TikTok’s Rise To Fame

TikTok started as a merger between two incredibly popular apps- Musical.ly and Douyin. Both were apps where users could create and view short videos. These videos ranged from dancing to lip-syncing to humor. Soon, Douyin would buy Musical.ly and create the app now known as TikTok to the western world. (It is still Douyin in China). The parent company of Douyin, ByteDance, created a clever marketing campaign, advertising TikTok all over Snapchat and YouTube, apps frequented by teens. By the time 2019 rolled around, it was the 4th most popular download on Apple iPhones. It is now available in 154 countries and has 39 languages as options. 

What makes it so addicting? 

TikTok, as you may already know, is highly dependent on algorithms to tailor your For You page to exactly what you want to see. A quote from the New Yorker puts it perfectly: “TikTok orders you dinner by watching you look at food.” Alongside that, the length of the videos often holds viewers' attention for longer, letting you scroll for hours on the app without losing interest. 
​

Music and TikTok

TikTok’s most popular videos tend to be dance videos or just videos set to music. Many songs have gone viral off the app, giving lesser-known creators access to fame, popularity, and even real record deals in real life. Songs like Panini by Lil Nas X, Lalala by Y2k, and bbno$, as well as older songs like Obsessed by Mariah Carey are just a few of the songs that have gone viral on the app.

Controversy

Most recently, the viral app has been banned twice in India. The most recent ban, along with many other Chinese apps, was after a border dispute where 20 Indian soldiers died. The app. There have been many concerns raised over the app with data collection all over the world. The Wall Street Journal writes: “U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has indicated the Trump administration is considering limiting U.S. users’ access to the popular video-messaging app TikTok. The Chinese-owned company has faced scrutiny in Washington as concerns grow that Beijing could tap the social-media platform’s information to gather data on Americans.” In Australia, similar concerns have been raised, with the Guardian reporting: “Liberal senator Jim Molan made the comments to Guardian Australia after Nationals MP George Christensen accused TikTok of being “used and abused” by the Chinese Communist party and called for it to be banned.”


Regardless of its controversies, TikTok remains ever popular among Gen Z. The future of the app is yet to be determined, but it will definitely be remarkable. ​

​What is Judaism?

Judaism is an ethnoreligion. The reason Judaism is an ethnoreligion is because unlike other major religions, Judaism was not spread by force, but instead by genetics. Judaism includes many types of Jews, such as Mizrahim (stayed in the Middle East after exile), Sephardim (Jews that moved to Spain, Portugal, or northern Africa after exile) and Ashkenazim (Jews that moved to Europe after exile). These are the main Jewish groups, and all have similar DNA features. All these groups have distinct cultures, as well as sharing the Jewish culture. Most people in these groups also have DNA that is between Middle Eastern, and where they moved after exile.

However, there are also converted Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, and more.


What is antisemitism?

Antisemitism is hatred or discrimination against Jews, specifically because of their ethnicity. It is rooted in beliefs that Jews are powerful, rich, and greedy, and want to take over the world. The Holocaust is one of the most extreme examples of this, however antisemitism is very prevalent and has existed for a very long time. Antisemitism is often called history’s oldest hatred. When Jews originated in Judea- (modern day Jerusalem) Jews were often persecuted or forced to convert to other religions. With the rise of Christianity, hatred of Jews became more widespread, as Jews were accused of killing Jesus, spreading plagues, and killing babies. Because of this, Jews were unable to get citizenship to many European countries, and were forced to distinguish themselves from non Jews. In Arab countries, many people did not believe in self determination and thought that Jews were sub-par, murdering or converting Jews.


Modern antisemitism

Antisemitism is still common today, as in the USA, 57.8 percent of religion based hate crimes are antisemitic. Antisemitism is rising, and there seems to not be consequences. Antisemitism is praised, and Jews are safe nowhere. 97% of Jewish college students have experienced antisemitism on campus. However, this is barely talked about.


How you can help

Ways to help lower antisemitism are to hold antisemites accountable, listen to Jewish voices, correct people with harmful opinions, and support Jews’ right to self determination and to safety. Also, educate yourself further by reading books by Jews, documentaries on antisemitism, etc.


“What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews.”

― Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl

We should all be familiar with the Black Lives Matter movement by now. This revolutionary movement has taken a huge toll on Gen Z’s political beliefs and overall interest in politics. While that is all good and well, there is definitely an issue here that needs to be addressed: Gen Z’s tendency to turn to humor. 

