing care and concern towards the person thats affected.

That self-awareness should apply to people of other races, too.

I am a person of color but not Black, she said. This moment of history is about Black people. As a brown person, its something we tell our brown friends all of the time: We have to step up our own empathy and own decentralizing.

Shah emphasized the need for offices to be spaces free of microaggressions and inappropriate comments.

If you are a person talking about microaggressions, you dont have a safe space. If the microaggressions are, Can I touch your hair? or Im almost as dark as you! or You got this job? all it does is make it easy for people to be racist without calling them racist, she said.

Intentions to create safe spaces without action arent enough: If you arent stopping these conversations its not the right answer.

For Shah, white leaderships buy-in to changing problematic office culture is a key component of shifting negative paradigm.

Dont rely on Black team members to all your questions, she said, emphasizing the accessibility of Google as an information resource. Create immediate change. The urgency of the moment is at the place where people are fearing for their lives on a constant basis.

Shah noted that actions like acknowledgement of racial strife are more important than words.

You also have to practice acknowledgement, she said. A statement from the company is cool, but are you actually talking about it with your team?

For further reading about how to talk about race at work, check out the latest episode of The TWIJ Show.

See the rest here:
3 things company leaders should understand about race, protests and the workplace - Technical.ly

Jun. 24, 2020 / PRZen / ATLANTA -- The Power of Girls, an Atlanta-based nonprofit organization with a mission to serve and inspire young girls has partnered with Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Company for a fundraiser to help reach their June fundraising goal of one-thousand dollars. This initiative will support The Power of Girls mission to continue to empower young girls to develop into confident, well-rounded global leaders through mentorship, team building, and cultural experiences. Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Company has pledged fifty percent of proceeds from every candle purchased right back to The Power of Girls. Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Company believes it is important to connect with organizations that are making a direct impact in their cities.

"We are so grateful to Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Company for wanting to partner with us with our June fundraiser for our organization! As we are in unique times, this will be a great way for the organization to raise money for our new cohort and invest in other activities for the girls during their time with The Power of Girls," says Tameka Kee, Founder of The Power of Girls.

Each year, the young women who are selected as The Power of Girls program participants engage in a year-long "Power House" curriculum focused on developing confidence, leadership skills, and self-awareness. The programming concludes with an international trip where the cohort participants can stretch their horizons, continue to build their confidence, and gain exposure to global cultures on their journey to become young leaders. Following the trip, The Power of Girls participants become part of the active alumnae group where they serve as program ambassadors, sharing the pivotal moments from their experience with future cohorts. Why international travel? Travel is a way to view the world through a broader lens, understanding different cultures, and widening perspectives. For young girls especially, travel is both eye-opening and empowering. It allows for the opportunity to stretch comfort zones, build confidence in new skills, spark curiosity, and explore ideas about the world around them. For The Power of Girls, travel is truly a transformative experience.

For more information about The Power of Girls, to donate, and for this month's fundraising initiative, visit http://www.thepowerofgirls.org and on social media @thepowerofgirls. For more information on Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Company or to purchase a candle, visit http://www.shop1122candles.com/power-of-girls-fundraiser. Media inquiries, please email Candice Nicole at candice@candicenicolepr.com.

About The Power of Girls

The Power of Girls is a nonprofit organization based in Atlanta. With the mission of serving, inspiring, and empowering young girls to develop into confident, well-rounded global leaders through mentorship, team building, and cultural experiences. Each year, The Power is Girls selects a class of The Power of Girls to participate in a year-long "Power House" curriculum focused on developing confidence, leadership skills, and self-awareness. The programming culminates with an international trip. Upon completion of the program, Power of Girls participants become part of our active alumni group. For donations visit, http://www.thepowerofgirls.org.

About Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Co.

Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Co. better known as the best handmade soy candles ever poured. Candle lovers Kyara and Melissa met at the illustrious Johnson C. Smith University in 2009 and during their college tenor, they both discovered the commonality of the angel numbers "1122". 11:22 is a reminder that you are on the right path to turning your dreams to reality.

Follow the full story here: https://przen.com/pr/33348994

More:
The Power of Girls Partners with Eleven Twenty-Two Candle Company for Fundraising Initiative During The Month of June - Press Release - Digital...

Jon Stewart left The Daily Show in 2015 after hosting it for 16 years

Releasing a new movie at a time the world is facing enormous challenges is "like showing up to a plane crash with a chocolate bar", as Jon Stewart put it recently.

"It feels ridiculous," the former host of The Daily Show told The New York Times. "There's tragedy everywhere, and you're like, 'Uh, does anybody want chocolate?'"

The coronavirus pandemic, coupled with worldwide protests sparked by the death of George Floyd in police custody, have left few people in the mood for frivolity.

