Tag Archives: learning

The danger of normalizing behavior isn’t what you think.

The danger of normalizing behavior is often associated with the generational aspects we’re too lazy to debate. If young kids are using the N word, blame social media! If some 13 year old is called a slut during a history class, we should again resort to the same argument! If a man in his 30s in caught on tape (meaning, someone’s phone) exhibiting hostility toward a gay couple, well, then we can’t blame social media because some countries have different laws? And would you look at that: it doesn’t matter if we find out the background of the attacker and potential abuser: the laws protect this group of people. Freedom of expression will be called on to solve the debate, but only on the internet. On the ground, people are likely to get hurt. But the laws are perfect, they say. Who do we call on to convince people, each at a time and with proper reasoning, that niggers, sluts and gays are all supposed to be equal under the law?

There’s no “proper reasoning”. If we say that “fair and balanced” is the way to go, we’re saying it doesn’t matter that Black people have endured slavery and the horrors of persecution, among other kinds of assault; we’re not doing enough to protect women, who have, historically, been suppressed of rights; we fail to accept that sexuality is a personal matter, which sounds way too basic for certain groups of Western society and also in the Eastern world (if you’d look at Japan, for instance), but not among others. In a reparations mindset, this means that the TV will have gay couples broadcast, and that was a corporate agreement in line with demands from the public. When you see a Black man on TV, there should be a reminder for everyone that it hasn’t always been like that, and women journalists have yet to see a less toxic environment while on the job; if we’re talking about Don Lemon, with all the criticism you may have, we’re talking about some kind of representation.

It’s not fair and balanced if, for centuries, a system privileged one group, which has accumulated not just wealth but also prestige, influence, power, knowledge and a series of protections, including on how to protect each of those previous items, and then place a coin on the other side of the scale, counterbalanced with the wealth of the International Monetary Fund, and say you’re doing your part, as a champion of social justice. No, you are freaking not. Notice how the internet really works: I’m not allowed to curse. Even among my peers, I’ll be accused of using inflammatory discourse, and that’s a bad thing. But it’s 2023, and everyone’s fucking or at least trying to; I’m just writing a text that serves the common good and I happen to think this is a good adverb of intensity (look at me, I’ve studied Linguistics!) — but they’ll have a prompt answer: do you think about the effect you have on other people? Why do you always wanna steal the show?

Curiously, they don’t make a lot of specific references to who’s stealing actual things and money, actual people. Did you hear about the recent statistics on kidnapping attempts? Did you see the stories talking about money laundering and international banks scamming people? On another front, are you familiar with corporate decisions of making workers go through shorter shifts? Or did you trust a certain network when they said that the labor market was tight? And then everything comes into play: “what do you mean by tight?”, you may ask. The answer might be best informed by ChatGPT. Afterall, it was backed by real data, in huge bulks collected over the years.

If we want to do better in education, as The Guardian suggests, by making sure we stop harassment at school, then we need new materials. What people seem to fail, repeatedly, to realize is that whatever’s new is going to normalize things that weren’t common in a scope of years to the past. It may be 5, but with this pandemic, it may be 3 or even less. A yearly program that updates itself would require new preparation of materials every year; but the problem is that teachers know the goals of the previous year were far from being achieved. They talk about actual recycling, but they don’t like anything too old-fashioned in education — unless they wanna go back to the beginning of the century, when mistakes in math got you a spanking. And now, it seems, we think it’s something absolutely abnormal to even use the word “spanking”, when that’s something we may, and only may, look for on the internet when we’re young and again, might perhaps apply to real life.

The problem is we’re seeking a remedy, because the remedy sells. But the bigger problem is that if you focus on the cure, you’ll meet extremists who want to ban sex from even being debated, at a biological level, as the story reports. For me, there are two genders that I know about. I acknowledge transgender rights. I’m not looking at anyone’s medical history, but if there are other species in nature that have other bodily functions and interact with the environment in different ways, I’m not here to analyze that. I’m here to teach my English class. And the English speaking community, which is large enough to disagree with my every word, since it can’t possibly be legitimate (make a list: racism, xenophobia and so on), will turn a blind eye, if you’ll excuse the expression, to the main arguments and say: “but this could’ve been an email”.

