'You date people you think you deserve. You deserve better.'
In a video posted in December 2022, she shares the advice she wishes that “somebody told me in my twenties” and it has received more than 13 million views. Smith says that she gave the same advice to her partner's two daughters when they reached their twenties.
The video is hashtagged #GenX advice for #GenZ and late #millennials. Sorry older millennials, you’re too old to receive these pearls of wisdom.
Here is some of the timeless advice that Smith shares in the video.
Perfection is bullshit.
You will never be more good-looking than you are today.
Put your phone down and enjoy your life.
Don't change for anybody.
Don't worry about making mistakes.
Laugh at yourself.
If somebody shows you their true colors, believe them.
You end up dating the people you think you deserve. Usually, you deserve better.
Don’t forget to always wear your sunscreen.
This might only help one person and thats ok. Advice I wish somebody told me in my twenties. #genx advice for #genz and late #millennials #adviceforyour20s #lifeadvice #fyp dont be an asshat in the comments if you are older, its not helpful.
She followed up the video with a sequel with even more sage advice.
Know who's on your side and who you can ask for help.
Don't spend longer than one year with the wrong person.
Find your own style.
Don't stress over the small stuff.
Good manners don't go out of style.
Do the work that it takes to be really good at something.
Your happiness is more important than other people's disappointment.
This might only help one person and thats ok. Advice I wish somebody told me in my twenties part 2 #genx advice for #genz and late #millennials #adviceforyour20s #lifeadvice #fyp
This article originally appeared on 1.18.23
- One person has crowdsourced the very best life advice from over 20 million people online ›
- His mother gave him a 'husbands in training' course as a child. Every parent should do it. ›
- Millennials nearing 40 are sharing their biggest mistakes so everyone can learn from them ›
- Commercial from the 50s shows just how cool fridges were - Upworthy ›
- Teacher makes Gen Z Dictionary to define terms like 'no cap' - Upworthy ›
- Things Gen Z wouldn't like that were normal for millennials - Upworthy ›
- 'Last Gen X Playground' has Gen Xers feeling nostaligic - Upworthy ›
- Dad challenges Gen Z daughter to figure out U-Haul truck - Upworthy ›
- Gen Zer asks what older generations did before Google - Upworthy ›
- Iliza Schlesingers begs for Gen Z to be nice to millennials - Upworthy ›
- Gen Z cries after going around town with stack of resumes - Upworthy ›
- Gen Z is vowing not to raise 'iPad kids' - Upworthy ›
- 22 perfect pearls of wisdom - Upworthy ›
Is this where everything changed?
Craig Ferguson was the host of "The Late Late Show" on CBS from 2005 to 2014. He's probably best remembered for his stream-of-conscious, mostly improvised monologues that often veered from funny observations to more serious territory.
In 2009, he opened his show explaining how marketers have spent six decades persuading the public into believing that youth should be deified. To Ferguson, it's the big reason "Why everything sucks."
"In the 1950s, late '50s, early '60s, a bunch of advertising guys got together on Madison Avenue and decided to try to sell products to younger people. 'We should try to sell to younger people because then they will buy things their whole lives,'" Ferguson explained.
The problem is, according to Ferguson, that young people are "kind of stupid."
"So the deification of youth evolved and turned into the deification of imbecility. It became fashionable to be young and to be stupid," he continued.
'Why everything sucks'
On a deeper level, Ferguson makes the point that exalting youth and inexperience over wisdom and experience runs contrary to the way of nature.
"Then what happened is that people were frightened to not be young," he said. "They started dyeing their hair, they started mutilating their faces and their bodies in order to look young. But you can't be young forever, that's against the laws of the universe."
Calling marketers' war on the over-49 set the reason why "everything sucks" may be a bit of an exaggeration. But the takeaway from Ferguson's monologue is spot-on. There's no reason to feel bad about aging. You've got experience, wisdom, probably better credit, and have learned that Saturdays are a lot more fun after you've been to bed by 10:00 pm on Friday.
