Maybe I’m just like your gruff old uncle at heart, but I have to admit it: sometimes I hate teenagers. Well, some teenagers — at least those whose seal of approval would be a resounding #yaaaas and who would attend a concert only to watch it through the screens of their iPhones. I, however, openly acknowledge the fact that I unreasonably resent a generation of people who are not at fault for being born in the Millennial Age. Technically speaking, I am a ‘Millennial’ myself. I realize that, like most things, adolescent culture evolves with the passing of time. If anything, I’m just part of an undying cycle, through which I have expectedly progressed to the cynical young adult stage.

While I tend to show favor toward the innovations of social media, I sometimes find myself at odds with the cultures they seem to inspire. Social media sites can be strange spaces that often read as personal diary entries. Many social media users broadcast hookups, cryptic breakups, what they had for brunch and how much time they logged in at the gym. They do this because they can — whether you like it or not. The fact that I feel somewhat conflicted about these posts is completely subjective. It’s definitely a matter of ‘it’s not you, it’s me.’ There’s no substantive argument I have to show for my disdain, other than the impression that these people seem to be incentivized by how many ‘likes’ they can get. It’s as if people, particularly young people, have an insatiable quota for them.

Gone are the days when seeking popularity or fame consisted of auditioning to be on a subpar reality television contest, or forcing your way onto a breaking news coverage. While these methods are not necessarily extinct, they’re definitely outdated. In this day and age, social media revolutionized the concept of celebrity, as it readily provides both an audience and a stage. And all it takes for a person to take that stage is six seconds or 140 characters.

Vine, YouTube and Twitter all establish the popularity of the soundbite, and along with other platforms, immortalize them as memes: sharable and alterable media. There are roles in the social media fame game; one is the star and the other is the promoter. The role of the star often involves some ingenuity, whether it be in the orchestration of an outrageous stunt, or a silly, yet instantly iconic one-liner. Sometimes the subject of a viral video isn’t a social media savant. The subject can be an endearingly jumpy dog, or someone caught falling off a stage. Regardless of intention, many subjects become the butt of a joke that lasts for a few weeks, and more often than not, they laugh along with the audience.

The role of the star is nuanced. The task of the promoter, on the other hand, is unambiguous. The viral component of a meme has more to do with how the Internet transforms it and its actual distribution. In this sense, social media platforms constitute a participatory culture where many are credited with the popularization of a new meme.

For many people, the social media fame game goes beyond trying to stand out as a singular, big name. As a promoter, the faculty of sharing and expanding a meme provides one with the experience of co-authorship, which is arguably more accessible to us than the prospect of being a star. This goes back to an age-old question: why do we want to be famous? It’s actually not that complicated. It’s a sort of paradox in that standing out gives people dignity and a sense of belonging. This is not necessarily true of all people, but at least it makes sense to the players in the social media fame game. In our day-to-day lives, we subconsciously size people up within seconds of meeting them. We compare ourselves to them and other people we know because of a latent desire to elevate ourselves. And ‘other people’ are the only units of measure that seem both accessible and relevant to us.

In a world where we continually decrease our prospects for recognition — as illustrated in restrictive 140 character tweets and six-second Vine videos — we struggle against being socially marginalized. So we hashtag the memes and Instagram our selfies in the spirit of an implicit competition. Not all of these competitions are hostile; some are merely to ensure survival. The stakes, of course, are not exactly trivial. People either want to co-author a meme or star in a viral video to feel like a contributing member of social media’s participatory culture. They just want to be appreciated.

Older generations often have misconceptions about social media. They are confused by it, they trivialize it and they arrive at the conclusion that Millennials are somehow more impersonal and different from them. Despite my personal antipathy towards many aspects of social media and online culture, I know not to dismiss them as unimportant. Social media works to project basic and transgenerational wants and needs — it’s just a different brand. While many things remain the same, I find that a lot of young people are increasingly in it for Hollywood fame and glory. They just want to do it for the Vine.

UCSD fraternity accused of misogyny

Last week, a member of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity requested a picture of “rush boobs” from his undergraduate female friend.

“Lol funny story,” the fraternity member said in a Facebook message to second-year UCSD student Rachel Friedman on Oct. 15. “So I’m in a frat now and we have to get ‘rush boobs’ if you or any of your friends can help me out I would really appreciate it. I don’t need faces I just need topless pics with ‘Rush SAE’ written on their chests.”

Friedman posted a screenshot of the exchange on Facebook sporting the caption, “it’s time people take their heads out of their asses and respect others.”