Of course, we have much more urgent things to address. There are violent groups organizing out there. Some of those groups may be represented by the people you least suspected. And that alone is unsettling. If there’s one thing we can do for the betterment of society is to keep violent discourse away from children’s environment. But they will have to face their battles. They will have to confront their bullies, on or offline. What we’re seeing is how this happens on both stances, and ends up generating an even worse bully. Is this what we’re actually having to deal with? A naturalization of bullying? If that means you can refute people with a better argument and facts that contradict what they’re saying, great: that means we’ll have less fake news and hate speech, and both science and common sense win. But the ethical lines are more complicated than that. If I had the job of correcting every person’s English in my country, would I do it for money or just to troll? What’s funny is that now I might wanna do both. And then, invite a Black bisexual woman who likes to show off on the internet to participate in that process. We can talk about China later.

Should we pay for social media visibility? A look at marketing practice in 2023

It’s past 10PM, and your family members are about to go to sleep. No, you’re not 14 years old: you’re in your 30s, and wondering what you can do to boost your channels. But because that’s too much work, you think about small distractions — which are good for your mental health, disputes aside. Instead of posting on LinkedIn, you scroll Tinder. And there you go: after 20 minutes on the platform, you come across this seemingly friendly person, mutual interests aligned, but you’re out of likes. That’s when Tinder suggests you to pay and get more out of the experience, and you’ll begin to have strong personal opinions about social media visibility.

Premium services are nothing new. In fact, it may seem like something recent, given the streaming wars debates and business model criticism that we saw, for example, with Substack. But we all remember, in case nobody’s out to call out on our “boomer bends” or anything like that, that we wanted to have cable TV; we couldn’t because it was too expensive. What we’re more interested to know is how to navigate personal and professional lives knowing that social media has changed everything, but there’s a generation who just doesn’t see it.

The easiest thing for this younger generation should be learning, as debates on ChatGPT take on the entire internet; for a lot of people, in practical life, they just want memes to look at and maybe someone’s company. The pages don’t even have to stay there: there’s an algorithm. The people don’t have to stay either, but this sparks up a more traditional battle between the ideal of monogamy and free-spiritedness. Tinder is a blessing and a curse, but few point out how.

While one user might be scrolling to see 10 different matches every hour, another might have 1 every 6 months or even a year. This blogger leans to the former setting. I’ve seen so many people who had more money than me and a lot less expectations apparently, but were still unapproachable, that I just gave up on the whole thing. As it turns out, you can pay to keep scrolling, and you can pay to see who likes you — and save a lot of time, instead of dating in a cassino. Sure, you won’t lose all your money; but who does the algorithm show your profile to? How do you reverse-engineer this thing, and make sure you’re doing something for your benefit, instead of looking for trouble, which comes with security issues and structural issues in parallel?

The platform has been debated by a series of media productions. Notably, I’d say, Netflix series Sexify puts together a nerd of many sorts, her friend, whose family is traditional to the point of going to Church every Sunday and making her marry a man who’s serving the military, and a girl who’s more “free-spirited”. The latter character, in this particular context of social life, is shown in a scene scrolling Tinder, and it takes her 10 seconds to find a new sex partner. So much for detail.

The criticism is there, but who’s paying attention? Most of the audience for the show might have found it searching for something lighter to watch, and many didn’t expect a production from Poland to pop up in the suggestions. But far from being the central issue (which, further down the series, will be the prospect of work for young people), this portrayal calls everyone’s attention to an appealing context: finding an instant gratification.

