WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9104
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-11-18 21:59:25
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-18 21:59:25
    [post_content] => 

I've gotten exhausted with the ways that convenience culture has shifted what we find acceptable when it comes to waste.

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

On the streets near my house, there are lines of tree stumps, left over from diseased elms that had to be cut down. Some people have made the most of these hollowed out stumps by planting flowers inside them, or scattering seashells around the base. Some have even used them to create elaborate shrines for their dead loved ones. Others, meanwhile, have taken a different approach, filling the hole in the center of the stumps with beer cans, cigarette ends, and banana skins, treating the stumps like organic trash cans. 

Randa l. Kachef and Michael A. Chadwick, researchers at King’s College London, have coined a term for this phenomenon: polite littering. Other examples include a person placing their litter on a wall or in a hedge, or somewhere almost near a trash can, but not quite in one. I know about this phenomenon, and this term, because I have thought a lot about the psychology of people who litter in recent years, and what, if anything, can be done to change it, both on a local and global scale.

There is a certain type of person who sees a hole and perceives it to be a trash can, where others have seen the potential for a garden. But having spent the last couple of years campaigning with my local councillors to tackle litter in my immediate area, I know that the issue isn’t unique to either my three-block radius or even my (unfortunately pretty filthy) country. Human beings and the things they dump are having a devastating impact on the planet. Where infrastructure cannot keep up with increasing numbers of people and waste, trash cans overflow. The rate at which we produce plastic, and waste more generally, means that a great deal of it will escape our hands and end up in nature or creating garbage islands. Litter and plastic waste have been found in the deepest parts of the ocean and on the tallest mountains. Litter has even been found in places humans have never been

While daunting, this doesn’t mean that the issue is out of our individual hands. On the contrary, it only makes our individual efforts all the more important. I live near the beach, and in the summer, we get a lot of tourists. Many of them are respectful and take their waste to the trash cans just a few meters away from the shore. A few, however, will litter in the most egregious way, leaving inflatable boats, bottles, and even the waste from an entire picnic rotting in the sun behind them. This summer, over 24 tons of trash was cleared from our beach over just two weekends

Of course, not everyone who litters is so flagrant. But every day, people who consider themselves to be polite, upstanding citizens will leave napkins, banana skins, or orange peels on our pebble beach, and when confronted, will use nonsense words like “biodegradable” instead of the most fitting one, “lazy.” I’ve often had to make several trips back and forth with someone else’s sandwich wrappers, drink cans, and dirty napkins while sunbathers sit and watch. I’ve even fished band-aids, croissant wrappers, and takeout packaging out of the sea from a paddleboard. 

I won’t bore you with tales of every dirty diaper I have found in a beach parking lot. But suffice to say, I have gotten pretty exhausted with the ways that convenience culture and our incessant waste seem to have shifted what we find acceptable. There is a cognitive dissonance inherent to littering, a short-sightedness wherein a person cannot think more than a few minutes into the future. Littering, and convenience culture overall, affects all of us in the longterm, and yet many people still choose the instant gratification of no longer having a Big Mac wrapper in their car over waiting to throw it away once they reach their destination. 

There are places I have visited and loved that seem to sadly be crumbling under the weight of their own litter and waste: Paris, Los Angeles, New York, London, Athens. It isn’t only major cities, either. On Crete, an island in Greece, the first thing I saw when I arrived at the airport was trash. Everywhere. That continued: at the side of the road, in the ocean, on the beaches. Some places were untouched, but only because they were in the middle of nowhere. I couldn’t believe it. Crete was, in many ways, the most beautiful place I had ever seen, and I wanted everyone else to have the reverence and respect for it that I did, so that others could enjoy it, too. But when I looked down from a sunset mountain view to the streets of the small village I was staying in, all I saw was trash. 

The consequences of throwaway culture are also rarely felt by the people who most egregiously participate in it. Beyond litter in our streets, the countries who produce the most devastating volumes of waste are often not the ones who feel its true impact. In much of the western world, our waste is shipped to other countries, creating an overwhelming crisis in places like Indonesia, Vietnam, Ghana, and Kenya—destroying the environments of countries that simply do not have the infrastructure to handle our onslaught.

I have been trying to understand why litter is so out of control and why so many people do it, and my only answer is convenience and laziness, combined with the fact that we just have so much more waste and single-use plastic than ever before. Yet an abundance of litter is as much a cultural problem as it is an environmental one: There are also major cities that manage to keep their trash under control. In Tokyo, there are very few public bins, due to the 1995 sarin gas attack. Instead, people simply carry their litter around until they find one, or even bag up their waste throughout the day and take it home. This diligence, this refusal to give up and just put down a Pocari Sweat bottle because they’d been holding it for a few minutes, was a welcome reprieve. This isn’t to say I didn’t see any litter in all of Tokyo. But overall, I believe most of us have much to learn from the city and its people.

Other countries have also made similar strides in their relationships to litter. Sweden sends just 1% of its waste to landfill, using half of its garbage to create energy. When I visited Las Canarias, in Tenerife and Lanzarote, I saw city workers out every single day cleaning trash from the side of the road. Hoping to deter foreigners from contributing more, signs begged tourists not to litter and to respect the islands’ unique volcanic environment. Tenerife even has fines of up to 3,000 euros for littering. 

