Adam Curtis mini film on the modern hug on television
October 23, 2013 3:03 AM Subscribe
Can't watch the video on a mobile device without downloading some extra BBC app:-(
posted by eviemath at 3:57 AM on October 23, 2013
posted by eviemath at 3:57 AM on October 23, 2013
Adam Curtis has a bad habit of attributing world-moving importance to relatively minor groups with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
They were filming the Esalen Institute - on the Californian coast south of San Francisco. Esalen is one of the main roots of the modern western sensibility. The ideas and the techniques that were taught there in the 1970s have fundamentally transformed both society and politics as much, or possibly even more, than any right-wing free market theories
Where is the evidence for this?
posted by empath at 3:59 AM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
They were filming the Esalen Institute - on the Californian coast south of San Francisco. Esalen is one of the main roots of the modern western sensibility. The ideas and the techniques that were taught there in the 1970s have fundamentally transformed both society and politics as much, or possibly even more, than any right-wing free market theories
Where is the evidence for this?
posted by empath at 3:59 AM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
Yes. Also, to be honest, I'm English and I'm still not all that great at hugging so maybe the brainwashing hasn't gone that far yet.
The argument that all of this crying and hugging and being nice to each other is just as repressive as the stiff upper lip ever was, was used a lot at the time of Diana's funeral and is just a concern troll's way of saying 'why are you all so wretchedly common these days?'. Or normally it is. I'm not sure I would accuse Curtis of that, but I'm not keen on the suggestion that there is much more that is sinister in normal people, normally hugging in response to social cues where people normally hug than a changing fashion in interaction between people. I haven't had my hand kissed recently, and no one has left me a visiting card in months: is this because we are much more wooly-minded than we used to be?
But! What I really wanted to say is that the interview with Francis Beveridge on the blog is worth the watch. So very very sad, and if we have a society now that allows people like Mr Beveridge to talk to others about his problems rather than waiting to be measured up for the box ("you know, the six-foot one") then I find it very difficult to agree that this is a turn for the worse. The man needed a hug.
posted by calico at 4:13 AM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
The argument that all of this crying and hugging and being nice to each other is just as repressive as the stiff upper lip ever was, was used a lot at the time of Diana's funeral and is just a concern troll's way of saying 'why are you all so wretchedly common these days?'. Or normally it is. I'm not sure I would accuse Curtis of that, but I'm not keen on the suggestion that there is much more that is sinister in normal people, normally hugging in response to social cues where people normally hug than a changing fashion in interaction between people. I haven't had my hand kissed recently, and no one has left me a visiting card in months: is this because we are much more wooly-minded than we used to be?
But! What I really wanted to say is that the interview with Francis Beveridge on the blog is worth the watch. So very very sad, and if we have a society now that allows people like Mr Beveridge to talk to others about his problems rather than waiting to be measured up for the box ("you know, the six-foot one") then I find it very difficult to agree that this is a turn for the worse. The man needed a hug.
posted by calico at 4:13 AM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
The essay on his blog is more interesting than I expected, however, though it confuses some issues/phenomena. There's a difference between understanding your own emotions and understanding how to express emotions.
The former is important for understanding your reactions to events and to other people (which can help a lot for inter-personal relationships, especially with people who don't have exactly the same background and cultural assumptions as you), for self-control and self-discipline, for maintaining happiness and equanimity if placed in new situations where the habits that you grew up with don't work, for predicting how you will react to situations so you can avoid those "this was an obviously bad idea in retrospect" situations or intentionally seek out situations where you can flourish, etc.
The latter is important for communicating with other people, in any sort of inter-personal relationship. But is, as the link rongorongo posted points out, highly culturally dependent.