Don’t get me wrong; I am definitely a fan of coping with my problems with a self-deprecating joke or two. However, in this case, people are degrading and making fun of innocent lives that were wrongly taken. What change is being made when someone adds “arrest the killers of Breonna Taylor” after a meaningless joke? What change is being made when someone posts a TikTok saying “this video has an ungodly amount of shares because black lives still matter” for clout? What change is being made when someone signs the Manny flag petition instead of the Justice for Toyin petition?

Clout chasing, quirky captions, and memes are not how anyone should demand justice or make a difference. They are how people devalue and exploit the lives taken by police brutality and white supremacy. This “coping” mechanism has proven to be inconsiderate to the many black lives out there. The worst part of this “coping” mechanism is that racism isn’t something anyone is meant to cope with. It’s meant to be uncomfortable and uneasy. How else are we to grow and realize that the world needs to change? Racism has been around for too long and far too many people have suffered at its hands. The last thing we need to do is bring hurtful and demeaning jokes to the movement trying to protect those lives.

Why is it so hard to demand justice without all this faux activism? Using Breonna Taylor’s name or the BLM movement to increase your social media following is as disgusting as it gets. It’s a shame that even dead, black lives don’t matter enough to be taken seriously. Belittling someone’s entire life and death to a meme is as disrespectful as a person can be. Spreading the phrase “Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor” for shares on social media isn’t helping her or anyone else get any closer to justice. Instead, try saying “Arrest Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison, and Myles Cosgrove” because too many people don’t even know the names of her killers. Spreading this phrase will help destroy the anonymity of those who wronged her.

I understand that some of the tweets and Tiktoks are well-intentioned and are just trying to spread awareness. However, this is not the most productive way of doing it. Jokes and memes don’t provide any information or resources beyond “coping.” The best things to do are to listen, learn, sign petitions, and do anything that will help create an actual difference. 






​

​The New York City Department of Education, simply referred to as the DOE, is the largest school system across the nation, with a whopping 1.1 million students in approximately 1,866 schools, including 260 charter schools. Given these statistics, a typical school day contains crowded hallways, lunch rooms, staircases, and in some cases, classrooms. The mode of transportation for most students involves taking MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) buses and trains with a free student MetroCard provided by their school. Mornings are frenetic; students and workers surge into their desired buses and trains to avoid being late, squeezing themselves into the vehicle while struggling to clutch a nearby pole for balance. On unlucky, yet frequent days, MTA trains experience delays, whether it results from construction at a train station or an incident, thus leading to additional congested vehicles as more people wait at their nearest bus stop or train station.

​The commute for some students can range from a 10 minute bus ride to an hour train ride, depending if they are travelling to a different borough or if the school is simply too far from their house. Consequently, NYC students wake up at unreasonable time frames, such as 5 AM, to prepare themselves for their school day, and reach home at around 6 PM, if involved in extracurriculars or the school has late dismissal times.

From the moment the DOE was founded in 2002, this became a normal routine for students and teachers. As the fourth most populous state, crowded trains and schools are inevitable in NYC. This is our lifestyle that other states fail to understand, and it is impossible to think of something different.

As COVID-19 cases gradually entered NYC, Mayor Bill de Blasio temporarily closed all NYC public schools on March 15, 2020 to April 20, 2020. Weeks before returning back to school, Bill de Blasio announced the return date would extended to May. Weeks later, the mayor concluded that NYC schools would continue remote instruction until the end of the school year.

Plans on reopening schools have stirred contentious conversations between students, teachers, and administrators, as well as the governor, mayor, press, and authorities outside NYC. Above all the various difficulties that would prompt a difficult transition to a classroom environment, safety is of cardinal concern. Some particular ideas suggested by the mayor include reducing the classroom size, spacing out desks, requiring masks, and having a blend of remote learning and attending school. Realistically speaking, these alternatives would likely contribute to a second wave of COVID-19 in NYC. As the largest public school system in the US, attempting to control classroom sizes and crowded school hallways is nearly impossible. The reality is that NYC schools were not created for social distancing.

Mayor de Blasio is confident that if schools are kept in a sanitary condition while strictly social distancing, it would be safe to resume an in-person atmosphere. However, some history of NYC schools have not fulfilled its safety requirements. In 2017, 18-year-old Abel Cedeno was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing two fellow students at the Urban Assembly School for Wildlife Preservation. In 2019, a teacher at Belmont Preparatory High School was arrested for child pornography cases. What’s more, sexual misconduct cases between students and staffers have risen to 50 percent across NYC schools in 2020. There are numerous sexual assault cases, rapes, offenses, and even racism taking place in schools, so the concern of safety has long been an issue before the wake of COVID-19. How can we truly ensure that students are safe, beyond just wearing masks and social distancing?