Today’s discussions on what we call “creator economy” and what it takes to have social media visibility seem very decentralized. A more careful look at what’s happening in the world of work will take data analysis to the center of debates and explore ethical standards along with the power to measure, accurately and fairly, but according to someone’s imprinted input, the concept of “reputation”. We should all be mindful that the internet doesn’t forget, but also behave so we don’t get suspended — which means the platform is making everyone forget about us. Isn’t there a point of friction somewhere?

Social media visibility is a concept, but it can translate to numbers. What we analyze when we post and wait for feedback is not how much authority we have on a given subject; it might be how attractive people think we are, or how funny, how cool and maybe how woke. We’re all fighting different battles, and most of the time, what bothers you about someone’s activity is simply the fact that you don’t have the time to do the same. You’d love to be heard, but not steal the microphone from a business authority or someone in the political spectrum. Yet, it seems we’re all doing exactly that.

Being knowledgeable and coherent is, for some people, more appealing than the very concept of appeal which we can display by revealing our bodies; but if you combine these with being knowledgeable and coherent, you’re in for troubled navigation of your social environments. This blogger excuses himself to say the expression “brains and booty” is one he’d wear on a t-shirt, but what about big tits? We can’t misrepresent people who are flat, but think about the whole structuring of society. We also shouldn’t think the girls posting on Instagram are intentionally looking for shitty DMs, and to be fair, people have started to choose privacy instead a long time ago. Except, of course, public people. Is that what “being knowledgeable” is?

Being in the public eye for everyone’s scrutiny can mean two things: your face and body are gonna be judged, or your words and arguments. No your instead of “you’re”. No typos, ever. And honestly, when we look at it like that, it feels like we’re not in the realm of personal branding anymore, but rather, in the realm of business and public relations (two very different areas). To contextualize, we can all agree that certain figures will make a great brand ambassador, though it’s debatable now what happened to Kanye West and Adidas; but imagine if it was someone in the likes of António Guterres who wore a sweater. For lack of a better word, that would make most people “cringe”.

Overall, it can be said that social media visibility is good for brands and also people. But the analysis (and time available for that) will vary, not just because people aren’t brands; brands and people alike are using a common platform. And that is more of a technical aspect. If we want to understand what our role in society is, it matters to look around. That can be done on either an app like Tinder or, in case you still believe that’s possible, on Twitter (and we’ll always miss believing it, some of us).

What the platforms are saying about us, though, seems to have more veracity than both what we say on platforms and what we say about them. It’s great to say what you came here for. But every now and then, we turn on the news and we tune in to see what we should avoid. Whether the advice of not becoming the story is valid or not, nobody wants people talking behind their backs; but they want to feel seen. Business accounts on social media are still navigating that, and along with the people who run it, how much visibility they’ll get will depend on a series of factors — some of which are not in our hands. Like the people paying for Tinder, companies pay for good press. And we’re still far from understanding how much money is being spent on that alone.

Formalidade: exigência do mercado

Não importa o nosso contexto, toda vez que enfrentamos uma situação de avaliação crítica do nosso trabalho, percebemos que a formalidade é uma exigência do mercado. As pessoas podem gostar de alguém que jogue com os moldes, se use de gírias em medida correta, frases feitas ou fórmulas retóricas que hoje fazem sucesso nas redes sociais; mas querem ler e ouvir palavras difíceis. Será que se ater à tendência faz sentido?

Os tipos de situações em que a formalidade é exigida das pessoas pode variar muito. São entrevistas de emprego, situações do ambiente corporativo ou acadêmico, momentos de tomada de decisão, conversas sensíveis com familiares, com médicos, profissionais do sistema financeiro, entre outras.

Você encontra uma postagem também em Português sobre dicas de inglês intermediário aqui. Veja a seguir algumas formas de expressar seriedade no que se fala, em inglês:

1) Use modal verbs.

