Tag: FTW Explains

What is All Soul’s Day? The holiday, explained

Understanding All Souls’ Day, which falls on November 2nd of this year.

Welcome to FTW Explains, a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world.

Today is All Souls’ Day, and for those of us outside of the Catholic faith, you might be asking the question: Say, what is All Souls Day?

All Souls’ Day is a Christian holiday, sometimes referred to as Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, which allows practitioners to say prayers for the departed.

Often people light candles and pray for souls they believe may be trapped in purgatory. The holiday has many different traditions around the globe, depending on both country and faith.

It is connected to the Mexican holiday of The Day of the Dead, by the way. That holiday, which allows families to come together to pray for those departed, begins on All Saints’ Day (November 1st) and concludes on All Souls’ Day (November 2).

Now you know. Go forth and celebrate as you see fit.

[vertical-gallery id=957017]

The Lionel Messi contract dispute and what it means for his future, explained

Confused by everything going on with Lionel Messi and FC Barcelona? We have you covered.

Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world.

Over the last 24 hours, you may have noticed the soccer fan in your life in a tizzy, wandering around the house, dazed, muttering the name “Messi” over and over again.

We’re here to help. See: Lionel Messi is in the news after FC Barcelona confirmed that the star had requested to leave the club. What started as a simple faxed request from a soccer player has now morphed into a good old fashioned soccer brouhaha, complete with contract disputes, wild speculation, and more.

Curious about what is going on? Want to learn more? We’ve got you covered. Let’s answer your questions.

So, who is this now?

A diminutive Argentine named Lionel Messi, who just so happens to be the greatest soccer player the world has ever seen.

Ah, I’ve heard of him.

Yes, he’s quite good. And he wants out of his contract at FC Barcelona, where he’s one of the most handsomely paid people alive.

So he wants out. Who cares?

Well, for much of the last two decades, Messi has more or less been FC Barcelona. He signed with the club when he was 13 years old after his home club in Argentina wouldn’t financially support him through a medical issue. (He had a growth deficiency and needed hormone treatment.) He made his senior club debut a few years later.

He’s now 33, and has spent the entirety of his career with Barcelona. While there, he’s just about rewritten the entire record book and redefined what we thought was possible for individual achievement in the game.

It’s not just a player leaving a team. This is an icon departing.

So it’s a big deal he’s leaving. Got it.

Except he might not be leaving.

Got it.

Wait. What?

So this all comes down to his contract, and an opt-out clause, and it’s all tied up in what’s going on with the coronavirus.

I’m intrigued. Go on.

Messi had an opt-out clause in his contract which would have allowed him to leave FC Barcelona at the end of this season. He’d be free to sign with any club he wanted.

But the contract’s language was written to reflect the usual sporting calendar. Barcelona’s season normally ends in June, so the contract said he needed to make the decision in June.

…But coronavirus messed everything up, I’m guessing.

Precisely. The season was put on hold for months, and so a season that normally ended in June, this year ended in August.

So Messi and his team are arguing that he put in his request (via a secure form of business communication called burofax, a delightful detail in all this) when he needed to, which was within 10 days after the season ended.

Barcelona is arguing that the deadline was June, coronavirus be damned, and Messi missed the deadline. And hanging in the balance is, you know, just 700 million Euros.

Wait. Why is that much money at stake?

Soccer isn’t like American sports where players are traded. Basically, teams buy and sell contracts of players. If a player’s contract expires, he’s able to leave on what in soccer we call a “free transfer.” If he’s still under contract, however, another team would have to pay a transfer fee to essentially buy his contract and acquire the player.

If Messi can successfully opt out of his contract, any team in the world could sign him, and pay Barcelona nothing. Only a few teams could actually pay his wages (he reportedly makes over $100 million annually), but they wouldn’t need to pay Barcelona anything.

If he is still under contract, though, and wants to leave, a team would need to pay Barcelona … an unholy amount of money. His buyout clause in the contract is reportedly €700 million, but even if a team only pays half that, it’s still an unreal amount of money.

Could anyone actually pay that much?