Due to the lost revenue from COVID-19, budget cuts have made educators question how schools would operate in a classroom environment. With after-school enrichment programs having budget cuts, such as Schools Out NYC (SONYC), an after-school program that exposes middle school students to leadership activities, sports, and the arts, as well as the reduction of arts education budgets, how would NYC schools even look like if it were to open?

Despite the MTA being its own corporation, it is crucial for the functioning of the DOE simply because it gets students to school. During the peak of COVID-19, the MTA offered a sympathetic gesture of free bus rides since unemployment rates intensified. Now, the corporation is experiencing a financial crisis without much federal aid. They are losing almost $200 million on a weekly basis and are considering raising fare prices. When reopening schools, the consideration of the MTA is crucial. How will students have access to free metro cards if fare prices increase?

​The DOE is currently conducting a survey for parents and students to determine their final decision on reopening schools. The options are either attending school virtually or having a blend of in-person and remote learning environments. Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to announce this heavily debated issue by September, leaving students and parents with unanswered questions during the time where they would prepare for the following school year.


Sources:

https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/reports/doe-data-at-a-glance https://nypost.com/2020/04/12/sex-misconduct-complaints-up-more-than-50-percent-acr oss-nyc-schools/ https://gothamist.com/news/mta-losing-200-million-every-week-thanks-fiscal-tsunami-ca used-pandemic

By Maria Rizwan.


What is ‘SOLIDARITY’?
Heralded on the 18th of March 2020, SOLIDARITY is an international endeavour brought together by the World Health Organization, WHO, to reconnoitre the effects of previous efficacious drugs on the novel corona virus. Employing the repurposing method, they aim to narrow down the potential candidates for the pending cure. Drug repositioning or repurposing is the strategy of salvaging a licensed drug for a different purpose than its initial one. It is the most auspicious measure to execute amidst a pandemic as drug development could grasp a few years or so and staggering amounts of money.

Over 100 countries collectively are participating in rush to seek asylum from the wreaked chaos; to list a few: South Africa, France, and Iran. Many of which who are also financially subsidizing this effort. During March, funds from 203,000 individual donations, charitable organizations, governments and 45 nations, leading management and finance summed up to $108 million USD. This coalition aids in acquiring required PPE equipment or rather supply of the to-be-tested drugs.

The nominees of the repositioning trials consist of Remdesivir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Interferon beta-1a and Hydroxychloroquine. They are the illustrious miracle drugs that have battled a variety of illnesses, holding great potential to unlock desirable behaviours against SARS-CoV-2, the corona virus.


Rationale and Nature of Study

They say, ‘drastic times call for drastic measures’, befitting our response to the pandemic and lockdown. Similarly, as owed to the unfortunate circumstances, the study is advancing at a fastidious pace. A fastidious pace may possibly result arbitrary findings, however a balance of order is retained. Although, randomized clinical trials take a plethora of years to design and conduct, SOLIDARITY will condense the stereotypical timings by 80%.

Exercising an ‘Adaptive Design’, alterations are on the whim. As results emerge, the trial designs are revised to correspond with clinical necessities. The trial may conceivably reduce durations and subjects in hope of accruing expenditures if interim results are negative. The sooner fruitful findings are attained, the sooner modifications can be made to the international locations of the megatrial, to further ensue anticipated outcomes and cease the tests.


Individual participation

Adults ≥ 18 years of age admitted as of COVID-19 in participant hospitals of SOLIDARITY, are eligible to participate. Accordingly, then they are requested for consent by a brief of potential risks and gains of the trial. Initially, basal checks are recorded digitally and monitored by a medical team allotted to the patient, to supervise any inapt treatments to their systems or any underlying health issues, namely diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease and asthma, extending to HIV and tuberculosis in the African region. The enrolment and height of nursing of the patient is determined by the gravity of illness, accounted on entry by shortness of breath, supply of oxygen, ventilator requirement, and, if lungs imaged, major bilateral abnormality.

Following the vitals and methodical check-throughs, patients are randomly allocated by a computer into either of the 4 conditions. Consisting of Local standard care (control) or local standard care in addition to either: Remdesivir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Interferon beta-1a and Hydroxychloroquine.

An independent group of experts notably known as The Global Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, witness the interim trial analyses. Participant groups may acquire further quantitative and qualitative data to maintain an organized research.

Innominate information of the patients is accumulated only at two checkpoints: the randomization stage and when the victim is discharged/passes. Entailed by the drug doses and its span of consumption, whether ventilation or intensive care was provided, and it’s start date, date of discharge or death and its cause.