Concept: women are people.

Even with roughly 50 percent of the world’s population being female, there are still many mindless individuals who seem incapable of remembering that women — people — deserve to be treated with respect.

The UCSD SAE chapter later posted on Facebook that “those responsible within [their] chapter are being dealt with accordingly.” This statement, along with the fraternity claiming to have had no involvement in the occurrence, does not mean that they should get off scot-free. When choosing its members, a Greek organization is identifying who it believes will best represent the group, and UCSD’s SAE is no exception to this standard.

The constant avoidances of blame, and pathetic excuses along the lines of “they didn’t know better,” need to stop. Responsibility must be taken, and a system that helps to shift those ignorant, excuse-filled mentalities into informed, well-educated attitudes must be put in place.

Whether that eventually takes the form of anti-oppressive trainings incorporated in our educational system or a further push by universities to support the use women’s resource centers is up to each school’s discretion. However, the first and most important step is for all community members to see those around them as fellow human beings — as opposed to a skin color, a religion, a sexual preference or a body part.

By no means is this an attack on Greek life, members of fraternities or men in general. The unfortunate fact is that the degradation and objectification of women is everywhere — even on the seemingly forward-thinking settings of prestigious public universities, like UCSD.

The idea of someone typing out and sending the sentence “I don’t need faces I just need topless pics” to a woman clearly indicates that sexually objectifying females is still a relevant topic of discussion.

The Editorial Board warns the community that, although this occurrence may seem harmless to some, incidents like these promote the derogatory mindset that pairs with more serious matters such as sexual assault and domestic violence.

The situation at UCSD was all too familiar for Friedman, who had been a victim of sexual assault in the past. She is not alone when it comes to grappling this topic.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, women between the ages of 18 to 24 are the most commonly abused by an intimate partner. This violence starts with the objectification of women.

On Oct. 18, the UC Davis Police Department issued a crime alert addressing a case of sexual battery that had happened earlier that day. The male offender and female victim had dinner together, and upon walking back to campus, the female was assaulted by her companion.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. With sexual assault a very sensitive topic for many, it is important to keep in mind how seemingly small and harmless events, such as UCSD’s recent episode, can negatively affect the community. These events perpetuate sexual exploitation and serve as stepping stones that lead to bigger and more solemn themes.

This October and beyond, the Editorial Board urges UC Davis students to remember that we are all respectful members of the community — so let’s start acting like it.

The influence of millennials is all around us: they run the companies we shop from, invent the social media sites we use daily, write the books we read and practice new philosophies we admire.

Sometimes, the identity of these millennials is overlooked. We don’t think to put a face to the inventions we use every day. Alternately, millennials who work as producers or actors seem to be more recognized by the public. In any case, these awe-inspiring and innovative millennials have spent their years dancing to the beat of their own drum. Influential millennials have helped grow a culture of new innovation, communication, business philosophy and political equality. Their contributions will hardly go unnoticed, as they have set the precedent for future generations and overall cultural evolution.

Here are a few of the most influential millennials to date:

Mark Zuckerberg: While the founder of Facebook may be seen as one of the more obvious influential millennials of the time, his contribution to society will never go unnoticed. Zuckerberg was one of the social media pioneers. He succeeded in fulfilling his vision to connect people by creating a virtual, social network. As of 2014, a whopping 58 percent of the U.S. adult population uses Facebook. This is an astronomical number, considering its very specific purpose. While LinkedIn remains designated for business culture, and Twitter connects the world population over common interests and news, Facebook serves to keep intimate relationships alive. The notion that a person could maintain personal connections online was bizarre, if not unheard of, 20 years ago.

Sophia Amoruso: The CEO and founder of Nasty Gal is a millennial virtuoso, known both for her trendy style and unconventional, entrepreneurial process. Her fashion retailing company, founded in 2006, was named one of the “fastest-growing private companies in the U.S.” by Inc. Magazine. In her New York Times Best Seller #GIRLBOSS, Amoruso recounts the path that led her to create her thriving business, describes her off-beat entrepreneurial attitude and defends her general refusal to adhere to the status quo. This is what business looks like now. Amoruso not only understands her young clientele, but she has critically been able to build her empire based upon this knowledge.

