31 year old Scott Disick commonly known as Lord Disick caused mayhem on social media as he cancelled three appearances in clubs across the UK so he could attend Paris Fashion Week. The reality star has a long history of controversy lingering around him. Can you blame him? Afterall he is married to a Kardashian.
As a student of Southampton Solent University, I do know and value the importance of University and I must confess I was disappointed to turn up at Switch Nightclub where he was due to appear and was told he wasn’t going to be there. As a fan, I was disappointed but I wasn’t going to waste my night and I moved on to another club.
His disappearance sparked conflict on social media as fans took to Twitter and Facebook to express their disappointments. His manager publicly apologised on his behalf on social media however, if you are charging a minimum of £10,000 for an event, the least you can do is to inform people the reason behind your absence.
The management of all three clubs Lord Disick was due to appear promised to give everyone who bought tickets to the event a full refund of their purchase. Again people have taken to Twitter to discuss the lack of organisation and urgency.
A group of protestors were gathered at Ferguson Police protesting against the shooting of two police officers shot in Ferguson. Both officers were shot during a demonstration of the resignation of the Chief Police following reports he was racially abused by his colleagues due to his African American background.
This is the first demonstration since the death of the unarmed Black teenager Michael Brown in August. I am in no way condoning the shooting of the 2 Police Officers however I believe enough is enough. A few months ago, I wrote two blogs about the discrimination of unarmed teenagers in Ferguson and the call for African Americans to stand up and be heard.
I have come to a conclusion that racism is deep rooted in American culture and it is never going to change. In recent years, several policemen have got away with the murder of unarmed Black teenagers because they pose as threats, not because they are criminals and in all cases the policemen have got away with killing innocent people.
I understand President Obama’s frustrations about the killing of the Policemen however I believe in equality and if he is seeking justice for the policemen that were shot then surely there should be justice in place for the policemen that killed Eric Garner and Michael Brown but as it stands, that will not happen as they were all declared free so forgive me if I’m wrong but If policemen can shoot and go free then surely citizens should have the same rights.
Just like Malcolm X expresses his views on assertiveness by saying “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.” I am in no position to condone killing as a way of getting across a message however African Americans have been treated unfairly and in my view, If the death of the two policemen will finally get their voices heard then so be it.
This reinforces the work of Schelling ( 1960) who notes Negotiation is the only method of making decisions where interests are opposed. He goes on to state that there has to be a degree of coordinate nonverbal communication. In order to achieve this he adopts three key points which determines the outcomes of negotiation.
Development of Specific arguments – This involves the idea of discrimination amongst Ethnic minorities in America.
Development of long-term policies about roles, obligations and privilege – The US government needs to implement laws which favours both Black and White citizens. And give equal punishment to policemen as well as to citizens.
Mediaton of social change – Once laws are implemented that represent the lives of all race, Americans must then abide by those laws to bring about behaviour change.
In my opinion, I don’t think the Chief Police resigning was the reason why the riots begun, I think African Americans generally need answers to all the African Americans killed over the past few years in Ferguson. The shooting reignited a long-running debate over race and policing that has sporadically flared on social media since Brown’s killing.
Whiles browsing on Facebook a few weeks back, I came across an interesting page called ‘You Call Yourself a Photographer’. With over 4,000 likes on Facebook I thought it was worth checking out. Glancing though the page, I came across an image of a veteran who had wrapped his baby in the American Flag. The picture sparked controversy online as some people argued the picture depicted the American flag in a distasteful manner; disrespecting American culture.
People may have different beliefs and views about particular issues, however, it is clear that regarding this topic in question, not everyone agrees that it is simply an innocent photograph. In my opinion, this harmless picture was taken too seriously and uproar on social media does not reflect values such as freedom of expression which America claims to be built on.