As of 3rd June, the SOLIDARITY trial has been observed by nearly 35 nations, in which over 400 hospitals are actively recruiting participants. A dozen more show interest in partaking but are yet to join. WHO is exhorting their pending participation by providing the chosen drug supplements, identification of participant hospitals, training on digital randomized allocations and data systems, and ethical and regulatory approvals of the WHO core protocol.


IV: The Drugs

• Remdesivir (Veklury)

Alternatively termed as GS-5734, Remdesivir is an anti-viral drug developed by the company Gilead. More commonly known as the drug proven worthy against the Ebola virus, though the triumph was short-lived and limited. Nevertheless, it is also generating promising behaviours against SARS and MERS both, shaping hopes for the fight against COVID-19.

Dating back to 2017, a paper published by the Journal of Science and Translational Medicine noted that Remdesivir may lose efficacy against the disease as it or its symptoms’ duration lengthens. Concluding that it may prevail to be efficient solely in early course of the disease or with no (asymptomatic)/less symptoms. However, it wasn’t the same case for Ebola. Therefore, the nature of Remdesivir against the ever-so-evolving SARS-CoV-2 is indeterminate.

• Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Kaletra)

Entitled as one of the safest and elemental medications under the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, the LPV/r combination of HIV/AIDS licenced medication is notoriously known in the markets as Kaletra. The company, Abbott Laboratories initially developed the drugs separately but observed greater heights of success when amalgamated in fixed amounts. Lopinavir is an inhibitor of the HIV-1 protease, retroviral aspartyl, counteracting it from causing further harm. On the other hand, a small dose Ritonavir suppresses an enzyme called CYP3A functioning as a metaboliser for Lopinavir. Therefore, Ritonavir allows Lopinavir to prevail in the system by slowing its breakdown.

An investigation conducted back in March clouds doubts in the minds of many. The trial’s paper states the study was steered on a 1:1 ratio with a set of control participants. They examined the efficacy of the HIV/AIDS combo of severe SARS-CoV-2 infectees, but unfortunately did not observe a clear distinction between its effect and the control, standard care. Nonetheless, it was a relatively small study summing up to merely 199 participants, hence sparking controversy.

• Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil)

Granted the SOLIDARITY trials were set to be resumed with Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) solely pursued. HCQ is a chief combatant against autoimmune diseases, rheumatic disorders and certain types of malaria.

Information on HCQ is quite limited due to its early discontinuation status. As of June 17th, WHO announced the suspension of the HCQ-arm trials. Advised by the Executives and principle investigators, interim-evaluated data concluded no difference in mortality rates when compared to local standard care. In light of the public’s dubiety, it was also briefed that patients midst an HCQ course may continue or inhibit their course at their physician’s discretion and that pre/post-exposure prophylactic treatments for COVID-19 patients are permissible.


4) Interferon beta-1a (Avonex)

Although interferon beta-1a is prescribed to the patients with LPV/r, it is an efficacious anti-viral protein that works relatively well against other diseases. It’s most commonly used to treat multiple sclerosis as it condenses the relapse rate.

Treatment navigated by this combination successfully suppresses viral loads in all clinical specimens (materials derived from patients as samples), namely: nasopharyngeal swabs, posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and stool tests, merely 8 days from the prescription commencement date. Moreover, it alleviates symptoms fastidiously in barely 4 days and abridges IL-6 levels.

A study conducted on the prognosis of differed Interleukin-6 levels found that, high IL-6 levels predict upcoming respiratory failure accurately and assist physicians in prophylactic treatments, therefore deeming its account to be crucial in Intensive Care Units and relevant facilities. Owed to the combination, hospital stays have been shortened and controlled.

Not only is this triple blend a contemporary candidate for SARS-CoV-2 but for MERS additionally as well. An ongoing study, prominently known as MIRACLE (MERS-CoV Infection treated with A Combination of Lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β1b) has been continuously testing on this combo’s impact on the MERS corona virus since 2016. However, its promise is yet to be proven.


Withal Hydroxychloroquine, Interferon beta-1a has been excluded from SOLIDARITY trials. As verbalized by WHO, “The International Steering Committee formulated the recommendation in light of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine vs standard-of-care and for lopinavir/ritonavir vs standard-of-care from the Solidarity trial interim results, and from a review of the evidence from all trials presented at the 1-2 July WHO Summit on Covid-19 research and innovation.”.

Considering SOLIDARITY’s International Steering Committee’s suggestion, WHO, at July 4th, had discontinued the usage of Interferon beta-1a against primal COVID infections. Interim data once again, displayed no progress in condensing mortality rates.

---
​
The nature of SOLIDARITY is obscure and cannot be foreseen, but just as humanity lucratively accommodated to the new norms, as will the Megatrial. The development of the vaccine can only be encouraged with harmony. Coherently, from the ends of the world, we can bring together the end of this catastrophe.