Se você fala “I want to get this job so bad”, pode até ser que a pessoa te entrevistando te ache uma pessoa honesta, mas vai avaliar o seu auto-controle. Uma forma mais ponderada de se expressar um desejo seria: “I would like to explore my possibilities in the near future and I’m willing to take on new tasks and learn as I go”. Veja que você não está usando jargões. Nada de “I’m flexible and proactive”. Foi uma forma muito mais interessante de formular suas intenções com a empresa.

2) Use contrasting words.

Quando você bota as coisas na balança, vale a pena pensar sobre o que realmente merece ênfase e atenção do seu grupo, principalmente em momentos públicos de fala. Uma pessoa que se dirige ao time com uma frase como: “we’ve seen good results, but we can do better” não vai soar como a mais inspiradora num cargo de liderança.

Tente reformular seus objetivos: “I appreciate what everyone in our team has done so far, and I’ve shared details of your performance with everyone across the board, so you’re being seen. We do have a goal that we set, though. So here’s the plan to get there and you can feel free to make suggestions during this presentation, okay?” Veja como a quebra de formalidade vem com o tom pessoal: reconhecer o valor de cada contribuidor(a) se torna um fator positivo e faz com que o anúncio dos planos para os meses a seguir seja bem recebido.

3) Tente não usar apelidos.

Essa parte pode parecer estranha, mas explico: imagine que você está falando com o seu chefe sobre uma folga no dia em que tem uma consulta médica. “Come on bro, I can’t do this any other day”. O seu chefe não é o seu irmão. E nem as outras pessoas do trabalho são o “amor”, o “anjo”, a “flor”, a “princesa”, a “querida” ou qualquer outra palavra que se use (em inglês: “love”/”honey”/”darling”/”sweetheart”, “angel”, “flower” — less common –, “princess”, “dear”). A palavra que você deve usar é “you” e ponto. Em casos de exceção, como emails ou formulários, se usa “sir” ou “madam”, “mr.” ou “ms.”, mas certamente não se refere a um cliente como “bff”.

Siga a Fluência Participativa no Instagram!

Se quiser, se inscreva no canal do YouTube!

Sua doação faz diferença! Para apoiar esse projeto, veja o link do PayPal no menu da lateral do site. Compartilhando esse artigo, você também ajuda!

Spotlight time: fuzz, feeling and feist

This blog’ll be short!

I’m here to tell you in case you’ve never heard about this dude, you should check him out: Gary Clark Jr. One of his songs that got big was a pretty audacious move for someone working with bluesy stuff and sort of modernizing the very foundation of rock with a pun, a camera and a lot of licking. I guess that’s one way to put it: you hear this song, you feel dirty, and start making faces. If you don’t, well, I’m sorry I guess. It’s called “Grinder“. Also check out “Church” and see how much honesty this man embodies and creates, in case you didn’t notice he’s got the King vibe.

Stick around for more human recommendations, everyone!

Omegle culture: the cost of data analysis

Everyone’s heard of Omegle. When the internet was still relying on Microsoft’s MSN Messenger and webcams had half a pixel definition, we didn’t really think that talking to a person on video was going to be massively adopted, but it was fun, for those who had a webcam, to have a videocall. Of course, nobody really had a laptop, and they barely had desktops; also, the laptops of 2006 didn’t come with an in-built webcam as a standard. You had to invest in that, and many of us focused on other stuff. There were, of course, people who thought this was the secret of success, and they were provided with the best internet speeds and the best image quality. We didn’t even know what cameras were, and used to call them “digital cameras”. Smartphones weren’t existent. If you wanted to send a dick pic on the blue brick Nokia, you’d have to type the number eight for the balls followed by many “equals” signs ending with a D, and perhaps a tilde if you were creative. Today, of course, there’s the eggplant emoji, but there’s also a culture of Facetime from Apple and countless videocalling services; a culture of image and a more advanced culture of video, exemplified by TikTok. The image quality on TikTok is not as important as your content, but one could argue the opposite. The point is: these things didn’t exist when the millenials were growing up, but since they all had to deal with their own moral standards and others’ perceptions of how to build credibility on social networks, a thing that came right after messaging platforms, the things that exist today are discredited because they’re not representative of the struggle of being deprived of mass communication.