I would hope that seeing people take such great pride in their home would deter even the most ardent litterbug. But maybe that’s part of the problem: I’ve never found that same pride when I come home. The answers are there, but countries like the US and UK are just not prioritizing solving the problem—or sometimes, even asking the right questions.

Litter has been found in 90% of the UK. We are a small island, but we still can’t manage to keep it clean. Our roadsides, waterways, and countrysides are filthy, particularly compared to neighbouring countries, and there is no motivation to change it at either a government or local level. It also seems like nobody really cares to. When I look at other countries and wonder why they’re cleaner, I know that no small part of it comes down to better infrastructure, organization, and funding for waste clearance and street cleaning. But a lot of it is pride, too—and with it, genuine care. 

There isn’t a straightforward answer to fixing our monumental global litter problem, particularly when we only keep creating and wasting more. But to start, we need our governments to invest in better waste management, to prioritize circularity, and to devote infrastructure and resources to tackling waste, not only on our streets, but throughout every country. We need corporations who relentlessly produce single-use crap to be held to account and restrained. 

Sadly, we can’t make someone care about something that just isn’t a priority for them, and the same is true of our governments. But beyond lobbying and campaigning and voting tactically, we can all make a small difference at home. If more of us took control of our own waste and took pride in our own small parts of the world and the ones that we visit, perhaps we might actually begin to make some difference in cleaning up our mess.

[post_title] => There's No Such Thing as Polite Littering [post_excerpt] => I've gotten exhausted with the ways that convenience culture has shifted what we find acceptable when it comes to waste. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => soapbox-littering-trash-environmental-impact-climate-change-global-warming-waste-garbage-islands-opinion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-11-18 21:59:36 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-18 21:59:36 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9104 [menu_order] => 6 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A bright, colorful illustration of a woman in a chartreuse pant suit and hiking boots, running through the forest with a hiking stick towards a body of water on the other side of a fence. Next to her is a spotted dog. She's surrounded by trees, a stag, and an old man lounging up against a hill. All around them are balanced pieces of trash: on the branches, on each person/creature, on the fence.

There’s No Such Thing as Polite Littering

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9722
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-11-04 14:12:36
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-11-04 14:12:36
    [post_content] => 

Queer relationship visibility isn’t good enough if all it does is replicate heteronormative approaches.

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

Like any faithful reality TV fangirly, I dutifully invest many hours of my brief and precious human life into my little shows. I dwell unabashedly in the cult of reality standom: My housecleaning rituals include day-long marathons of shows like Vanderpump Rules or 90 Day Fiancé, where I empty my closets and scrub my floorboards to the tune of a full season, filling my home with the sounds of strangers’ arguments, diary cam thoughts, and curated confessionals. 

For me, this isn’t just entertainment. I am endlessly fascinated by human relationship dynamics, and the belief systems that shape them. Much of reality television serves as my personal laboratory for examining these phenomena in action—and I absorb every minute with rapture. This is especially true within my favorite subgenre of all, reality romance, which I find particularly compelling because of the ways it reveals the ubiquity of heteronormativity in our collective consciousness. It’s also why I think we are long overdue for more queer reality romance—including shows that actually explore queer relationship frameworks, rather than just LGBTQ+ casting.

From classics like The Bachelor and Rock of Love to contemporary hits like Love is Blind, shows where total strangers form attachments to one another and make legally binding commitments in intense, pressurized, and unnatural situations are canonical. They’re also historically very heterosexual, something that hasn’t changed even as casting has diversified. 

Accurate, dynamic queer representation across all media is essential, and desperately overdue. Thanks to LGBTQ+ reality shows like Tampa Baes, The Real L Word, and the I Kissed a Boy franchise, we’ve finally been able to see a variety of sexualities and genders normalized in a dating context. And thank goodness! But as entertaining as these programs might be, queer relationship visibility isn’t good enough if all it does is replicate heteronormative approaches—and when it comes to relationships where personal autonomy and romantic intimacy are successfully balanced, these shows are falling short. 

With its second season out last summer, breakout hit The Ultimatum: Queer Love might be the most popular of the LGBTQ+ reality romance genre, both for queer and straight viewers alike. It’s also a strong (and, for better or worse, incredibly entertaining) case study in the pitfalls of dropping queer contestants into heterosexual dating frameworks, especially on a global stage. The plot features five couples on the lesbian spectrum who have reached an impasse in their relationships—one partner wants to get married, the other does not, and the former has issued the latter an ultimatum: Marry me, or we’re breaking up. 

The show aims to “help” castmates gain clarity about their present dilemma by presenting them with an opportunity to explore partnership with someone new. But not just anyone new: Castmates date each other. 

In front of the partners they arrived with. 

Participants have one week to select a new partner, and then immediately move in with that person for a three week “trial marriage,” which some of the new couples consummate. They then each move back in with their original partner for another three week “trial marriage” before decision day. 

The end goal is either for castmates to leave the show engaged—whether to their original partner, or to someone they just met under fast, furious, and fantastical circumstances—or, if they’re still not ready to commit, to walk away single. And of course, things go off without a hitch, everyone is super mature about everything, and no one ends up brokenhearted or publicly humiliated.