Boycotting Fast Fashion: A Conundrum for Conscious Consumption

The discourse on the unethicality of fast fashion has been rampant across media in the past few months. This has made me feel a lot of things. It all began with a dire sense of alarm when a friend pointed out that the clothing website I was using to pine over cute crop tops was responsible for the exploitation and mistreatment of labourers. Shortly after, I was both, shocked, and not, upon learning of the environmental impact of the fashion industry. Let’s begin by talking a little bit about that. 

According to statistics published in the Nature journal, the fashion industry currently produces 4-5 billion tonnes (8-10%) of global carbon emissions annually, and uses 79 trillion litres of water. It goes without saying that the industry contributes greatly to industrial water pollution and microplastic pollution.

“The rising environmental impact (and awareness thereof) can be attributed to the substantial increase in clothing consumption and, therefore, textile production,” states the journal. But, of course, manufacture is not the only environmentally unsound aspect of the product. Fast fashion has made affordable clothing frequently and abundantly available to us. The ability to consume more means that we assign less value to the clothes we purchase, and thus feel more comfortable throwing them out once they start to look old or get slightly damaged. This, in turn, has contributed significantly to the production of waste.

In a nutshell, fashion is one of the largest polluting industries in the world, with no concrete plans to turn to more sustainable methods.

Learning about this infused in me a certain sense of urgency, a need to act quickly to prevent further harm to the planet. Equipped also with some knowledge of the industry’s exploitative tendencies, I was sold on the one solution being widely promoted in discussions about fast fashion: boycott. Ready to give up these Evil Companies once and for all, I was never going to look back, and that would be the end of it for me.

But it wasn’t. Somehow, things didn’t stop there. As my readings got a little more extensive, I got a little more confused. Something in my mind started to stir, and I could no longer treat boycott as the ultimate solution. Now, let’s talk about why. 

The fast fashion industry is globally notorious for its unethical treatment of the workers who produce its garments. Sweatshops and factories not only in South Asian nations, but also in developed countries such as the USA and the UK, constantly fail to uphold their workers’ rights. Big brands source from these factories, where workers are overworked in insecure environments, gravely underpayed, suppressed, and subjected to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. 

A report by the Clean Clothes Campaign states that 80% of global garment factory workers are women, who, because of the eons of gender-based discrimination and oppression in these countries, are easier to mistreat and exploit, as compared to men. 

Women are frequently subjected to verbal and physical abuse and sexual harassment. They also work under the fear of perhaps being assaulted or raped on their way home from work late at night...Women are also discriminated against once they decide to start, or already have, families...Some employers will only hire unmarried women with no children and some make each woman sign a document that they agree not to have children during their term of employment...Women who become pregnant during their employment may try to hide it, often resulting in birth defects and other childcare issues.

To make matters worse, all the articles I read seemed to point towards the fact that compliance with occupational safety norms was not a popular notion in garment factories. The Rana Plaza disaster – the collapse of a manufacturing and retail building in Dhaka, Bangladesh that killed over 1100 workers and injured 2500 – is a prime example of this. One day before the accident, an engineer was called in to inspect a wide crack in one of the walls, and advised that the building be evacuated. The employees were sent home, but called back into work the next morning. Several returned for fear that their absence would affect their paycheck. Many of the survivors of the accident were not offered any compensation from the government or their employers. 

Five months prior to the Rana Plaza collapse, another accident in Dhaka – the fire at the Tazreen Fashions factory that killed around 117 people – gained international attention.

According to an article in the New York Times, “Between 2006 and 2012, more than 500 Bangladeshi garment workers died in factory fires. The usual cause: faulty electrical wiring.” The Rana Plaza Disaster did compel fashion brands to enter into various agreements to ensure proper safeguards for their workers. While these were successful in making workplaces safer, the change is not expected to last long. The agreements have expired, and sweatshops still exist in Bangladesh. The condition of the workers also points towards their governments’ failure to uphold the systems of law and justice when it comes to their protection.  

An enlightening report by Siddharth Kara entitled “Tainted Garments” offers a detailed account of the home-based garment sector employees in India. A large proportion of them are women who live in small houses unfit for the work they are charged with. They are unable to upgrade their standard of living due to their meagre wages. Kara lists the health ailments these women suffer from, as a result of working in these conditions: 

• Ocular degeneration or near complete loss of vision 
• Chronic back pain 
• Muscle pain and atrophy
• Headaches 
• Pulmonary issues 
• Cuts and infections 
​
The health and development impact on child laborers is naturally more pronounced.