That someone is expressing emotions doesn't make them authentic, especially if the person doesn't have the self-awareness to understand what emotions they are feeling in the first place. But also, as the blog essay almost points out, adeptness at expressing emotions can be intentionally used as performance, for a variety of purposes, including to obscure one's true emotions. And it's possible to understand one's own emotions yet not be skilled at expressing them (though I think that some skill at expression generally helps, because to understand something I think you at least have to be able to express it to yourself in some manner, though not necessarily verbally). The potential disconnect between self-awareness and expressional ability seems to be the underlying detail that's bugging Curtis. But either he hasn't analyzed this situation carefully enough to understand fully that this distinction exists, or he has and is trying to make essentially the same points as me but isn't very adept at explaining himself.
posted by eviemath at 4:23 AM on October 23, 2013
The former is important for understanding your reactions to events and to other people (which can help a lot for inter-personal relationships, especially with people who don't have exactly the same background and cultural assumptions as you), for self-control and self-discipline, for maintaining happiness and equanimity if placed in new situations where the habits that you grew up with don't work, for predicting how you will react to situations so you can avoid those "this was an obviously bad idea in retrospect" situations or intentionally seek out situations where you can flourish, etc.
The latter is important for communicating with other people, in any sort of inter-personal relationship. But is, as the link rongorongo posted points out, highly culturally dependent.
That someone is expressing emotions doesn't make them authentic, especially if the person doesn't have the self-awareness to understand what emotions they are feeling in the first place. But also, as the blog essay almost points out, adeptness at expressing emotions can be intentionally used as performance, for a variety of purposes, including to obscure one's true emotions. And it's possible to understand one's own emotions yet not be skilled at expressing them (though I think that some skill at expression generally helps, because to understand something I think you at least have to be able to express it to yourself in some manner, though not necessarily verbally). The potential disconnect between self-awareness and expressional ability seems to be the underlying detail that's bugging Curtis. But either he hasn't analyzed this situation carefully enough to understand fully that this distinction exists, or he has and is trying to make essentially the same points as me but isn't very adept at explaining himself.
posted by eviemath at 4:23 AM on October 23, 2013
The potential disconnect between self-awareness and expressional ability seems to be the underlying detail that's bugging Curtis. But either he hasn't analyzed this situation carefully enough to understand fully that this distinction exists, or he has and is trying to make essentially the same points as me but isn't very adept at explaining himself.
I don't think you are doing him justice. I suspect he is aware that most people would draw that distinction, but it doesn't serve his point to dwell on it. His point is not that some people are unskilled at understanding their feelings or that others can sham feeling inauthentically (although he does try to point out where he thinks people are behaving authentically or not). The core of his argument is that the social context in which both those things operate has changed.
He is suggesting that there is a whole extra dimension to emotion that goes beyond:
1) Understand (or fail to understand) your feelings
2) Express (or fail to appropriately express) your feelings
If you add in the social context dimension, it becomes empty or at least relatively unimportant to say that "understanding how to express emotions ... is important for communicating with other people." What your expression communicates is dependent on the social situation. Does breaking down in tears show that you are shockingly indifferent to social convention? Or that you have an appropriately open and authentic response to what you see? There may be a skill you can get better at here, but it will always operate in a social context. Change the context and you change everything about both understanding and expression.
Consider Frances Beveridge, the clerk Curtis shows discussing his feelings of unhappiness. This man clearly understands that he is unhappy. He is also very capable of expressing it. To that extent, he has both the skills that you describe as "important". But the way that he evaluates his own unhappiness - what he thinks it means, and how he thinks one should respond to it - is clearly different to the way that we now think of unhappiness. Rather, "he is not authentic in the right way" and "It's like watching an alien".
I'm not sure that I find his argument convincing, by the way. It seems to me, having reviewed the arguments on both sides, that we now understand depression a lot better than we used to and that we can now address it in a more productive way. I'm not sure that the increasing prevalence of false closure and sentimentality do much harm; I'm also not clear that there is much more to his thesis, here at least, than the idea that this supposedly revolutionary process of self-expression and communal reintegration pioneered in California actually only led to the creation of a new normal that is equally static and suffocating. He is essentially repeating the old, true line that in the last fifty years people turned away from changing society through collaboration and mass action to convincing themselves that it did just as much good to "change themselves" (when actually it did nothing at all and was a kind of mediocre surrender). That is an idea with a long pedigree, which Mr Curtis has done much to circulate and explore in his other works.
posted by lucien_reeve at 5:09 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think you are doing him justice. I suspect he is aware that most people would draw that distinction, but it doesn't serve his point to dwell on it. His point is not that some people are unskilled at understanding their feelings or that others can sham feeling inauthentically (although he does try to point out where he thinks people are behaving authentically or not). The core of his argument is that the social context in which both those things operate has changed.