Now, maybe this plotline conjures images of the chaotic, toxic, and mysteriously elusive “U-Haul lesbian”. Yet that instinct would be misguided: In reality, The Ultimatum: Queer Love is a spin-off of The Ultimatum: Marry or Move On, a pre-existing show with the exact same premise, but a heterosexual cast. 

When the main focus of a show is for participants to “find love,” however, especially when the premise pressures them into making quick decisions about marriage or monogamy, the ghastly, unflattering light of patriarchy spares no one—something the landscape of LGBTQ+ reality romance makes clear. This is also one reason why copy-pasting heteronormative relationship frameworks onto a queer cast is particularly dangerous. On the whole, as a society, we are not trained to recognize misogyny when it doesn’t come from cis men, something that can quickly translate into queerphobia: When queer folks embody patriarchal values, people around them may be tempted to blame queerness, rather than patriarchy, for any ensuing problematic behavior. Queer people struggle enough with this inside our own communities already; something that compounds when media about us continuously reiterates stereotypes about gender, power, and control. This is particularly visible in reality television, from the lesbian sex scenes that border on soft porn, to the queer fuckbros whose predatory behavior towards femmes goes largely unconfronted, to cis women whose emotional abuse of their femme, masc, and genderqueer partners does not ring alarm bells the way it would if a cis man were behaving the same way.

The entire Ultimatum franchise is part of a robust and patriarchal legacy within the genre, where marriage is treated as an achievement, especially for women and femmes, and prioritized over everything, even at the expense of healthy bonds and connections. But to simply recycle the plotlines of heteronormative reality shows and transpose them onto a queer cast is not only creatively lazy; it exposes the errors of these shows’ premises at their core. 

“[R]eality television…has created a falsified account of how certain people are meant to behave, communicate and love, and the majority of the victims to these production tactics are women,” wrote Lindsey Spencer in a 2022 article for the Michigan Daily.

Where patriarchal marriage is the prize, women and LGBTQ+ folks will always get the short end of the stick, even when they “win.” I’m not knocking marriage as an institution—big fan, actually—but patriarchal marriage? One where gender is, whether consciously or unconsciously, viewed as binary, and where partners and/or traits perceived as “feminine” are subjugated to partners viewed as “masculine”? Where the praxis of the relationship itself eliminates the possibility of true intimacy? Where my partner and I are beholden to monogamy, rather than deciding whether we want to choose it anew, as the seasons of our lives unfold? 

Ew, no.

This is also precisely why I believe we’d all benefit from some more queering of reality romance. What if, instead of watching people wrestle their partners into making high-stakes commitments, audiences were offered a window into a cast of queers exploring alternative frameworks and modalities for love and connection? Reality fans would still get to absorb all the juicy human drama we hold so dear, but we’d also get to witness people grow and change in ways for which current plotlines don’t allow. 

In the current season of The Ultimatum: Queer Love, for example, an interesting situation cropped up during the initial re-shuffling of couples that might have played out very differently outside of the show’s rigid framework. A mutual attraction developed between one participant, Pilar, and both halves of one original couple, Kyle and Bridget. When, independently of one another, the pair learned that Pilar was interested in them both, they each encouraged her to explore the other, vouching for each other’s radness.

The show’s most visibly genderqueer couple so far, Kyle and Bridget already stood out from the pack. But they were also, in my opinion, the most mutually respectful couple the show has seen—something made clear throughout the season. Eventually, Pilar and Kyle selected one another for the trial marriage, and Bridget ended up with someone else. After Pilar and Kyle shared a kiss during their time together, Kyle quickly disclosed it to Bridget once they were reunited for their own “trial marriage.” While Bridget was visibly miffed, she and Kyle continued to have productive, open, and tender communication as they worked through a difficult conversation. 

It was an intriguing plot line, for sure, and played out as healthily as it could have within the scope of the show. But how much more interesting would it have been to watch Pilar, Kyle, and Bridget explore what it might be like to date as a trio? Or to watch them even have that discussion? I wonder how they may have all impacted each other’s lives differently, and whether stronger friendships or romances could have blossomed if they hadn’t been confined to the show’s rules.

Something as simple as that could have changed not only the trajectory of the contestants’ lives but, arguably, perhaps the trajectory of a viewer’s life, too. Witnessing couples undertake that type of exploration, safely and from a place of mutual trust, could be the very representation that some viewers need, queer or straight. It could also be a gateway for them to learn about their own relationship preferences, or even expose them to the fact that alternatives are possible. 

Beyond that, this more expansive approach would bring us closer to true representation, not just its bare minimum. The reality romance industry profits greatly from our identities, and queer viewers deserve something beyond an “LGBTQ+” label on the dropdown menu of our favorite streaming sites. After decades of witnessing countless reality stars run the hamster wheel of heteropatriarchy, I, personally, am ready for something a bit more nuanced—and, frankly, a lot more queer.

[post_title] => Why Isn't LGBTQ+ Reality TV More... Queer? [post_excerpt] => Queer relationship visibility isn’t good enough if all it does is replicate heteronormative approaches. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => lgbtq-reality-television-tv-dating-shows-the-ultimatum-queer-love-representation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-11-04 14:12:40 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-11-04 14:12:40 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9722 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a wedding cake with a rainbow of colors in the background. At the top of the cake is a cake topper with a queer couple, both wearing suits, leaning towards one another for a kiss; both holding bouquets behind their back. In their shadow, we see a heteronormative couple, with one wearing a wedding dress.