This article originally appeared on 2.17.22
Wealth inequality has never been funnier.
Inequality has gotten worse than you think.
An investigation by former "Daily Show" correspondent Hasan Minhaj is still perfectly apt and shows that the problem isn't just your classic case of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
As much as we hear about wealth inequality these days, one disparity remains mostly ignored: the gap between the wealthy and the ridiculously wealthy.
Minhaj spoke to Richard Reeves, an economist with the Brookings Institute, who painted a dark picture:
Wealth inequality on the rise.
All GIFs via Comedy Central.
The study Reeves refers to points to the growing wealth of the top 10th of the top 1%:
"The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012 — a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined."
And no one's paid any attention.
Millionaires unconcerned with financial disparity.
All GIFs via Comedy Central.
But not all millionaires are worried about growing inequality in the top 1%.
In his search for a concerned millionaire, Minhaj met Morris Pearl, a retired investment banking director and member of an organization called The Patriotic Millionaires. Minhaj was baffled by what Pearl had to say:
Investment banking pays well.
All GIFs via Comedy Central.
What about trickle-down economics?
Trickle-down theory was popularized under Ronald Reagan's presidency. The idea was that clearing a path for the rich to make more money would spur more private investment, which would lead to more jobs and higher wages for all workers.
Attempting the preach the reverse.
All GIFs via Comedy Central.
Reagan put trickle-down theory into practice in two basic ways: by lowering taxes for the wealthy and by freezing wages for the poor.
In 1981, he cut the top marginal income tax rate — which only applies to the highest-income households — from 70% to 50%. Then in 1986, he more than doubled-down by slashing the rate to 28%. (The current rate is 39.6%.) And under Reagan's leadership, the minimum wage was frozen, even as costs of living were rising.
Pearl and other so-called Patriotic Millionaires think top one-percenters like themselves should pay more taxes.
Making rich people richer.
All GIFs via Comedy Central.
Not only that, they believe raising the minimum wage is critical to reducing inequality.
OK, maybe not everyone — including millionaires — are convinced that giving more money to the rich will fix the economy. So why do our policies do just the opposite?
This article originally appeared on 3.23.15
Patrick Stewart often talks about his childhood and the torment his father put him and his mother through.
Patrick Stewart often talks about his childhood and the torment his father put him and his mother through. However, how he answered this vulnerable and brave fan's question is one of the most eloquent, passionate responses about domestic violence I've ever seen.
WARNING: At 2:40, he's going to break your heart a little.
This article originally appeared on 06.26.13.
Abortion remains an incredibly polarizing issue.
The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn't have to be.
People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.
Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we'd hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.
It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here's why.
There's far too much gray area to legislate.
No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.
I personally believe life begins at conception, but that's my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.
Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.
One reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.
I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.
I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.
I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.
I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.
Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)
I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.
And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing.
As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands.
Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.
The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.
Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.
Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.
At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist in the real world.
Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.
This article originally appeared on 01.22.19
- Texas valedictorian gave unapproved speech on abortion bill - Upworthy ›
- What it really means to be six weeks pregnant - Upworthy ›
- There's one question we all need to ask ourselves after the Dobbs ruling ›
- What it was like to be in a roundtable with the VP - Upworthy ›
- Major win for abortion rights in Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky - Upworthy ›
Have you noticed your favorite shows don't look as good as they used to? This viral post explains why.
A fascinating look at quality versus quantity.
For fantasy fans, it truly is the best of times, and the worst of times. On the bright side—there’s more magic wielding, dragon riding, caped crusading content than ever before. Yay to that.
On the other hand, have you noticed that with all these shows, something feels … off?
No, that’s not just adulthood stripping you of childlike wonder. There is a subtle, yet undeniable decline in how these shows are being made, and your eyes are picking up on it. Nolan Yost, a freelance wigmaker living in New York City, explains the shift in his now viral Facebook post.