He is suggesting that there is a whole extra dimension to emotion that goes beyond:
1) Understand (or fail to understand) your feelings
2) Express (or fail to appropriately express) your feelings
If you add in the social context dimension, it becomes empty or at least relatively unimportant to say that "understanding how to express emotions ... is important for communicating with other people." What your expression communicates is dependent on the social situation. Does breaking down in tears show that you are shockingly indifferent to social convention? Or that you have an appropriately open and authentic response to what you see? There may be a skill you can get better at here, but it will always operate in a social context. Change the context and you change everything about both understanding and expression.
Consider Frances Beveridge, the clerk Curtis shows discussing his feelings of unhappiness. This man clearly understands that he is unhappy. He is also very capable of expressing it. To that extent, he has both the skills that you describe as "important". But the way that he evaluates his own unhappiness - what he thinks it means, and how he thinks one should respond to it - is clearly different to the way that we now think of unhappiness. Rather, "he is not authentic in the right way" and "It's like watching an alien".
I'm not sure that I find his argument convincing, by the way. It seems to me, having reviewed the arguments on both sides, that we now understand depression a lot better than we used to and that we can now address it in a more productive way. I'm not sure that the increasing prevalence of false closure and sentimentality do much harm; I'm also not clear that there is much more to his thesis, here at least, than the idea that this supposedly revolutionary process of self-expression and communal reintegration pioneered in California actually only led to the creation of a new normal that is equally static and suffocating. He is essentially repeating the old, true line that in the last fifty years people turned away from changing society through collaboration and mass action to convincing themselves that it did just as much good to "change themselves" (when actually it did nothing at all and was a kind of mediocre surrender). That is an idea with a long pedigree, which Mr Curtis has done much to circulate and explore in his other works.
posted by lucien_reeve at 5:09 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I do feel like, in the U.S. at least, the hug has been cheapened to the point of being almost meaningless. It has gone from an expression of affection and/or sympathy shared exclusively between people who genuinely care about each other to a mere acknowledgement of acquaintance. It's even started to seep into office environments in situations in which, once, a handshake would have sufficed.
I, personally, have been trying recently to be more aware of when I'm feeling social pressure to express affection that isn't really there and save my hugs for when I'm actually feeling it. But it's hard, because a handshake or a wave goodbye seems almost rude now.
Maybe, like calico says, it's a fashion thing. But it makes you wonder what's next. Long deep kisses every time you meet someone whether you actually like that person or not?
posted by Jess the Mess at 6:25 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I, personally, have been trying recently to be more aware of when I'm feeling social pressure to express affection that isn't really there and save my hugs for when I'm actually feeling it. But it's hard, because a handshake or a wave goodbye seems almost rude now.
Maybe, like calico says, it's a fashion thing. But it makes you wonder what's next. Long deep kisses every time you meet someone whether you actually like that person or not?
posted by Jess the Mess at 6:25 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
HUGS ARE TERRIBLE! WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO SOCIETY?!?!
posted by xingcat at 6:28 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by xingcat at 6:28 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
let me guess:
This is a film about the hug, and how, rather than being a nice thing that happens between two people, it is actually something far more sinister, something that we'll need to go back to a time with only poorly shot black and white footage to truly understand. Something that the world's governments have made us do. Using fluoride and the badly misinterpreted ravings of a 13th century mathematician philosopher.
BLOCK CAPITAL TITLE
Into to Rare Portishead Song.
Silence
And that is why - Because of something involving Nixon and maybe someone who knew Hitler, we are all now complicit in this terrible conspiracy. And how we can never again return to the more colorful television footage that exists between now and that black and white stuff we showed you earlier.
And why hugs are actually, terribly, evil.
posted by zoo at 6:38 AM on October 23, 2013 [26 favorites]
This is a film about the hug, and how, rather than being a nice thing that happens between two people, it is actually something far more sinister, something that we'll need to go back to a time with only poorly shot black and white footage to truly understand. Something that the world's governments have made us do. Using fluoride and the badly misinterpreted ravings of a 13th century mathematician philosopher.
BLOCK CAPITAL TITLE
Into to Rare Portishead Song.
Silence
And that is why - Because of something involving Nixon and maybe someone who knew Hitler, we are all now complicit in this terrible conspiracy. And how we can never again return to the more colorful television footage that exists between now and that black and white stuff we showed you earlier.