Why Isn’t LGBTQ+ Reality TV More… Queer?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8823
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-09-09 21:36:41
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-09-09 21:36:41
    [post_content] => 

Over-processed produce is disconnecting us from where food comes from.

The way it looked promised richness and flavor. Sharp green leaves, stemless, in a transparent plastic package with the words “organic” and “triple-washed.” It was something I’d never seen before: ready-to-eat spinach with no dirt, worms, or roots. In Colombia, my home country, produce always needed to be washed. Spinach, in particular, needed extra effort, because it was always sold as a whole. I usually soaked it in vinegar and lemon for half an hour to kill any parasites or bacteria. But in the United States, everything seemed easy, fast, and reliable—no soaking required. I bought the bag of spinach, and prepared a fresh salad with goat cheese and walnuts. In less than two minutes, it was on my plate. I chewed and chewed. But while there was a hint of spinach in whatever those leaves were, it was certainly not spinach

In Colombia, I lived in Bogotá, a densely populated and urbanized area. With reduced access to green spaces, I felt most connected to nature through food. Vegetables came from the earth and still carried the signs: roots that once absorbed nutrients, stems that transported water and sugars, bugs that had nibbled on the same leaves I would soon eat, too. Seeing all this reminded me that my food had been grown, not manufactured. It connected me to the farmers who had cultivated, cared for, and harvested it. I felt grounded when peeling, chopping, smelling, washing, and eating my produce. At the end of the day, I was manipulating something that came from the earth.

When I moved to New York City in 2022, I noticed how little people manipulated their food by comparison. Grocery stores sold pre-washed and pre-cut vegetables, and people just opened the packages and threw food on a plate and called it a meal. They didn’t need to bother getting their hands dirty, because their food was already chopped and sanitized. 

To me, this disconnect was clearly separating people from nature, making food’s origins feel unfamiliar. When people don’t see, feel, and taste the whole flavor of produce, they also feel less encouraged to eat it. A mango that once grew on a tree, appears nature morte—a dead nature—in a plastic container, more like a granola bar than fruit. In Colombia, produce tasted intense and complex. Spinach, for example, tasted bitter, earthy, and savory. A friend from Peru tells me she avoided fruit her first year in New York because it tasted too sugary and artificial. Another friend from Mexico will only eat pineapple, because she thinks other fruits taste as if they’ve been diluted in a water and sugar solution.

The University of Florida found the reason that fruits, like tomatoes, taste so insipid in the U.S. is because, in the pursuit of higher yield, disease resistance, and shelf life, the genes responsible for flavor were bred out. While unsanitized produce may be risky for gastrointestinal health, GMO and ready-to-eat produce isn’t necessarily always “safer,” either. Processing facilities or farms, for example, frequently wash greens with water and chlorine. While safe in small doses, regular consumption can pose health risks. Other additives, like preservatives or antioxidants, might also cause immune diseases and antibacterial resistance

It’s also just unnatural. A Colombian friend living in San Francisco tells me she once forgot about a bag of mandarins for two months. When she rediscovered them, they were still edible. “The mandarins were supposed to be spoiled,” she said. “What kind of component do they have to survive for months?” 

It is a universal truth that Western society is obsessed with germs. We fear bacteria so much that we do everything we can to isolate ourselves from it, no matter the source. But when it comes to food, are we truly that delicate—unable to tolerate mud on our fingers or on the ground beneath our feet? Is our obsession reinforcing the binary vision that nature is dirty and dangerous, and human creations safe and clean? And what are we robbing ourselves of in the process?

Research published in Communications Psychology found that the more people interact with nature, the more fruits and vegetables they eat. While this affects us all, it disproportionately affects some of us more than others: Access to nature and socioeconomic and racial inequalities in U.S. urban areas have long been related. Simultaneously, the more urban the environment, the fewer healthy food choices are available—especially amongst Black and Hispanic communities, who often have less access to green spaces. 

Community gardens and farmers markets help mitigate this gap. They also provide more affordable prices than grocery stores for organic and whole produce. I used to visit a community garden in Queens, where I learned how to compost and take care of the crops they had, allowing me to feel close to food again like I once did in Colombia. I have also tried to buy my produce in farmers markets that sell whole foods, rather than their chopped and sanitized counterparts. But access to these spaces is limited. Community gardens can’t produce the amount of food necessary to feed the whole city. Farmers markets are only in certain neighborhoods and on specific days a week, limiting access for working-class people. Not everyone has the privilege to eat spinach from the earth and not a bag.

I don’t have a solution to this disconnection. But I do know this: We understand the world through our senses. The feel of a vegetable in our hands, the smell of it, the taste, reminds us we exist because of the earth, what we feed ourselves comes from the earth, and that our cells are built from the earth, too. Our bodies evolved alongside the earth. Our ancestors touched soil, grew food, harvested crops, and fed their communities with their hands. And it seems likely for our collective wellbeing that we still need to do everything in our power to do the same.