The post, which has been shared nearly 3,500 times, attributes shows being “mid,” (aka mediocre, or my favorite—meh) mostly to the new streaming-based studio system, which quite literally prioritizes quantity over quality, pumping out new content as fast as possible to snag a huge fan base.
The result? A “Shein era of mass media,” Yost says, adding that “the toll it takes on costuming and hair/makeup has made almost every new release from Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu have a B-movie visual quality.”
He even had some pictures to prove it.
Yost first addressed the Amazon Prime Series “The Rings of Power.” One of the many, many things that makes Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy so iconic is the costumes. But that legacy was the direct result of dedication to detail.
“The production spent years hand-making every single piece of armor with real metal, hand-dyeing all-natural fiber fabrics, and designing distinct embroidery and hairstyles specific to each race in Middle Earth that had continuity through the story,” Yost wrote.
He added, “the natural dyes and dedicated layers of fabrics for elves, for hobbits, wool/dyes, and for men had a much more muted/medieval look, yet ethereal because of the slight detail you don’t really notice, but the depth draws your eye to every inch of the costume regardless.” This, he says, is why those three movies stand the test of time.
Compare this to the two images from “The Rings of Power,” below. In one photo “they barely scrapped together an unnaturally gilded scale mail breastplate and just screen printed a stretched long sleeve shirt to match underneath, all over a skirt in a single layer of a warped poly skirt.”
Now you too can look like you're from Middle Earth for the low, low cost of $10.99.
The other image shows “they just saved money on an Elven wig altogether for a 2022 pompadour, with a velvet pleated priest smock (with crushed parts not even steamed out), and a neckline that isn’t tailored to fit like we’ve seen previously with Elrond or Celeborn.”
Yost then moved onto HBO’s “House of the Dragon.” Arguably even those who have never seen a single episode of its predecessor, “Game of Thrones,” would still recognize Daenerys Targaryen for her platinum white hair—an attribute that Yost notes was quite expensive.
It cost big bucks to be a Khalessi.Giphy
He explained that for the show’s final season alone, Daenerys’ wigs most likely cost tens of thousands, requiring human hair to be custom made into multiple wigs.
Luckily, there was only one character with that signature look in the show. For “House of the Dragon,” however, with a cast almost entirely made up of silver-haired brooding powerhouses, Yost surmises that due to budget constraints, the creators opted for synthetic wigs.
You can see below the problem this cost-cutting decision makes in terms of authenticity.
Luckily, Matt Smith is such a good actor a few stray hairs are an easily forgivable.
“Synthetic hair reflects light throughout the whole hair shaft and it tangles extremely easily,” Yost writes. “With any shot where a character isn’t actively moving or is performing dialogue and the hair isn’t being actively smoothed down every couple of seconds between shots, each flyaway is going to show up on camera if there’s any indirect lighting and look messy. Not only that, synthetic hair is also twice as thick per strand than human hair, so regardless of that the wigs are going to look bulky in an uncanny valley sort of way.”
This affects not just sci-fi and fantasy, but other genres meant to transport viewers into other worlds, like period pieces, which Yost points out with a picture from “Bridgerton” by Shonda Rhimes.
Yeah, this does look like they're wearing curtains. And not in a fun "Sound of Music" kind of way.
“It’s obviously not meant to be historically accurate, which is totally fine,” he writes, but without important details or embellishments or even proper undergarments to make the clothes fit well, everything looks like a slightly more expensive Halloween costume.
Yost’s insightful post really shines a light on what audiences are having to trade off for the sake of constant output. The phrase “done is better than perfect” takes on a new meaning altogether as studios race to meet a deadline with whatever is easiest to mass produce. But if viewers are so easily taken out of these stories because of noticeable corner cutting, then perhaps it’s a sign that what we really want and need are stories worth waiting for, ones that truly pull us in and leave us captivated. This is no easy ask, for studio execs or customers alike (I too am a voracious binge-watcher), but as we can see in these examples, the most valuable experiences rarely, if ever, come from rushing.
This article originally appeared on 9.10.22