And why hugs are actually, terribly, evil.
posted by zoo at 6:38 AM on October 23, 2013 [26 favorites]
Just don't try it in France.
Another example of the enduring legacy of the Huguenots.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:50 AM on October 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
Another example of the enduring legacy of the Huguenots.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:50 AM on October 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
The hug film was a bit meh, but the whole thing was worth it for the clip of Genet on his blog.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:54 AM on October 23, 2013
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:54 AM on October 23, 2013
If you add in the social context dimension, it becomes empty or at least relatively unimportant to say that "understanding how to express emotions ... is important for communicating with other people." What your expression communicates is dependent on the social situation.
I guess I would say that what your expression communicates is entirely dependent on the social situation, so that expressing or failing to express your feelings is part and parcel of the social context dimension.
Does breaking down in tears show that you are shockingly indifferent to social convention? Or that you have an appropriately open and authentic response to what you see?
Maybe I have a different definition of "authentic"? To me, that means that the emotions you are expressing (if any) are the same as the emotions that you are feeling. That's entirely separate from the issue of whether your expression follows social norms or is uncomfortable for others to witness. To me, knowing that someone has broken down in tears tells me nothing about whether they are expressing authentic emotions without knowing more about the person and their usual (for them) emotional responses and expressions. I think there's another whole essay (which has been written many times over) about how and why we perceive others to be expressing themselves authentically or not. I think there's a reasonable complaint to be made when people put pressure on others to express authentic emotions, but then simultaneously want others to express those emotions in particular ways that would be authentic for the listener, rather than what is actually authentic for the emoter. On second reading, that might have been part of what Curtis was trying to get at. The complaint there is not so much that authenticity is a bad goal, but that hypocrisy and lack of awareness of others' different experiences and expressions of emotions are annoying, and in this context fall into the realm of gaslighting. Or one could argue that authenticity itself is a bad goal, which is also not the argument that Curtis has made, though perhaps he was trying to make that argument as well.
posted by eviemath at 6:55 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I guess I would say that what your expression communicates is entirely dependent on the social situation, so that expressing or failing to express your feelings is part and parcel of the social context dimension.
Does breaking down in tears show that you are shockingly indifferent to social convention? Or that you have an appropriately open and authentic response to what you see?
Maybe I have a different definition of "authentic"? To me, that means that the emotions you are expressing (if any) are the same as the emotions that you are feeling. That's entirely separate from the issue of whether your expression follows social norms or is uncomfortable for others to witness. To me, knowing that someone has broken down in tears tells me nothing about whether they are expressing authentic emotions without knowing more about the person and their usual (for them) emotional responses and expressions. I think there's another whole essay (which has been written many times over) about how and why we perceive others to be expressing themselves authentically or not. I think there's a reasonable complaint to be made when people put pressure on others to express authentic emotions, but then simultaneously want others to express those emotions in particular ways that would be authentic for the listener, rather than what is actually authentic for the emoter. On second reading, that might have been part of what Curtis was trying to get at. The complaint there is not so much that authenticity is a bad goal, but that hypocrisy and lack of awareness of others' different experiences and expressions of emotions are annoying, and in this context fall into the realm of gaslighting. Or one could argue that authenticity itself is a bad goal, which is also not the argument that Curtis has made, though perhaps he was trying to make that argument as well.
posted by eviemath at 6:55 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think the idea is that certain Displays of Emotion can become as rote and hollow as the stiff upper lip if presented in a continual bombardment of uniformity, where genuine Displays of Emotion tend to be unpredictable and much more uncomfortable and idiosyncratic. The TV Hug is almost, like, shorthand for DisplayofEmotion.
I am pro-hugging. We're mammals and being close and having touch and contact feels good.
posted by byanyothername at 7:39 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I am pro-hugging. We're mammals and being close and having touch and contact feels good.
posted by byanyothername at 7:39 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you love/hate Adam Curtis you'll love/hate this bit from The Parallax View.
posted by Brian Lux at 7:42 AM on October 23, 2013
posted by Brian Lux at 7:42 AM on October 23, 2013
Can anybody identify the film where the woman who says "when you start loving someone you give them the power to hurt you?" It look like it might be a clip from an epic documentary about this person.
posted by Captain Chesapeake at 7:51 AM on October 23, 2013
posted by Captain Chesapeake at 7:51 AM on October 23, 2013
I don't know about the rest of you folks but I personally maintain a very strict set of rules, filters, and internal checks which dictate when and how to administer a hug in pretty much any given social situation.