Sure. Manchester City prints money, and PSG has more than they know what to do with. But there are issues with Financial Fair Play regulations put in by UEFA that might make it very difficult to sign him (I’ll save all those explanations for another day), and it’s possible this is all just a negotiating tactic by Messi.

What do you mean?

Messi might not actually want to leave Barcelona, despite his request to leave. By threatening to leave, it could be his way of forcing Barcelona to make changes to the club. This is Messi’s ace in the hole, his way of telling the club he’s either not happy with the new manager they’ve brought in, Ronald Koeman, or, more likely — his unhappiness with the team’s president, Josep Maria Bartomeu.

This all sounds very complicated.

Buddy, you have no idea.

Always thought it was just people kicking a ball.

Yeah, no, we just watch the guys kick the ball as brief interludes between complex geopolitics and financial case studies. That’s where the real fun starts.

[lawrence-related id=943830,943730,943717]

Fortnite’s beef with Apple and Google, explained

This is so much.

Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world.

Fortnite and its parent company Epic Games have never been afraid to shake things up. That’s how it became the most popular game in the world today.

Now, they’re taking that same attitude that got them there to the doorsteps of two of the biggest tech companies in the world in Apple and Google.

Fortnite mysteriously disappeared from the Apple Store on Thursday without a trace. If users already had the game downloaded to their phones, it was still there. But anyone looking for the game? It was nowhere to be found.

Come to find out, Apple flatout removed it from the App Store.

A few hours later, it was also banned on Google’s Play Store.

Then, shortly after that, Epic Games dropped a commercial on Fortnite and YouTube called “Nineteen-Eighty-Fortnite” and everything went off the rails.

Lost in all the madness? Don’t worry. Here’s what’s happening.

Wait, wait, wait. Why did Apple ban Fortnite?

So on Fortnite, there are these things called V-Bucks. Think of them as virtual tokens you can use to purchase new “skins” and collectables on the game.

To actually get V-Bucks, though, you pay real life cash. Generally speaking, to this point, about 1,000 V-Bucks cost $9.99 in real life when purchased through the Apple Store or the Google Play store. Until now, those have been the only mediums to purchase them through on mobile platforms.

Until now, anyway. And here’s where things get tricky and the beef starts brewing.

Epic Games changed that. They created an in-game direct payment system that charged $7.99 for those same 1,000 V-Bucks instead of $9.99.

So they’re saving gamers a couple of dollars?

Yup, exactly. Instead of having them pay for the V-Bucks through Apple’s and Google’s systems, they give them a better deal in doing it through their own.

Why would they be shut down for that?

Well, it’s a problem for Apple and Google as the hosting platforms. This tweet from Esports expert Matthew Ball explains it well.

In exchange for hosting Fortnite on the App Store on the Google Play Store, the platforms review the app for users and charge a 30% commission on in-app purchases.

Epic Game’s in-game store circumvents that 30% commission, which Apple and Google say is a violation of the original agreement. So, therefore, they’ve removed the game.

So as long as this in-app store exists we won’t see Fortnite on our phones?

If you don’t already have it, no. At least not for iPhones anyway. Fortnite is still available through other app stores on Android systems. Tough luck, iPhone crowd.

Don’t worry. Epic Games isn’t sitting still, though. They’re suing both Google and Apple for the removal of the game from their platforms. And, the thing is, they clearly expected this to happen.

What do you mean?

Epic Games broke out those lawsuits against both companies shortly after Fortnite was removed from both Google Play and the App Store. They counted on each company taking the actions they did.

And, as a public response, they dropped a Fortnite-style commercial you might recognize.

This is a clear shot at Apple’s famous Super Bowl commercial set in an Orewllian “1984” dystopia from back in the day.

That’s feels mad dramatic here, but whatever. You get the point.

What’s their purpose in all of this?

That’s the thing — it’s hard to really say. They’re calling the current system they’re working in a “monopoly,” and they’ll battle it out in court to try and prove it.

But, honestly, it just seems like they’re trying to skip over paying the commission fee to their current distributors in Apple and Google which…fine.