Kara also cites a 2012 study conducted by the India Committee of the Netherlands and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations. This describes working conditions in the spinning units of five Indian textile companies that source to the USA and Europe: 
Researchers found cases of forced and bonded labor, as recruiters convinced parents in rural villages to send their daughters to spinning mills with promises of a decent salary, accommodations, meals, and opportunities for schooling. However, when the girls arrived at the mill they were forced to live in cramped hostels...were prohibited from leaving the factory grounds, and were not allowed to contact their families...the girls worked 60 or more hours each week, with mandatory but unpaid overtime and night shifts. 


It was all this information – and more – that really had me distressed. Then, when Kara wrote, “..ensuring decent wages for home-based garment workers would have at most a minor impact on the profit margins of most apparel retailers, so there is little excuse not to do so,” I could not help but be vexed. To know that someone, somewhere was being exploited was one thing, but to actually find out who these people are, the lives they lead, and the institutions that profit from mistreating them, is another ball game, altogether. With scarcely a glimpse into the reality of the industry, I was angry and overwhelmed, and certainly unprepared to read what Kara had written next: “...foreign brands provide vital employment to women and girls from historically oppressed ethnic communities who may otherwise have no option to earn a livelihood…” 

Kara’s research concerns women and girls in India’s home-based garment sector, specifically. However, it doesn’t take much to realize that the employment in the garment industry worldwide, though wholly inadequate in ensuring security, is important. Without it, millions would be left with no source of income. With the ongoing pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, this is already manifest in different parts of the world. Owing to the Coronavirus, sales in fashion have taken a hit, and so have the factory workers who produce the clothes. As stated by Fashion Revolution, that several of them have lost their jobs, and are finding it difficult to pay for basic necessities. Meanwhile, others are being forced to work in unhygienic conditions, put at the risk of being infected with an illness they don’t have the means to treat. 

So, what do we do, then? Where on the one hand, an immediate boycott would promote healthier consumption habits for the planet and its people; on the other, it would mean that a lot of workers would be let go. Undoubtedly, then, economies – especially those that are particularly reliant on the garment industry – would also suffer. Bangladesh, which receives 83% of its foreign currency from exporting garments, and India, which earns 13% of its total export earnings from the textile and apparel industry, are good examples. At this point, I had a lot of information, but no idea how to act. Only one thing was clear: that boycotting fast fashion without looking back is a privilege that is going to harm the people who don’t have it.

Dana Thomas pointed out in an interview with Vox that before companies moved their production offshore, 
​
...we always knew somebody who was in the garment industry, whether it was your cousin, a neighbor down the street, or someone at your church or at your school, so you had a person related to what you were wearing, and you thought about them. But once we removed that emotional investment from the equation, we cared less about our clothes.
Evidently, this is one big reason we can so easily consume and throw away our clothes. But, at the same time, our detachment from the people who produce them, and our comfortable ignorance about their situation is what is allowing us to boycott without thinking twice about it.

As more time passed, my predicament only worsened. There were so many questions – was boycotting really the right move? Could we not slow down, think this through, and finally take action that would minimize harm to the labourers? On the other hand, could our environment bear the weight of us slowing down? In the end, what outcome do we expect? Do we want to kick existing fashion giants out of the picture, or do we want them to change their ways? If we kick them out of the picture, what will happen to their factory employees? If we don’t, how do we instigate change? How can I figure this out without any expertise in these issues? 

Different people – all of them far more qualified than I – had different things to say. Where some would support absolute boycotts as the only efficient way to move forward, others would suggest raising consumer awareness, putting more pressure on brands and lawmakers, unionizing the workers, etc. Alas, neither of these perspectives was very appealing to me, because where one would neglect the humanitarian crisis, the other would neglect the environmental one. Are you starting to see what I meant when I said this made me feel a lot of things?

To me, it doesn’t seem fair for a few privileged sections of society to wake up and decide they want to boycott fast fashion to help factory workers; even though it means that the same workers would be hurt in the process. I cannot understand the lived experiences of these workers, and so, is it right for me to determine how they should be supported? At the same time, it also doesn’t seem fair for us to move too slowly and wait for change, because our planet can’t take it. 

What struck me most about the boycott was the traction it has been gaining on social media, getting more and more people on board with the movement. It is, without a doubt, amazing that so much consumer awareness is being generated across the world, and that so many people are making more ethical, sustainable choices. However, I also think it is important to ask ourselves that in boycotting fast fashion, do we really understand what its significance and repercussions could be? I ask this only because I didn’t. 

I had been treating boycotting as an end in itself. I had Done My Part by leaving fast fashion behind. But, as has become apparent in the course of this article (and so, in the course of time that led to me writing it), boycotting isn’t an end. It is a means to pressurize the fashion industry into adopting more just and sustainable systems of functioning, to direct our money to brands that already have, to facilitate structural changes in the industry, and create healthier consumption habits.