An example of mass communication was torrent based websites. This was very strongly condemned by the music industry, and maybe less so by the film industry. The end of CDs completely destroyed what artists knew how to do, and companies as well. Nobody really talks about it. But film production worked with a different concept. It wasn’t audio, it was video. This was more expensive, so the argument would be that their profit was going to be made in movie theaters and VHS rental stores, plus the TV contracts to exhibit movies nationwide and other sorts of advertising, generically speaking — a business analyst will always prove you wrong on Twitter. This was an example of mass communication. Not people talking, but people watching the same thing, and in theory, a message being propagated and later debated for a long time. Of course, today messages are exchanged in a rate so fast that the notifications need to be turned off so that it’s even possible to use the phone. And the messages are going to be ignored. Selectively, people choose who to talk to, who to give attention to, while working with the assumption that most people who come to them are probably going to waste their time and whatever the platform has to offer is a chance to gain better ground on the digital landscape, obeying the algorithm in order to get what they want. If the algorithm said explicitly: “next, we need a picture of you on the beach”, you’d willingly do it, and be very happy with the results, and moreover, trusting the platform’s ability to choose what’s best for you and praising the revolution that technology has brought to us, in a certain age group, and actually demanding better outcomes, in another. The problem today is that not enough likes leads to depression, and there’s very much a consensus on how to deal with whatever’s unwanted, but eventually someone stands out and needs to be either blocked or exposed — maybe even reported to the cops. As adults, we understand that is a long and enduring process, but also as adults, we understand that technology didn’t keep up the pace when it comes to monitoring and reporting. If you analyze reporting cases and types of problems across platforms, you’ll find answers from “I’m not interested in this content” to “it’s posting content that shouldn’t be here”. That is wildly, irresponsibly generic, and there are not yet specific mechanisms to say “I’ve been harassed by this user” and how, with a description of the problem. They probably think that would lead to a lot of false reporting, or maybe a lot of work, and prefer the generic terms and the unhinged internet operating in the shadows, while they can successfully set up the Official Bullshit Policy. Few people understand that it’s everybody’s role to make them accountable for bad user experiences. And back to torrents, they were stolen content, but for an amazing, exclusive user experience.

The problem with video is that it’s a way too fertile territory for semiotics. File format, account type, duration, definition, size: this is one aspect of it. Discursive category, general category, elements on the video, description of elements, captions, sound and content appropriateness: there’s another challenge, probably a point for AI specialists to look at. Who’s in the video, doing what? That’s what everyone wants to know. But that’s not very much debated; we either like it or not. The amount of people who just want to see someone doing something and don’t even care who it is (again, look at TikTok) has been, for a while, scaling up, and the maximum expected engagement seems to be the like. That’s why people can’t stop talking about companies investing in AI: because that’s the blueprint of development of their systems. When someone likes a video, the most attractive form of engagement on the web, the algorithms can be improved in quality. Few people understand what’s at stake, and the ethical problems (like, say, the role of humor on influencing people and humor’s relationship with scorn) are ignored. Needless to say, academics have studied that, but maybe those same academics have had investments in the institutions they worked for cut for some reason (in this economy? Nobody’s interested in Philosophy).