But despite his characteristic self-awareness, the release of Stewart's new feature film will be warmly welcomed by those who miss his presence in the US TV landscape.

Stewart, now 57, hosted satirical news programme The Daily Show for 16 years. He was a highly influential figure, attracting a dedicated audience who tuned in every night to hear his shrewd take on the day's stories.

By the time he left in 2015 (to be succeeded by Trevor Noah), he said he was tired and ready for a new challenge. Which is precisely why he embarked on writing and directing Irresistible - a comedy about political campaign financing, as told through a small-town mayoral race in rural Wisconsin.

The film, which stars Steve Carell and Rose Byrne, was due to hit cinemas this summer, but is now being released online instead. It may not have been the planned platform, but that's something Stewart isn't too concerned about.

"Obviously having a movie that you made come out online instead of in theatres is maybe the greatest tragedy that is occurring in our world right now," he tells BBC News, tongue firmly in cheek.

"I mean, I know people are struggling with the pandemic, and hundreds of years of racial injustice, but when are people going to really think about how I feel?"

Irresistible sees retired marine colonel Jack Hastings (played by Chris Cooper) go viral after making a passionate speech at a town hall meeting in the fictional city of Deerlaken, Wisconsin.

The online video is brought to the attention of political strategist Gary Zimmer (Carell), who travels out there to convince Hastings to run as the Democrats' candidate for Mayor.

Story continues

Zimmer sets about moulding Hastings into the perfect candidate, but as his campaign gathers steam, they face competition from Faith Brewster (Byrne), who has been deployed to run the Republican campaign.

One issue the film highlights is how much money can be spent (or arguably wasted) on political campaigns. Without revealing any spoilers, the movie's unexpected ending is something Stewart hopes will challenge the traditional political structures we all take for granted.

"I've spent a lot of years detailing the daily foibles, and that's kind of a narrow view and it's myopic," Stewart says. "So this was a way of stepping back and really trying to look at [politics] as a system. Sort of like the difference between being a weather man and a climatologist.

"So I spent a lot of years as a weather man, and I decided to step back and go 'why is it always raining here? What's going on?!' and to look at it from that perspective.

"And the key to it is to hopefully have the audience kind of believing that they're watching this other movie that's buying into all the tropes that we're given. So that when you finally reveal [the ending], you can have that moment of 'oh right, why do we accept this system as it is currently designed?'"

Reviews of the film came out earlier this week, and some critics think Stewart succeeds in his mission.

"Taken on its own terms, this buoyantly funny comedy offers lip-smacking entertainment that will surprise many with its skewering of both sides," said David Rooney in The Hollywood Reporter.

But not everyone was won over. "The supposed satirical attitude of Irresistible can't conceal the fact that it's contrived, unfunny and redundant," wrote Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian.

The Telegraph's Tim Robey said: "American politics do such a sterling job of currently satirising themselves, it's hard to know where an electoral comedy like Jon Stewart's Irresistible gets off in the hunt for added purchase. Watching it proves the point: the film tries to scale a gargantuan mountain of a subject, and just keeps slipping repeatedly down the sides."

The point about real-life politics going beyond satire has been made so often in recent years it's become a clich. Countless writers and comedians have complained it's difficult to make fun of a situation which they already consider to be a parody.

But Stewart thinks there will always be a place for it in society.

"[Charlie] Chaplin made The Great Dictator during World War Two," he points out. "I think there will always be room and a need for that type of commentary.

"But I also believe that it's the least efficacious agent of change. So while I think it will always be there, I also think it's what you're seeing now - direct action in the streets brings about change," he says - a reference to the recent Black Lives Matter protests.

"Comedy bits are fun to pass around the internet, and this movie belongs to that oeuvre."

Shooting a film is a lot of hard work, to put it mildly. Cast and crew work long hours intensively for weeks or months on end, before the laborious post-production process begins.

But asked which is more gruelling, writing and directing a film or hosting a daily talk show, Stewart says: "Hosting a show, no question. No question. You're talking about 16 years.

"Now, if I had to work on this movie every day for 16 years then I'd probably say that's gruelling too, but the one thing you get when you're doing a daily talk show is it's not just all foreplay. The film has a different feel, you're working and working, but you don't get that thing you get on a television show, which is the performance and the audience right there for you.

"And the reward of working every day, was the dessert of getting to perform it in front of an audience. In a film you don't get that, but you get the quieter pleasure of being able to spend more time crafting something with a little more nuance than you might when you're just trying to get that 6pm deadline."

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced cinemas would be able to re-open from 4 July, as part of the ongoing easing of lockdown restrictions.

But Irresistible is continuing with its planned online release this weekend.