HUGS ARE NOT PRETZELS PEOPLE SHOW SOME RESTRAINT
posted by Doleful Creature at 8:05 AM on October 23, 2013
HUGS ARE NOT PRETZELS PEOPLE SHOW SOME RESTRAINT
posted by Doleful Creature at 8:05 AM on October 23, 2013
BLOCK CAPITAL TITLE
Into to Rare Portishead Song.
Silence
This Mortal Coil actually. It's called Fond Affections.
posted by philip-random at 8:56 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Into to Rare Portishead Song.
Silence
This Mortal Coil actually. It's called Fond Affections.
posted by philip-random at 8:56 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't know about the rest of you folks but I personally maintain a very strict set of rules, filters, and internal checks which dictate when and how to administer a hug in pretty much any given social situation.
That's all fine but what happens when somebody else is working a different, far less strict set of rules, filters and internal checks? This is where conflict comes from. Is my "uptightness" oppressing them, or is their "looseness" oppressing me?
I hit adulthood in the early 1980s, a time when people did not hug people they were not at least slightly intimate with. Among men, a handshake sufficed. Between a man and woman, she made the call whether to initiate a handshake, or just go with a polite nod or whatever. But then the 90s happened ... and now here we are (certainly in my corner of the culture).
Worth noting. The first person I met who really went for the hug thing was a guy who worked in the local theater scene. For whatever reason, I didn't really trust him, thought he was trying to put one over on me (and others). But maybe it was just me, too uptight to really be free with my body. Except I later heard that he'd embezzled a pile of money from the company he was working for.
So let's just say I remain skeptical of hug-culture even if I have learned to mostly play along. Though I still prefer a handshake, particularly with other men. And here I mean the old-fashioned kind. No locking of thumbs etc. Done correctly, it's a solid reflection of good will. You acknowledge the other's physicality, meet them with with equal pressure, warmth. At least, that's how my dad taught me.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's all fine but what happens when somebody else is working a different, far less strict set of rules, filters and internal checks? This is where conflict comes from. Is my "uptightness" oppressing them, or is their "looseness" oppressing me?
I hit adulthood in the early 1980s, a time when people did not hug people they were not at least slightly intimate with. Among men, a handshake sufficed. Between a man and woman, she made the call whether to initiate a handshake, or just go with a polite nod or whatever. But then the 90s happened ... and now here we are (certainly in my corner of the culture).
Worth noting. The first person I met who really went for the hug thing was a guy who worked in the local theater scene. For whatever reason, I didn't really trust him, thought he was trying to put one over on me (and others). But maybe it was just me, too uptight to really be free with my body. Except I later heard that he'd embezzled a pile of money from the company he was working for.
So let's just say I remain skeptical of hug-culture even if I have learned to mostly play along. Though I still prefer a handshake, particularly with other men. And here I mean the old-fashioned kind. No locking of thumbs etc. Done correctly, it's a solid reflection of good will. You acknowledge the other's physicality, meet them with with equal pressure, warmth. At least, that's how my dad taught me.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Dear Mr. Curtis,
Hugs, you know, have been around far longer than british telly. Reality TV is shitty, and has too many hugs; politicians hug for the wrong reasons; and there is tragedy in the world, and voyeuristically showing grieving people hugging might give a false sense of how easy it is to be comforted, but these things don't add up to 'hugs suck!'.
Your film sucks (what's with the ending???)!
I am now going to go hug the shit out of my son.
sincerely,
OHP
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:15 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Hugs, you know, have been around far longer than british telly. Reality TV is shitty, and has too many hugs; politicians hug for the wrong reasons; and there is tragedy in the world, and voyeuristically showing grieving people hugging might give a false sense of how easy it is to be comforted, but these things don't add up to 'hugs suck!'.
Your film sucks (what's with the ending???)!