But a curious case stands out. Among mass communication planning attempts, there is Omegle, a website with monitoring, algorithms and security that are all very questionable. The point was to allow real people to chat instantly, but in rows. The role that image plays in this kind of proposal makes us reassess things like beauty standards, gender roles and age groups. It also makes us look at how many of our time spent looking for quality interactions is deviated and plainly stolen from us. Everyone knows that Omegle is pure waste of time, when they reach a certain age; but not everyone is willing to ask the tougher questions: are there robots collecting data about kids and teens? Are hackers collecting IP addresses and invadng accounts in order to steal documents, have remote access to devices and plan organized attacks on groups of people, getting paid on demand? Is my kid safe making friends using the only thing available, the smartphone or laptop? Are they old enough to speak for themselves, make the right assessments on people and maybe foster relationships from the beggining in the online environment? And does it have to be there? How often? The possibility of talking to anybody on the planet with an internet connection might seem like the dream of the makers of the internet, but we’ve come to realize there are bad actors (and actresses, if we’re applying gender parity, confused or not on whether we should). How bad are they? That seems to be a million dollar question — and for the more well-informed, billion with a B. As it turns out, most people are not interested in talking. But why is that? Is it trauma? Is it context? Is it lack of training and education, or a politeness problem? Culture? Personality? Personal history? What word would you pick to describe Omegle’s main problem? Reliability, perhaps? Or do you keep the mainstream platforms’ concepts in mind and question reach and reputation? What criteria are you going to use to classify what’s appropriate or not, for whom, according to whom, and further, what is being constructed when a user enters the website?

Of course, sometimes we look at our lives and come to talk with a close contact, who will say: “you just need some new friends”. I personally had a very close person tell me this in a different way: “you need to find your hangout”. That is, of course, a translation; but it’s surprisingly suggestive, isn’t it? Actually, nobody says “hangout” as a noun. People say “hang” as a verb, and maybe what he said was more like “you need to hang with the right people”. Another guy told me: “if you wanna hang with us, you gotta be on our side for real”. Too gangster for you? Well, that happened. And it wasn’t on Omegle, you see. But how many people are we actually “hanging” with on Omegle? Nobody. Maybe if we’re lucky, one person every month, if we spend 20 hours a week on the platform. Isn’t that proof that something’s essentially wrong in there? The specialists would call this data analysis. And in fact, go to Coursera and search for Google’s Data Analysis course, and they’ll suggest you do your own data analysis with your own information. Things like how many cups of coffee you have every day are supposed to be written down and calculated at the end of a certain period, and then you’d have your data. Later, you’d compare it with glasses of water, juice, milk and beer, for example. You’d make a graph and you’d be your own nutritionist. Interesting suggestion? Apple has devices that measure our bodily functions; Amazon collects information about our homes; Peloton focuses on health, allegedly; Uber makes mobility possible to map. But so does GPS, the doctor and the neighborhood. Who are you on Omegle: the GPS, the doctor or the neighborhood? Maybe none of these: you’re just an anonymous user.

Now, anonymity has been discussed with a lot of skepticism, even by specialists and activists. It may be the attempt to hide the tracks of somethng you’re not supposed to be doing. And we could talk about many things here, but I’ll let the reader decide what’s the biggest concern he or she has when it comes to anonymous interaction and anonymous tracking. Recently, all websites were forced to display data collection notifications on their homepages. That’s anonymous tracking: you know the website is going to collect information about you, but you have no idea about the third party who analyzes your data and allegedly decides on what the best ads for you are. Let’s go back to Omegle? You have no idea who you’re talking to. A civilized society would say that’s something to consider. And yet, the most common interactions involve people calling you a “nigger”, saying “you’re gay”, that they would “fuck your mom”, asking if you have “a sister”, or simply showing you the middle finger, but some of them are raw and ask you to “kill yourself”. What are we supposed to do with this data? Let’s not forget about the terms like “nonce” and “wanker”, but remember that people exchange information, even if they’re expressly recommended not to: “what’s your Instagram?” or “are you on snap?” are very common. If Facebook had our “metadata” and was able to cross analyze two people’s profiles and say how they met, and supposedly they had “Omegle” as a data point, what would that do to your reputation, with Facebook, with our friends, with the rest of the internet?