All of this cannot be achieved through boycott alone, even though it is an important tool. If we choose to boycott, we must know that it comes with responsibilities – environmental and social – of its own; simply because boycotting is privilege, privilege is power, and power is responsibility. We need to learn to buy less. This is imperative in living more sustainably. Shifting our heavy impulse-buying tendencies to more ethical companies isn’t the solution, only an improvement. Excessive consumption, no matter where it is, will always be a drain on our resources. 

We need to support the people who have been making our clothes this whole time, even when we choose to withdraw support from their industry. Giving up fast fashion and convincing others to do the same has an impact, however small, on the people we have supported for years by paying money to the industry. Even though their exploitation is one of the reasons we choose to boycott, our withdrawing doesn’t automatically make everything okay for them. We still need to extend our support, which can be done by raising awareness and donating time or money to organizations that work with garment factory workers. 

We need to demand transparency from brands and question their accountability. The lack of transparency in supply chains is a major enabler of social and environmental injustices. The Fashion Transparency Index 2020 claimed that when Rana Plaza collapsed, people did not know which brands sourced from there. They had to dig through the rubble for clothes with brand labels on them. Transparency is a necessity not only in fast fashion companies, but even in thrift stores and ethical clothing brands. We must know where our clothes are coming from, and question gaps in information. By and large, the aim is not to mindlessly boycott, but to raise our consciousness as consumers and provoke systemic change. 

I will reinstate here that our media is playing a very important role in making us aware; but we need to learn to think for ourselves, and reflect on our actions and decisions. When social media told me that boycotting fast fashion is good because the industry is exploitative, I didn’t really think. My mind only registered a few things: the people who were telling me this and how I identified with them, the fact that my current actions were worsening an already awful situation, and that there was one visible solution. And though I still stand by the fact that refusing to purchase fast-fashion apparel will help make a change, I would not have realized my complete responsibility in making this decision, if something had not compelled me to think about it. 

I was pushed to realize that to be a conscious consumer, I had to question and evaluate everything, whether that was my consumption, or other people’s opinions about it. It also meant that I got to figure out what method of conscious consumption worked for me. For many, a complete boycott of fast fashion is just not feasible, owing to a variety of reasons. That doesn’t automatically put them in the wrong, or make them unconscious consumers. In the same vein, completely boycotting fast fashion only because you heard it was bad, does not make you a conscious consumer. Unless we understand what terms like boycotting, sustainability, and transparency really imply, and figure out how we can contribute with the resources available to us, we won’t relate to them at the level that is required to bring about permanent change. 

Today, the free availability of information has disillusioned us with a lot of people and institutions we look up to. Sometimes, it all feels like too much to deal with. Everything we have grown to like seems to feed off the exploitation of someone or something. Occasionally, it gets tiring to have to keep up with being plastic free, or fast-fashion free, or free of that one chocolate company’s products you loved but later found out uses slave labour in its production. But it’s less tiring when you’re really conscious, when you think, evaluate, and you decide for yourself what your contribution will be to the causes you care about. We have cultivated a culture of posting and reposting information for various (very noble) causes. But I often find that it isn’t until someone really thinks about something, learns, and asks questions, that they feel prepared to carry their digital advocacy forward to their real lives. I believe that we need, in the long run, is not people who can read infographics, align with trends, and tweet about causes while they’re in vogue, but conscious consumers who understand their responsibility enough to not forget it. 

I am not here to tell you to do all these things because I am talking about them. I am not an economist, a fashion expert, a social worker, or anyone who has had to deal with the fashion industry’s disregard for other existences. I am just a consumer who has had a bit of a revelation. That is, even though gaining all this knowledge about fast fashion has made me feel a lot of things, it was important.

​Because above all, it has made me feel conscious.

​

​Wearing masks has become a controversial topic in today’s COVID-19-infested society. However, it should not have to be a moot point when there are only benefits for wearing masks despite the evanescent toleration the wearer must go through.


As countries start to reopen and wake up from lockdown, places are requiring people to wear masks at all times to reduce the spread of COVID-19. There are riots where people are protesting that marks are taking away one’s liberty and freedom; however, the irony behind it is the increasing incidence rate of Coronavirus infections.


The World Health Organization and other healthcare organizations highly recommend everybody to wear masks. Though at first they only wanted people who were infected to wear masks, to eventually combat the Coronavirus cases, everyone’s cooperation is needed.


Why should you wear a mask?