[post_title] => Food is Meant to Be Touched [post_excerpt] => Over-processed produce is disconnecting us from where food comes from. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => food-groceries-united-states-colombia-produce-packed-pre-washed-cut-processed-gmo-ready-to-eat-fruits-vegetables-treatment [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:40:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:40:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8823 [menu_order] => 10 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration with different panels of a salad being prepared. On the left, a panel with a plate of spinach salad with walnuts and goat cheese on a placemat next to a fork, over a panel with spinach growing in the wild. Across the top, a panel with a close-up of spinach with a snail on it; a panel where spinach is being rinsed in a colander; and a panel where spinach is being chopped. On the bottom, a large panel in the center with pre-packed groceries: a giant plastic tub of spinach, a bag of lemons, an apple with a sticker on it, a bag of walnuts, a package of feta. On the bottom right, organic vegetables in plastic crates and piles.

Food is Meant to Be Touched

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8790
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-06-27 18:56:37
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-06-27 18:56:37
    [post_content] => 

In defense of a long-neglected form of protest.

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

At a press conference in Baghdad in December 2008, Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi stood up and threw both of his shoes at then-U.S. President George W. Bush in an act of protest against the Iraq War. “This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog,” he yelled in Arabic, chucking the first shoe. “This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq,” he continued, throwing the other. 

Disappointingly if impressively, Bush managed to duck both shoes. But the impact of al-Zaidi’s actions was both immediate and profound: It demonstrated that an American leader—a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people—was not untouchable. And by proxy, neither was the United States. 

Muntadhar al-Zaidi wasn’t the first person to throw a shoe at a politician, and he wouldn’t be the last. (In fact, he wasn’t even the first to do it that year.) Still, the Bush incident inspired copycats over the following months, many explicitly citing al-Zaidi as their inspiration. Over a decade and a half later, it feels like the practice has gone out of style. I imagine this is partly because, with the rise of global authoritarianism, the potential punishment for throwing a shoe at a world leader has drastically gotten worse—something true even with softer ammo, such as when a protester was arrested for throwing tomatoes at then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Or last year, when another protestor was sentenced to prison for throwing coffee cups at Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. But, in my opinion, this is all the more reason for it to make a comeback: More war criminals need to have shoes thrown at them. And, more importantly, people should be allowed to throw shoes at war criminals without fear of death, jail, or other punishment. 

In the grand scheme of violence, having a shoe thrown at you is painful but temporary—often to the ego for far longer than the body. Even in the Bush incident, the only people injured were then-Press Secretary Dana Perino after a boom mic gave her a black eye, and al-Zaidi himself, when he was subsequently tackled to the ground and kicked by Iraqi guards and U.S. Secret Service agents. When compared to the countless deaths caused by the person on the receiving end of the shoe, some might even consider it a relatively minor gesture. But I believe it’s the spirit of the act that matters most, both in meaning and message. Having a shoe thrown at you is highly offensive, and as Iranian-American professor Hamid Dabashi points out, not just in Arab culture; a truth easily understood by the billions of us around the world who know to take off our shoes whenever we enter a home. As an insult, it dates at least as far back as the Old Testament—“Upon Edom I will cast My shoe” (Psalm 60:8)—and as a form of defiance towards a person in power, it requires a great deal of bravery. More than anything else, though, shoeing is an outlet for insurmountable rage and grief—a desperate expression of despair. 

Feeling helpless, al-Zaidi chose to throw his shoes at the person most responsible for his people’s suffering. In the nearly 20 years since, arguably, the world’s collective anguish has only ballooned. As I write this from my desk in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump has just sent another 2,000 members of the National Guard to tamp down protests against ICE raids across the city. The U.S. has just bombed Iran, violently escalating and inserting itself into another war in the Middle East. Over four years after their initial arrests, the majority of the Hong Kong 47 remains imprisoned, as press freedom around the world grows increasingly tenuous, further threatening the media’s ability to hold war criminals to account. On a mission to break the blockade and deliver food to Palestinians in Gaza, the Freedom Flotilla—carrying Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, amongst other international activists—has just been intercepted by Israel, its passengers all either deported or unlawfully arrested and detained. Unable to leave, desperate Palestinians continue to starve at "catastrophic" levels, with hundreds killed by the Israeli army "while attempting to approach the few remaining aid convoys" in the last month alone.

As our protests in their many forms continue to go unheard, and the world’s countless injustices mount, it sometimes feels as if there is little recourse to stop the people most responsible for our collective devastation. After reading Chris Stephen’s The Future of War Crimes Justice (2024), I was disappointed but not surprised to learn, in great detail, that the reason most war criminals never face trial is largely bureaucratic. There is no feasible way to have a functioning “international” criminal court, because no country notorious for its crimes against humanity would ever willingly comply with its laws, or even agree that it’s subject to such a court’s jurisdiction. Notably, the United States is still not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), despite signing the Rome Statute in 2000, two years after the treaty was adopted. In a statement in 2002, then-United Nations Ambassador John Bolton confirmed that the U.S. had no intention of ratifying it, and therefore, the country “has no legal obligations arising from its signature.” (Equally notable, the three other countries that signed the Rome Statute but confirmed they would not comply are Israel, Russia, and Sudan.) 

If the so-called systems of justice aren’t serving their purpose, at what point, then, is it acceptable for us to take matters—and shoes—into our own hands? I’m not saying we should all be throwing shoes at any run-of-the-mill asshole, or even any run-of-the-mill asshole politician. But I do think the world shouldn’t bend so easily to fascists and dictators and genocidal oligarchs; that literal war criminals shouldn’t get to feel so comfortable moving through the world, living morally bankrupt lives without consequence. If their victims aren’t ever going to see real justice, then at the very least, they should feel perpetually inconvenienced, and a little on edge—aware that, at any moment, a rogue shoe might thwack them in the head.