The challenges are many. Breaking stereotypes is one of them. “The girl you called a slut, she’s a virgin. The girl you pushed down the stairs, she already suffers abuse at home”, the internet goes. Is that the “woke” internet? Absolutely not. That’s just a thing people wrote to protect others and themselves against bullying, and it’s a great sort of campaign. But it wasn’t advertised on Instagram or Twitter. It was a copy paste that circulated in even less populated places than Omegle. But if people apply this to Tinder, for example, they’ll see that expectations are what motivate us — and stop us on our tracks. If we realize that the majority of people seems to be ill-motivated, we’re not going to be willing to participate. This is something we learn in school. But social media, with an immense lack of consideration for cross-disciplinary education, forgot to teach people that talking ill about others behind their backs, with no proof of what they’re saying, constitutes a crime of defamation; indiscriminate screenshotting constitutes a crime of intellectual property theft; sharing intimate photos of others constitutes a crime of sex trafficking. And so far, we’re just worried that teenagers are going to see genitals. Don’t worry, they heard about Pornhub when their cousin mentioned it to them, at 8 years old, or maybe 13, and in the minds of conservatives who don’t even believe themselves, 18 — because we don’t just assume things, do we? And although the terms of use make specific that you should be in a certain age range to access these websites (Omegle recently changed its rules, but Pornhub has countless legal issues, most of them unspoken for the tired sake of convenience), the conscious choice of accessing them brings about an understanding of risk and a strong sense of will and desire. If teenagers are taught that they can’t watch porn, they’ll want it more because people are taking away their freedoms. Curiously, Omegle works with different assumptions. But here’s something that’s also relevant: if an adult says that they do not want any relationship or connection with the porn industry, they’ll be hunted down, and worse if they speak against it. While we spend time talking about the internet, sexual harassment in the workplace seems to be a less clickable story theme, simply because people need jobs, and a lot of them are denied them, based on questionable criteria. With that in mind, it’s time we address the real problems, before “skepticism” becomes the new standard for a self-medicated internet on the verge of a psychotic episode, or worse: a place run by people with self-proclaimed ill-intentions.

Perspectivas: o que esperar do ensino médio

Em 2017, surgiu a Base Nacional Comum Curricular, um documento que buscava alinhar expectativas, demandas e projetos para o desenvolvimento de jovens em período escolar. É fácil de encontrar (todos conhecem o Google), mas os objetivos parecem difíceis de se alcançar, além de a preparação de professores ser completamente autônoma — e, diga-se de passagem, não-remunerada; isso quando são contratados com carteira assinada. Nesse cenário, e com todos os outros que as conexões da vida digital oferece (sem nunca esquecer das críticas), como aplicar uma atualização de temas abordados a fim de preparar jovens para o mundo, não somente para o mercado de trabalho? Propostas como a BNCC lançam previsões sobre a capacidade de pensar a sociedade criticamente e com responsabilidade; na prática, desigualdades socioeconômicas, raciais e de gênero ditam a regra das interações e da vida de jovens a também jovens adultos, com matrículas recentes em faculdades, públicas ou privadas. Quais seriam alguns dos pontos em que jovens deveriam se sair bem, mas não é o que encontramos quando analisamos com critério sua desenvoltura, e não apenas o desenvolvimento baseado em pontuações e notas de prova, em contato com o mundo remoto ou nas proximidades?