Emma Watson: As a star of one of the greatest film series of the millennial era, Watson has since dedicated herself to setting a grand example for young girls and women as a United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador. Through her HeForShe campaign, she has been able to diminish gender inequality. During a worldwide Facebook conversation in March 2015, Watson addressed the misunderstanding between Millennials and many traditional Generation X parents about societal roles. She set forth several calls to action, noting, “I think it starts young, I think it starts really young with girls and boys being told what they can be. It’s not about men saving women. We need yin and yang. We need that balance. We need female representation. We need female leadership.” By using her celebrity to bring attention to these gender inequities, Watson is making a worldwide impact. As a Goodwill Ambassador, her focus is not limited to any one country.

Jaden and Willow Smith: This millennial sibling duo has gained quite a following in recent years, first through their acting and musical projects and now through their new existentialist philosophies. Like most millennials, they embrace boundless creativity and resplendent ambition, spending their time reading up on quantum physics and ancient texts. Reflecting on her work so far, Willow explains her debut song “Whip My Hair” as “a great thing […] When I look back I think, wow, I did so much for young black girls and girls around the world. Telling them that they can be themselves and to not be afraid to be themselves.” Now, Willow feels that she is making a difference inspired by “source energy and universal truths” in her philosophies. Jaden has found his own niche in Twitter, where his idiosyncratic posts are some of the most popular on the site. These two millennials are truly in a category of their own.

David Karp: While this web developer’s name may not be as widely known as Zuckerberg’s, Karp’s contribution is to the World Wide Web is just as monumental. Karp, founder and CEO of the blogging platform Tumblr, not only streamlined the blogging world but has also fostered a more relaxed work culture within his corporation. Karp once said he abhors scheduling, citing his belief that appointments actually blight creativity. He explained, “It’s so frustrating when you’re in the middle of a great conversation or work groove, and you realize, ‘Oh, I’ve got an appointment. I’ve got to bolt.’” Karp’s relaxed workplace is yet another example of the flexibility of Millennial company culture.

Malala Yousafzai: This 18-year-old Pakistani native gained the support of many after surviving a physical and targeted attack by radical terrorists against women’s education. Since the 2012 attack, this millennial has been named one of Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World.” She has continued her activism, written a book about her journey and won a slew of awards for her bravery, courage and dedication to women’s right to education. Malala now holds the title for being the youngest Nobel Prize Laureate. More than anyone else, Malala disproves the stereotype that millennials are inwardly-focused narcissists.

For all the criticisms leveled against it, Generation Y continues to find its voice in part through the efforts of these people.

How media distorts gun violence in America

The tragedy that occurred three weeks ago from the senseless killing of nine students at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, was just that – a tragedy. As were last year’s shootings at UC Santa Barbara, Sandy Hook Elementary School and Aurora, Colo. Many more incidents of bloody massacres, grieving families and national loss come to mind.

Because all of these events are noteworthy and tragic in their own right, it feels unjust to simply gloss over any one.There are the firearm homicides not committed in the midst of a mass shooting, the suicides and accidental deaths we hear about only occasionally. Those must not be forgotten. But how many of those happen?

Following the Umpqua shooting, a YouGov/ Huffington Post survey showed that a wide range of responses to that question bring a median guess of about 5,000 firearm deaths in the United States per year. The other 48 percent had no clue about the number, not enough to even venture a guess – they simply responded with “I don’t know.”

Unfortunately, the respondents who elected to answer aren’t very close to the true number. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 32,888 people were killed by firearms in the United States in 2013. Of these men, women and children, 21,875  took their own lives; 11,208 were intentionally murdered; and 505 perished from an accidental gunshot. Of those homicides, 502 were committed as part of a mass shooting.

The total amount of gun-linked homicides in the United States dwarfs the amount of people killed in mass shootings. About 31 people are murdered with firearms every day in single shooting events, 29 of whom die outside of mass-shootings.

Why don’t we hear about the Americans who are victims of single-shooter deaths? Why did CNN devote practically 24 hour coverage to Roseburg, Ore. on Oct. 1, without any mention of the 29 others who lost their life to guns that same day? Why did our President, in his strong political statement following the Umpqua tragedy, fail to also extend his thoughts and condolences to those forgotten 29?

Statistically, those 29 people were mostly men, between the ages of 18 and 30. They were African-American, Hispanic, impoverished and inner-city inhabitants. So were their killers. Unlike the largely white, middle-class mass shooters, whose profiles are ardently dissected by cable news, these killers aren’t the victims of mental illness. They are instead the victims of a much more pervasive illness, one not as sensationalist and appealing to viewers. They are the victims of fractured households, poverty, poor education, bad role models and the appeal of gang culture. They are the products of income inequality, institutional racism and damaged inner city values.