Personally, if I were a war criminal or billionaire or other generally detestable figure enacting suffering on millions, I’d rather have a shoe thrown at me than lose my head to a guillotine. (For legal reasons, this is a joke.) But beyond inconvenience, perhaps it might also accomplish something more substantial—if not a reckoning for the person being shoed, then for the millions of people who might witness it. Because sometimes, it takes seeing someone else accomplish something we hadn’t considered possible to understand what’s possible to accomplish ourselves.

Muntadhar al-Zaidi has claimed he does not believe himself to be a hero, but merely “a person with a stance.” His only apology in the incident’s aftermath was to his fellow journalists—with the caveat that, “Professionalism does not preclude nationalism.” 

“This scene stands as proof that… a simple person was capable of saying ‘no’ to that arrogant person, with all his power, tyranny, arms, media, money, and authority,” al-Zaidi said in an interview with Reuters for the shoeing’s 15-year anniversary. To me, this is precisely why it has endured in our cultural consciousness for so long: Bush’s shoeing remains an important reminder that each of us, as individuals, is more powerful than we often give ourselves credit for; and when we act collectively, that power only multiplies. 

Like all forms of “violent” protest, throwing a shoe at a prominent political figure is not without its risks. After he threw his shoes at Bush, al-Zaidi was sentenced to three years in prison, later docked down to a year. He ultimately served nine months, having been released early for good behavior, alleging he experienced violent torture at the hands of senior government officials throughout. But he has also never once expressed regret for anything other than the fact he “only had two shoes.” 

If more of us were to partake in this time-honored tradition, however, this wouldn’t be a problem: After all, if one pair of shoes can cause such a fuss, just imagine what we might accomplish with a few million more.

[post_title] => Who Throws a Shoe, Honestly? [post_excerpt] => In defense of a long-neglected form of protest. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => soapbox-shoe-throwing-shoeing-muntadhar-al-zaidi-george-w-bush-iraq-united-states-war-crimes-international-criminal-court-protest-opinion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:56:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:56:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8790 [menu_order] => 9 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a brown dress shoe on a white background. The shoe is untied, and in all-caps white lettering on the side it says, "This machine kills fascists," a reference to Woody Guthrie, who would paint the same message on his guitars as protest during WWII.

Who Throws a Shoe, Honestly?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8636
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-06-25 22:18:26
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-06-25 22:18:26
    [post_content] => 

Why I became more subscription-conscious (and you should, too).

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

In my junior year of college, I wound up with a free subscription to a bunch of magazines, including Real Simple. To this day, I have no idea how it happened, and if my bank account or credit card had been charged at the time, I would have remembered. But it wasn’t. So, even though I hadn’t paid for them, for much of that school year, magazines would show up in my mailbox; and apart from Real Simple, I’d mostly ignore the rest. Unable to remember any other analog subscriptions prior—even if this one was free—we’ll say this was my first. Not one that belonged to my parents, siblings, or friends, that I might have made use of, but one that was truly mine. This was 15 years ago.

Post-college, I briefly lived with my brother and benefited from all his subscriptions, many of them digital. When I eventually began graduate school and moved out, I would acquire my own first digital subscriptions, too—although these, I actually signed up and paid for. Back then and soon after, the $9.99 for Spotify and $7.99 for Netflix didn’t feel like chump change, although it didn’t exactly break the bank. Either way, both seemed like a good deal. At least, a better deal than the price iTunes charged for individual songs and albums, and the cost of renting or buying individual movies from a store, or paying for cable. 

It’s been over a decade since I completed graduate school, and since then, in addition to my first two digital subscriptions (and my unintentional first magazine subscriptions), I’ve at some point or another (and quite frankly, altogether) been subscribed to Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, Tidal, various print and digital magazines and newspapers, multiple money managing and investing apps, CitiBike, Uber One, Zoom, YouTube Premium, Amazon Prime (#judgeaway), HUM vitamins, and more. This is all without mentioning the endless products I’ve bought online then temporarily and periodically subscribed to, whenever they’ve offered a discount for doing so. 

It’s an excessive and exhaustive list, but in my defense, having studied and then covered culture, some of these subscriptions were for work, and the cost was either free for a time or could at least be counted as expenses for my taxes. Others were arguably also because of work due to having less time to myself; during certain periods in my life, hunting for home goods in a store just didn’t seem like a good use of my time when I could just search for them on a database and have them delivered to my door. 

At a certain point, however, I gradually began to realize something much more fundamental had been lost in all the “convenience” I’d been paying for. I was becoming less conscientious of how my choices were not just directly affecting  my physical locale, but the people who live and work in it. Sure, in theory, I said I valued my neighbors, residents and businesses alike, but I’d make critiques about the changing neighborhood (“there goes the neighborhood!”) without implicating myself in those changes. More thoughtful and purposeful encounters with my community had been sacrificed at my altar of convenience. 

So, I began to unsubscribe, unsubscribe, unsubscribe. 