1) Tolerância

Jovens aderiram desde sempre à cultura da zoeira. Chame de “trollagem” se quiser, ou aplique termos como assédio e difamação se tiver pais muito preocupados com a sua visibilidade. Nada é muito sério, e isso pode ser bom ou ruim. Ninguém tem terapia na escola. As redes de suporte não funcionam, e muita gente busca contato fora do ambiente escolar para conseguir suportar as tarefas obrigatórias. Negar essa possibilidade deveria resultar numa denúncia frente a organizações protetoras de Direitos Humanos (e se adolescentes tiverem um contato de fora?) ou mesmo reforçando o ECA (Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente, pobremente implantado e nunca lido pela maioria de profissionais da Educação). Falta interpretação. O direito à brincadeira rende muitas conclusões, com mentes pensantes liderando a discussão, e não um bando de católicos punitivos e hipócritas (com reservas à boa moral cristã, que prega a ajuda a quem tem necessidades, mas não especifica quais), inclusive nas políticas de uso das plataformas digitais. Há brincadeiras de mau-gosto; há criminalidade organizada com influência na vida de jovens, e há também professores e professoras falando por aí que bandido bom é bandido morto. Na mesma medida, a escola católica não pensa jamais em integrar sedução e flerte nos letramentos, o que é, talvez não literalmente, mais certamente a mais crítica (e relevante, salvo as críticas que mal precisam ser feitas) falha em análise de dados. Adultos que não conhecem e nem se interessam pela realidade de filhos e filhas são menos tolerantes com os vizinhos, mas pode ser que os motivos sejam outros, e não a famosa necessidade de prover para a família. Sabemos discutir tolerância? Além disso, jovens aprendem o suficiente sobre o tema com experiências na internet? Creio que não, mas particularmente, não acho que professores no TikTok vão mudar alguma coisa.

2) Consciência

O som de uma guitarra amplificada pode ser de fato um convite à macumba do vizinho evangélico, que lhe considera adorador de Satanás. Mas não é só religião que dita as regras (só estamos presenciando uma potencialização desses debates, para a tristeza dos bons educadores e pensadores, e sem ter que flexibilizar os pronomes). Uma experiência com o aplicativo Happn seria legal, assim como o Snapchat, se todo mundo tivesse um plano em seu nome. Como você vai conseguir esse plano? Apresentando um comprovante de residência. E como você consegue um comprovante de residência? Apresentando holerites de seus últimos pagamentos com vínculo empregatício. Água, luz ou telefone. Acontece que muitos se utilizam da telefonia para fins, digamos, escusos. O comprovante pode vir porque você pagou com uma fintech. Não significa que a operadora e também a fintech não vão lhe causar danos, mas o comprovante vai chegar à sua casa (sim, um pedaço de papel). Como diria Michael Scott em The Office: “real business is made on paper”, mas aí inventaram o Pix. Acontece que o PayPal já existe desde 1998. Não é legal olhar ao seu redor? Não precisamos ficar no digital. Quando uma mulher grita por socorro e um homem fala alto na rua, sabemos que há um problema. Que não seja demérito fazer uma denúncia, muito menos ter que pagar pela denúncia que fez, quando a vítima nem está mais presente no cotidiano.

3) Mindset

Temos que ser alguém na vida. Escutamos isso desde muito cedo. Mas os exemplos viraram todos YouTubers. As meninas gostam do Twitch. O som da moda fala de sexo. As discussões sobre a tecnologia revolucionária que mudará o mundo força jovens a virarem investidores (vejam o caso do Robinhood). Mas pior do que o jovem fã do Elon Musk é o jovem hacker que ganha dinheiro ameaçando pessoas a acabar com reputações em troca de dinheiro. Parece que há um apelo contra a nudez, de um lado, e de outro um ganho que nunca se satisfaz e sempre acaba em punição ou segregação, guardadas as proporções. Não se ensina jovens a identificar problemas e atuar para solucioná-los, de fato. Podem fazer um fio no Twitter, se já acordaram para o monopólio do conglomerado Meta e tantos outros, mas não se somam as vozes, e se compete por atenção quando se deveriam unir esforços para direcionar debates e lutas para melhorias da sociedade. Os movimentos estudantis não são bobagem. São essas as mentes pensantes que farão do mundo um lugar melhor, e se preferirem ir numa manifestação ao invés de tomar uma cerveja importada, que bom. Já se não tomarem cerveja em ocasião nenhuma porque os pais não deixam, sinceramente, coitadinhos.