But CNN won’t get the ratings it needs by profiling these 29 victims. It’s much easier to pity and fear a mentally ill kid that lives in a middle-class neighborhood. President Obama won’t pack the same political punch by describing the plight of these 29 other families who experienced loss and tragedy on Oct. 1. It’s much easier to relate and grieve for the middle class victims of mass-shootings at universities and movie theaters. This is understandable. Most Americans are middle class. Most Americans have either been in a university or a theater.

Yet the other 29 warrant, at the least, a mention. Even if the cable television demographic can’t relate to these deaths, news is meant to do more than simply elicit grief and sympathy — it is meant to inform Americans about issues. It is hard to blame ourselves and our fellow countrymen for our gross underestimate of the amount of life lost at the behest of firearms, when media refuses to talk about the other 29.

On a political level, knowledge of these deaths and more responsible media coverage would create a better informed electorate. Issues like institutional racism and inner city poverty, the issues that affect the 29, should be brought up for debate and discussion. Armed with facts and a truer perspective on firearms, Americans would make wiser political decisions with their ballots, and their elected representatives would respond accordingly. Perhaps a more informed public would provide a jolt to the gun policy debate, which has stalled for so long.

On a moral level, the 31 Americans who are murdered by firearms everyday all deserve acknowledgment, not just the two killed in circumstances most can relate to. No one unjustly killed in this country deserves to be glossed over. So today, tomorrow and until the day our national bloodshed ends, join me in extending thoughts and prayers to all those killed.

We’ve all heard the story about the magical man who runs a large, mysterious factory full of delicious treats and colorful candies. When I was little, before grasping the hard truth that it was a fictional place, I wanted nothing more than to go to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. Aside from stealing a golden egg and meeting an Oompa Loompa, I wanted to see where chocolate was born.

In reality, chocolate begins from cocoa beans, more than 70 percent of which are grown in West African countries. Asia and Latin America are also responsible for some of our cocoa supply. Children in countries like Ghana and Cameroon are being forced into slavery to pick the cocoa beans. It’s no mystery why farmers, wanting to offer competitive prices in order to remain relevant within the industry, continue to abuse their worker’s rights. The Ivory Coast gets 60 percent of its revenue from cocoa exports, using child labor to keep costs low.

These kids end up on cocoa farms for a number of reasons. Maybe they are living in poverty and are desperate for work, or a relative sold them to the farm or they were abducted by traffickers. Working from before sunrise until sundown and using dangerous tools such as machetes and chainsaws hardly seems suitable for a child. I can’t help but see a painful irony. While Ghanaian children struggle to carry 100-pound sacks of cocoa pods through the forest, American children would be thrilled to carry a 100-pound sack on Halloween night.

In order for the chocolate industry to eliminate forced labor and slavery, companies would need to pay cocoa farmers a more reasonable wage. I believe the American sweet tooth can stand to get a little more expensive, especially when you consider what that extra dollar or two is standing for.

In addition to social justice concerns, there are health concerns to consider when choosing your chocolate. Many companies, such as Nestle, Hershey and Mars, source their cocoa beans from farms using GMOs and pesticides. In fact, in 2012, Hershey and Mars spent over one million dollars opposing Proposition 37, a law that would have required GMO labeling in California.

By choosing an organic chocolate from brands such as Equal Exchange, you are guaranteeing yourself a product free of harmful chemicals and putting your dollar toward healthier cocoa-growing practices. Equal Exchange also supports small family farms by sourcing their cocoa from three businesses that they believe embody the true goals of the Fair Trade mission. Unfortunately, while labels of Fair Trade are always encouraging, they don’t have much significance in the chocolate industry. In 2011, Fair Trade USA split from Fair Trade System due to a difference in values.

Cocoa producers have become so secretive about their practices that it is difficult for anyone to know which farmers are using forced labor. Most farms in Latin America have yet to be found using these unethical practices. However, at this point in time we are unable to pick up a chocolate bar, flip it over and read with confidence that it was ethically produced. My best recommendation to avoid supporting unethical companies is to refer to lists recommending companies that source chocolate for their products with fair practices.

As always, I encourage you to read up on your favorite chocolate bar or Halloween treat. Whether it’s to express love, gratitude or apologies, eventually each of us will choose the chocolate to nurse us through our break up or celebrate our achievements. Therefore, we must consider what brand best aligns with our values as well as our taste buds. Just because Wonka wanted to keep his chocolate operation a secret doesn’t mean we should. Remember, you’ve got the golden ticket and only you can decide how to spend it.

You can reach Martha Greenburg at mzgreenburg@ucdavis.edu or on Twitter @marthazane94.