After the population developed a false sense of security, the numbers still did not decrease. One of the reasons why a mask is so important is that when we look into a crowd, we cannot tell who is infected and who is not. The incubation period for the virus is about 14 days, then symptoms will show in a degree that is unique to the infected person. However, the disease can spread during the incubation period when the person is still oblivious to their own health status.


A myriad of compelling case reports suggest that masks can do an impeccable job in preventing transmission in high-risk scenarios. According to the study, an infected man went on a flight from China to Toronto and wore the mask for the whole flight. The 25 people around him tested negative. Furthermore, two hair stylists in Missouri were infected while hairdressing 140 clients. A few days later, every client tested negative.


However, medical experts say that wearing a mask is not enough to fully prevent any disease transmission in public. Germs can pass through one’s eye membranes and stay on one’s skin for up to 3 days (if their hands were not washed), so refraining from touching one’s face is also a vital factor in preventing transmission.


The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation predicted that 33,000 deaths in the US could be effortlessly avoided by October 1st if the population cooperates and wears masks in public at all times.


Any mask that covers the nose and mouth will reduce the transmission rate accordingly. There is no mask that can 100% prevent any germs from entering your body, but wearing a mask can reduce the risk substantially.


Furthermore, a mask reminds one to be cautious at all times. It does not encourage one to touch their face more often, but it’s presence makes people realize that they are living during a pandemic and should do whatever it takes to keep themselves and the people around them safe.


But why are people refusing to wear masks?


There are countless misconceptions on wearing masks. A study from Stanford University proves that masks do not cause brain damage. People believe in a myth that masks will cause you to breathe in excess Carbon Dioxide and lead to brain damage. A properly constructed mask will provide enough ventilation. The study shows that if you can blow a candle behind the mask from a foot away, the mask is fine and will not lead to any brain damage whatsoever.


Moreover, people in the United States are accustomed to complete liberty. They are not used to being forced to wear face masks or do what the government says. However, countries in Asia are already acclimated to wearing masks during high air pollution levels and epidemics. People in the US are protesting to stop wearing masks, but that will only aggravate the pandemic and increase social-distancing periods.


In conclusion, people don’t lose anything for wearing masks. They may feel uncomfortable, but learning to prevent oneself from disease transmission and developing good hygiene will allow the pandemic to diminish quicker. Not only does this require the cooperation of medical professionals and people who are infected, but it requires the cooperation of everyone in the world to fight this pandemic together.

​The subconscious is an intricate part of our mind, yet we still do not know much about it. In it houses memories, emotions and desires that you, the owner, are not even aware of. Well, if you have feelings that you don’t even know about, that means others do too. A Freudian slip supposedly gives us a glimpse into these unconscious aspects of someone that they may not even know about.

Sigmund Freud, arguably one of the most influential psychologists of all time, was the first to introduce the idea of a Freudian slip of the tongue (also called a parapraxis). His most notable work includes developing the psychoanalytic theory, which states that your childhood experiences and unconscious desires influence your behaviour, as well as the psychosexual development theory that pertains to the adult personality. While Freud would talk to his patients, he believed that what they told him was not enough; that to truly understand their desires and feelings you had to pay attention to their slips of the tongue.

Freudian slips are when you make a verbal mistake that allegedly shows your true inner feelings and wants that are kept in your subconscious. One study that set to investigate if Freudian slips did truly show one’s inner desires used electric shocks and sex to do so. The study (Ef ects of Cognitive Set Upon Laboratory Induced [Freudian] Slips) had some participants greeted by a middle-aged professor while the others were greeted by a provocatively dressed female lab assistant. The study then proceeded to hand the groups a list of word pairs (designed to induce word slips) for them to read silently. However, when a buzzer sounded, the participants would have to read the word pair out loud. As predicted, when reading the word pairs out loud they made mistakes related to sex; fast passion instead of past fashion and happy sex instead of sappy hex. Another portion of the participants was told that they had a 70% chance of being shocked mildly and as a result, they also made errors when reading the word pairs (misreading worst cottage as cursed wattage and shad bock as a bad shock).

In his 1988 campaign, George Bush illustrated how a parapraxis can happen to anyone. While describing his experience being the vice president for Ronald Reagan at a speech, he said: “For seven and a half years I've worked alongside President Reagan. We've had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We've had some sex . . . uh . . . setbacks." Even the best of us can have an accidental word slip up!

​Although many of Freud’s work has since been proven to be false, he remains an imperative figure in the field of psychology. The mind is still as enigmatic as always, with much of its inner workings still shrouded in secrecy from us. Perhaps in the future, we will truly know if Freudian slips are really opportunities to look into one’s true desires or if it simply is a verbal mistake.