Looking back, my subscription-ending journey—or perhaps more accurately, subscription-consciousness journey—was a product, at least in part, of post-COVID lockdown reflections on what I really need and how I’d really like to spend my time. The excess of my subscriptions had started to feel akin to hoarding, and I needed to clear space, even if most of that space was intangible. There was also the lightbulb realization that has become more and more common amongst Millennials, that, despite our monthly investments in accessing various forms of media, we don’t actually own most of the culture that we consume. What’s more, should the companies that do own that media go defunct or be sold to entities that we may prefer not to do business with, we really wouldn’t have much recourse—except to unsubscribe.

This could mean years and years of playlists and TV shows and films that we would no longer have access to because they were never really ours to begin with, ultimately leaving us with nothing. And while I’m not interested in owning many things from culture, save for books and some fashions, I do think ownership of culture in its various forms serves more than capitalistic desire. Our things can be physical memories of what we love or once did, what has been passed on and gifted to us, and sometimes, reminders of what we saved and scraped for—emblems of hard-fought earnings. We are robbed of this when we choose to rent something out of convenience or compulsion instead of mindfully acquiring things that are truly meaningful to us.

We also aren’t the only ones both literally and figuratively footing the bill for our abundance of subscriptions: The obvious, of course, is that small, local businesses pay the ultimate price for our overreliance on the monopolies cannibalizing our choices. There’s an impersonal, persistent transactional relationship that develops when you constantly have things delivered to you via third parties. It’s not your favorite delivery person from your favorite Jamaican spot; it’s just the person that first picked up the order who you’ll likely never see again. It’s not the local hardware store owner that understands which tools work best for your apartment because they know other people in your building dealing with the same problem; it’s you endlessly scrolling through the best reviewed or highest quality or cheapest options online, hoping the tools you’ve chosen will get the job done. It’s missing out on a discount from the owner of the neighborhood craft and candle store—who unbeknownst to too many others, can also act as a notary—and choosing a digital coupon over a beautiful reminder that you’re part of a community.

Moreover, overconsumption inevitably leads to resource depletion, and in this brave new world where the latest AI technology permeates everything we do (sometimes against our will), even the climate-conscious among us are contributing to it negatively. Binge-watching or binging-anything-digital also has adverse health effects, including on our mental health and sleep, and we’re yet to fully grasp all of its socio-psychological effects, not to mention its contribution to our loneliness and isolation crises

When I think about the last 15 years of subscribing—and lately, unsubscribing—I’ve had to admit that like many of us who live during this time, I sacrificed more convenience for less community, ownership of important things for access to seemingly everything, and gave my contact information to a bunch of companies whose aim is to profile my habits and patterns with little care for how my day is going. Unlike my favorite delivery person at my favorite Jamaican spot, who never fails to ask. 

Today, I don’t have as many subscriptions as I once did, and for different reasons. I downgraded or fully got rid of some streaming services because I didn’t watch them enough and I felt the value didn’t match the price—especially as prices have hiked significantly in the last few years. My short stint with CitiBike was because quite frankly, I’m more of a walker and a subway rider—and I’ve accepted once again that biking regularly for transportation is just not something I enjoy. Meanwhile, while I’ve kept some print literature, I’ve ended other subscriptions or kept them as digital-only because they were starting to need their own storage space in my home—and I couldn’t lend or donate them fast enough. And of course, with subscriptions like Amazon Prime, I decided I could no longer live with the cognitive dissonance of having it while being opposed to its labor politics and the politics of its owner. (Unfortunately, this has also meant ending a more than decade-long affair with Whole Foods, which I unashamedly enjoyed as much as the farmer’s market I still frequent.)

I don’t think I’ll ever be subscription-free. I still have Netflix, and although Tidal had replaced Spotify in my life for many years due to its higher-quality sound, I missed my old playlists and collaborations on the latter and decided it’s one excess I can live with for now. But I’ve also returned to collecting vinyl again, shopping for most things in-person, and living with things taking as long as they need to get to me if I do order them online. Putting an end to the mindless and endless subscribing has made me more mindful of the things that I do want showing up in my digital and physical mailbox once a month. Because unlike 15 years ago with that accidental analog subscription, I’m making a conscious choice for them to be there.

[post_title] => Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe [post_excerpt] => Why I became more subscription-conscious (and you should, too). [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => soapbox-unsubscribe-subscriptions-community-streaming-platforms-netflix-spotify-amazon-capitalism [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 16:58:49 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 16:58:49 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8636 [menu_order] => 11 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe, Unsubscribe

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 8523
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-06-23 21:38:31
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-06-23 21:38:31
    [post_content] => 

And it'll make you feel alive, too.

Soapbox is a series where people make the case for the sometimes surprising things they feel strongly about.

A few months ago, I found myself openly crying in the office. I wasn’t crying about something personal, or even something particularly emotionally complex. I also wasn’t crying over the usual slate of workplace drama (bad meetings, good news, big decisions, encroaching deadlines, staffing cuts, etc.), which I’ve admittedly cried about a million times before. No, this time was different: I was crying because I was streaming the Boston Marathon at my desk, and—after 26 miles, all of them occurring hundreds of miles away from the city where I work—the lead women were approaching the finish line.