I am now going to go hug the shit out of my son.
sincerely,
OHP
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:15 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
My family didn't hug much -- we were all very hands-off -- but falling into a group of huggy people in high school was liberating, not just because HUGGING but because it helps remove a lot of awkwardness. If you've already hugged someone, then maintaining eye contact and close personal proximity, or taking their hand/touching their shoulder, is really not that big a deal. It's like jumping into the pool to get the initial cold shock over with.
So I am all about the hugging on people I want to hug, and not hugging the people I don't want to hug, and if a French person is ever insulting to me I'm gonna HUG IT OUT and conquer France.
posted by davejay at 9:49 AM on October 23, 2013
So I am all about the hugging on people I want to hug, and not hugging the people I don't want to hug, and if a French person is ever insulting to me I'm gonna HUG IT OUT and conquer France.
posted by davejay at 9:49 AM on October 23, 2013
I don't think I will ever get over 4AD music. I enjoyed the montage and the blog, and OMG Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Genet.
I am Mr. Beveridge, wishing I could be Mr. Genet.
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 9:49 AM on October 23, 2013
I am Mr. Beveridge, wishing I could be Mr. Genet.
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 9:49 AM on October 23, 2013
As an American I had trouble understanding what the big deal is. But I remember when I spent time in France and Germany and people were casually kissing me on the cheek and that made me panic a little bit, inside. Do I kiss back? Left cheek first? Right? In the U.S. the kiss is not so widely done, mainly because most people are, like me, confused by the mechanics of it.
posted by zardoz at 2:11 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by zardoz at 2:11 PM on October 23, 2013
Yes, I don't think Americans are really going to get this, at all. Hugging is fraught for many people on this side of the pond. I was born in the eighties but absolutely raised in the culture of low emotional expressiveness that Adam Curtis talks about. I have consciously renounced this in many respects, although I am still terrible at hugs (I used to blame this on years as a lesbian in an all girls' school where I was terrified of all physical contact, but as I get older that works less and less well as an excuse). I do think Curtis over-romanticises that culture - he's clearly a bit enraptured by the government clerk in a weird way, but I think that's because that way of expressing emotion is a direct invitation to dismiss it as unreal. It's born out of a weird combination of deference and negative politeness (ie politeness based on not making demands on people) and it's ultimately rather toxic. Curtis correctly points out that these new norms are also constricting, but I think ultimately they are objectively better norms, in the sense of producing less suffering.
posted by Acheman at 2:47 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by Acheman at 2:47 PM on October 23, 2013
As an American I had trouble understanding what the big deal is. But I remember when I spent time in France and Germany and people were casually kissing me on the cheek and that made me panic a little bit, inside. Do I kiss back? Left cheek first? Right? In the U.S. the kiss is not so widely done, mainly because most people are, like me, confused by the mechanics of it.
I have lived in Montreal and in Europe and the Middle East, and many of my friends, including the one I married that one time, are European; others are from the Middle East or North Africa. Sometimes the kiss is one cheek, sometimes two, occasionally three, and four is not out of the question. Some start to the left, others to the right, and occasionally we end up playing face chicken; results range from an inadvertent full-on smooch to everyone getting a nose in the eye. I guess what I'm saying is: greeting people is terrifying.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:08 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have lived in Montreal and in Europe and the Middle East, and many of my friends, including the one I married that one time, are European; others are from the Middle East or North Africa. Sometimes the kiss is one cheek, sometimes two, occasionally three, and four is not out of the question. Some start to the left, others to the right, and occasionally we end up playing face chicken; results range from an inadvertent full-on smooch to everyone getting a nose in the eye. I guess what I'm saying is: greeting people is terrifying.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:08 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
The Francis Beveridge video is terrifying. He's a clerk at "a ministry office":
posted by nickzoic at 4:19 PM on October 24, 2013
"That's of course if one is lucky enough in this world to be in one piece at the end of it, you know. I mean this is by no means a foregone conclusion, because if we're not very careful we're all going to be spattered all over the universe. I'm sure everyone realizes by now, you know, we live in a world of lunatics, we really do, megalomaniacs, to put it no higher or no lower. So, it's about to blow up, you know.Pretty sure this guy works for The Laundry.
posted by nickzoic at 4:19 PM on October 24, 2013
« Older Why People Mistake Good Deals for Rip-Offs | Happy Mole Day 2013 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pipeski at 3:27 AM on October 23, 2013