In recent years, countless amount of Cyber bullying has been reported in the media and Sullivan (2006) clearly defines Cyber bullying as ‘a method of bullying made possible through the use of technology.’ Indeed, this picture could have quite easily been a figure of positivity but this was however not the case. Similarly, Bargh (2002) compared the internet to ‘strangers on the bus’. Relating this to the topic, due to the widespread of negativity and conflict over this particular picture, the victim of this bullying contacted Facebook to remove the Facebook page but to her uttermost surprise, nothing was done about it as Facebook disputed the accusation of bullying. Personally, I think this is the highest form of bullying, despite the fact that people do view things differently, this picture depicts a soldier that has fought hard for a country he loves and by wrapping his baby in the flag denotes a sense of belonging and love.
While it’s tempting to think the negative views of this image is as a result of patriotism, it is vital to remember Hosman (2002) warns us about the dangers of judgements and attitudes towards a particular message. Similarly, Lederer (1991) made some observations about the power of language and how it cannot be taken for granted. To make reference to the article, I think it is safe to say that people are abusing Lederer’s view about language not being taken seriously.
When I think of No-win-no-fee lawyers I instantly become enraged with the frustrating phrase ‘have you had an accident at work that was not your fault’ playing around and tormenting me in my mind. I think you will agree with me when I say listening to them drone on about how much money they could save you is enough to make anyone’s blood boil but despite their rotten reputation it seems they are actually more good than harm!
Every morning when I wake the first thing I do without fail is pick up my phone and get my morning fix of the news provided to me no questions asked by The Daily Mail. Embarrassingly my addiction doesn’t stop there, throughout the day I can be found copping a quick look to ensure I’m up to date with current affairs and joining in the debates through the comment box.
However recently my daily routine hasn’t been as satisfying as it once was – For the past few months my attention has been drawn to the amount of negativity and conflict the world has to offer. Call it naivety perhaps but it is a fact that the ratio of positive to negative features has shifted. A day does not pass without the headlines focusing on violent actions such as mass execution at the hands of radical extremists or fixating on how youngsters have been taken advantage of by people in positions of power. It makes you wonder the reasoning for this? Is it because there is more evil in the world today? Or simply because us humans are drawn in by the suffering of others and the papers feed of this.
Take today for instance, a story that stuck in my mind perhaps because it was a piece that could affect myself and any other British and EU citizens in the near future. Speaking to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, The European Commission President has called for the creation of an EU army as a response to the rising tensions with Russia. Jean Claude Juncker proceeded, “You would not create a European army to use it immediately, but a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.”
Following the news that 57% of Americans are in support of sending ground troops to flight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it appears that the UK are following suit with one in three voters backing the idea as well.
What is negotiation really about? For me, it means a conversation of 2 or more sides about certain issue that needs to be solved in a way where both sides are going to be happy with that decision. The Oxford dictionary says: discussion aimed at reaching an agreement. I guess I am quite close to the definition.
William Ury, an anthropologist, author of ‘getting to yes’, mediator, writer and speaker, who has been working with conflicts ranging from family feuds to boardroom battles to ethnic wars spoke at TEDxMidWest explaining that conflicts usually have side 1, side 2 with side 3. The side 3 represents us.
(photos from William Ury)
We are one family with many deep differences and to overcome them, the negotiation is not easy but it is simple. The secret to peace is us because we (us – neighbors, allies, mediators…) play the constructive role. The 3rd party is there to remind the side 1 and side 2 what is really going on and what it takes (for the sake of the future, the community or the kids…).
People need to stop fighting and start talking however it is very very very easy to lose the perspective during the conflict. This is why the 3rd side is present. Once someone is angry, the greatest speech ever told will be a regretful moment for the speaker due to losing the actual image within the content.
After a decision is made, declare a cooling off period
So what do we learn from this? I have learnt that mediators are a good thing, they are there to help us and realise the point of the conflict. Anyone can be the 3rd person. The listening is the key skills with a clear and concise communication.
What did you learn?
(originally published on interpr.wordpress.com by Marica Scevlikova)