"I'm excited for people to get a chance to see it, hopefully it'll be a nice distraction," Stewart says. "You always design a movie for that social response, you love to see it with a group of people, but I'm also hoping that it's pleasant to watch in the comfort of your own home."

Irresistible is available to rent on VOD platforms on Friday.

Read more:
Jon Stewart: 'There will always be room for political satire' - Yahoo! Voices

Every Seven Minutes by Ken Preuss

Once again, Encompass Productions brings us a selection of short one-act plays. The evening started with Every Seven Minutes by Ken Preuss Performed by Ryan Brannon and Cate Olivia Directed by Jonathan Woodhouse

Two godlike type people in the every seven minutes room whose job is to ensure that things that happen every seven minutes occur. For example, apparently, every seven minutes a double rainbow appears, and these two make it happen. The chap (Ryan Brannon) takes it all in his stride and doesnt care what the consequences are of his actions. So, every seven minutes he makes a person drown, but doesnt have any interest in who that person is or what their circumstances are. To him, its just a job, whereas the girl, who is new in the role, seems to have trouble disassociating her actions from emotions. She rebels against the system that affects the lives of random people every seven minutes, leading to an unexpected end of the play.

A very nicely written show that really addresses the idea of only obeying orders. The male character is, I guess completely amoral. He is doing a job, he gets paid and if there are consequences which there are then so be it, he doesnt want to know. The introduction of the co-worker with a conscience really affects him, and both actors bounce off each other nicely as she tries to make him think about the consequences of his job.

Spread by Robbie Knox Performed by Gabrielle Macpherson and Robert Gallagher Directed by Rachael Owens & Liam Fleming

A brother and sister are trying to write an obituary for Moira, As they work, they reminisce about their mothers funeral and this leads to a discussion about the definition of being an orphan. As they go, they try to think of what Moria meant to them and how she should be remembered. This raises the point of how people leave their mark on the planet and those around them not just during their lives but for generations to come.

Again, a well-written show with some interesting ideas. How do you define an orphan, and do we all become one eventually as our parents die before us. Then there was the wonderful definition of the church being like Instagram for old people. Robert and Gabrielle really come across well and have that wonderful relationship that is often the hallmark of siblings. As I get older, I think about what happens to me when I depart and I have to say that if my life can be summed up in something as simple and effective as Moiras is, then I will have had a life well-lived.

Spud by Robert Wallis Performed by Liz McMullen and Richard Coffey Directed by Rachael Owens

A surreal story of two potatoes that come alive in an oven. Considering the two have only just gained consciousness and self-awareness but seem to have a lot of inbuilt knowledge of the world, not to mention Shakespearean quotes.

This is a short play and the well written script reminds me, in some ways, of the whale and the bowl of petunias, in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The sudden impact of self consciousness on the two potatoes is painful, as we, the audience, know that no matter how much they may complain and shout, they cannot escape their fate. The writing and performances were both good and actually made me feel a bit guilty that I had eaten a baked potato for lunch.

Like A House On Fire by Keith Gow Performed by Rachel Nott Directed by Liam Fleming

A play that starts with the words I set fire to a brothel once really sets its stall out early. As Penny talks to us, she stops every so often to light and admire a match. We learn that she has set fire to many things, and used to take pride that she only ever set fire to one of anything. One tree, one car, one TV, etc. As she explains things, she challenges the audience to judge her and it is easy to do so. However, this production shows, you should never rush to make snap judgements, and people are way more complex than we give them credit for. She has real pride in her work and really comes alive as she describes what a fire meant to her both emotionally and physically.

What a powerful play to end on. Rachel was totally mesmerising as Penny and its interesting, the night after the new Alan Bennett Talking Heads season starts, this play could, to me, easily have fitted into that series. Amazing performance and writing combined.

Full credit to Liam Fleming for not only successfully hosting the event but also turning his very talented hands to directing, and signing off the evening in one of the best ways possible.

Even in lockdown, it is brilliant to see that Encompass have managed to bring together a talented group of writers, directors and actors to put on such a good show. Like everyone else, I yearn for the day, in the hopefully not too distant future, when we can all get back to theatres and sit in an audience watching actors move about a stage in full view. But, until then, Encompass have proved that you can sit at home watching a screen and be as excited about the future of theatre once more.

Review by Terry Eastham

Encompass Productions presents BARE E-SSENTIALS, the acclaimed online edition of Londons best-reviewed new writing night, returning due to popular demand! Featuring short plays from established and emerging playwrights across a variety of genres, get ready for an incredible hour of bare-bones theatre as each piece is performed live and beamed straight into your homes and devices. The plays submitted from around the world include:

Every Seven Minutes by Ken Preuss Spread by Robbie Knox Spud by Robert Wallis Like A House On Fire by Keith Gow

More:
Bare E-ssentials Livestream - Review - London Theatre 1