If the idea of crying over running sounds insane to you, or if the prospect of spending several hours in front of a screen watching strangers run sounds like watching paint dry: I get it. Until a few years ago, the very idea of long-distance running as a professional sport that people followed and spectated was entirely foreign to me. Having grown up in Massachusetts, I was aware that Marathon Monday was a meaningful day for the city; but for me, it mostly meant that work and school would be canceled, lots of roads would be closed, and maybe some friends would be going to cheer their friends on while I enjoyed the day off. I felt no more emotionally invested in the race and its outcome than in a 4th of July parade. Going out of my way to watch a race happening in a different city, then, would never have occurred to me; it would have felt like closely following municipal elections in a city I’d never visit.

But over the last few years, I’ve come to believe that spectating marathons is one of the most beautiful, life-affirming ways we can spend our time. Before I got into watching races, I’d never been a serious fan of any sport. I’ve long been a casual runner, who initially got into the sport out of a vague, begrudging sense of obligation to “fitness.” But then, I made friends who competed in—and sometimes even won!—local races, and who truly adored running on its own merits. Their enthusiasm got me hooked: When they sent me a pro runner’s Instagram post, I’d hit “follow”; when they wanted to watch a race, I’d stream it, too. Whenever we spectated together, they’d point out how everyone racing was quite literally on equal footing—what other sport, they’d ask, has total newbies and elite lifers competing in the same place, at the same time? Not to mention that races aren’t hard to follow. Unlike, say, baseball or football, whose fandoms seem to mandate memorizing reams of stats and plays, marathons have precious few rules to remember: Generally speaking, the first person to the finish line wins, making it incredibly accessible for both the casual and serious viewer alike. By the time the 2021 women’s Olympic marathon rolled around, I was the one texting my friends about whether they’d seen Molly Seidel’s groundbreaking bronze medal performance. 

Running asks very little of a viewer, but feels communal, and cathartic, and inspiring—feelings that are increasingly hard to come by in these particularly bleak and fractured times. It’s also just a joy to witness; and as I’ve become a more dedicated fan, I’ve come to appreciate its particular drama and intrigue. Watching as a mass of competitors thins out into a small pack of frontrunners; seeing the determination in runners’ faces as they decide when to make a break for the lead, only to sometimes get subsumed by the pack again; witnessing the absolute bliss of a first-time winner breaking the tape—all of it is, genuinely, thrilling.

I mostly follow the women’s division, in part because we’re living through an incredible moment for American women’s distance running. For decades, the sport was deemed unsafe for our supposedly fragile physiology, and women were barred from participating. The Boston Marathon has been run annually since 1897; women, though, weren’t officially allowed to compete until 1972. (This year, more than 12,000 of the approximately 30,000 runners were women.) Women’s participation in marathon running has increased steadily since the ’70s, but as the New York Times has reported, there’s been “a sea change in women’s running” in the last decade. Simply put: Way more women are running way faster than ever. Consider the U.S. Olympic Trials, which are open to any American woman who can complete a marathon within its wildly fast cut-off time (right now, that’s just under two and a half hours). In 2016, fewer than 200 women met that qualifying mark, as the Times reported; just four years later, that number jumped to over 500. (Meanwhile, the number of qualifying men during that time increased by fewer than 50.) There has never been a time where there’s more enthusiasm, community, or resources for women who want to push themselves to be the best runners they can be—and watching that magic take place at the highest levels of the sport has successfully turned me into a lifelong fan. 

Unfortunately, like all sports, it isn’t without its less uplifting aspects. The ever-higher ceiling for women runners has also attracted backlash from anti-trans campaigners, who have fought to keep trans women out of professional running, casting doubt on the biology of women they deem “too masculine” and making it near-impossible for non-binary runners to compete on their own terms. So much of what inspires me about watching women’s running—and being a runner myself—is about pushing past the assumed limits of our genders and our bodies, which makes the bigotry inherent in marginalizing trans runners feel, to me, particularly painful and incongruous. When I look to runners like Nikki Hiltz—a nonbinary middle-distance runner who represented the United States at the Olympics—and the scores of queer run clubs popping up all over the country: That’s where I, as a fan, see the true future of the sport.

Running is an individual activity, but watching (and, of course, participating in) a marathon feels like a community endeavor. Each fall, when the New York City Marathon takes over the streets of the city where I now live, I watch as the roads fill up with people across a wide range of ages, races, sizes, and abilities—all united by their participation in attempting a time-honored and miraculous feat. The sidewalks, meanwhile, are populated with ardent fans, casual viewers, young kids being hoisted on their parents’ shoulders, well-behaved dogs providing moral support; homemade signs that range from tried-and-true to weirdly topical; strangers offering racers water or Gatorade or high-fives—together, watching the sheer speed of the pros as they zoom past, making it all look elegant and easy. Even people who don’t care about running, or would never engage in the sport on their own time, quietly admit that it’s the best day of the year—and who am I to disagree? Just don’t come complaining to me when you suddenly find yourself glued to a stream of a race in a far-off city, crying over a total stranger as she crosses the finish line.

[post_title] => Watching People Run Makes Me Feel Alive [post_excerpt] => And it'll make you feel alive, too. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => women-marathon-runners-running-boston-new-york-sports-soapbox-opinion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-09-12 17:00:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-09-12 17:00:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=8523 [menu_order] => 12 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A colorful illustration of many women marathon runners' faces as they cross the finish line, euphoric and sweaty and exhausted and happy.

Watching People Run Makes Me Feel Alive