But they’ve turned this into a public relations battle and it’s hard to tell how much ground they actually have to stand on.

This is weird and complicated.

Very much so. But it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Fortnite fans, you’ll want to keep your eyes on this one.

[jwplayer 6YKYPoxe-q2aasYxh]

Why Reebok’s First Pitch Program is a big win for sneakerheads everywhere

This is pretty dope.

At its core, being a sneakerhead is all about finding shoes that you love and wearing the heck out of them. Simple, right?

That used to be what the game was all about. Now, it’s changed. There are always challenges that come with all that.

Of course, there’s shortened stock that always gets in the way. Of course, there are the bots. And then, last but certainly not least, the pricing. Sometimes, you’re just not willing to pay that much for a shoe.

Reebok is giving sneakerheads everywhere a unique way around those very problems and they’re doing it in the most simple way.

Instead of creating a shoe, limiting its stock and then shipping it out to the masses for it to sell out in 0.5 seconds, they’re handing over the reigns of control to the people who actually want the shoes they create through their new First Pitch platform.

Through it, sneakerheads have more say than ever in the shoes Reebok drops and even how much they want to pay for it.

Wait, First Pitch? What’s that?

First Pitch is a digital platform Reebok is launching on August 10. They’ll produce a bunch of new concepts and sketches, post them on the platform and allow people to tell them if they want to buy them or not.

So what makes this different?

Instead of actually just producing the shoe and throwing it on a site, they’re including the people in their process.

They produce these concepts and allow users to commit to buying the actual shoe. Each sneaker’s price starts at $1 and each commitment they get from different users increases the price of the shoe by $1. They keep going until they get a commitment from enough users to sell 500 pairs of the shoe.

Wait, wouldn’t that mean they’d be selling $500 shoes? That’s a lot of money, Sykes

It would be a lot of money and that’s why they’re absolutely not doing that.

Instead, they have a set retail price goal for each shoe they produce. And once that goal is hit, the price of the shoe stops going up.

Here’s an example. Let’s say they have a shoe with a retail goal of $90. It’ll start at $1. With each commitment from a person to buy the shoe, that price goes up by $1. Once it hits $90, it won’t go over that retail goal anymore. And once they hit 500 pairs, they sell the shoes to each person who committed to buying a pair for $90.

Whoa, that’s pretty cool

Yup! It is. Guaranteed pairs. No abnormally outrageous prices. And lots of choice. It’s a great situation.

And the best part is that it restricts them from creating shoes that’ll just sit on shelves. Instead of creating something people don’t like and having it sit, they’ll just make a shoe people have already committed to buying.

That means less wasted material and a more efficient development process.

So when can I try this out?

It all drops on August 10, so in just over a week you’ll be able to give it a shot.

What is the first shoe dropping?

It’s the Classic Leather “Bee Keeper” and it looks pretty sick.

Ohhhh this is dope

Yup! Like I said, big W’s all around.

[jwplayer ozpeFbYe-q2aasYxh]

Kanye West’s bizarre ‘campaign rally,’ explained

Kanye West says he is running for president, and he launched his campaign with a bizarre, uncomfortable rally.

Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world.

Kanye West held his first campaign rally for his (maybe serious) run for the United States presidency this week. It quickly went off the rails, and arguably had more people worried about his mental health than seriously considering him as a candidate for the highest office in the land.

It was bombastic, strange, and very Kanye, in the worst sort of way. If you’re just coming into this story, you probably have a lot of questions. We will try to answer them here.

Who is this now?

Kanye West, the producer and rapper who’s made some of the best music of the last few decades by, like, anyone. We ranked all of his songs a few years back. He’s got really good songs!

Why is he holding a campaign rally?

West says he’s running for president.

Like, the actual president?

Yes.

Oh.

Yeah.

What are his … politics?

They’re a bit all over the place, as you might imagine. West has gone from famously decrying George W. Bush for not caring about Black people in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, to being a pretty vocal supporter of Donald Trump. He’s now saying he’s his own man.

As to his specific policies, uh, honestly I feel a bit gross getting into them, because it’s clear this man is going through something right now, or just using a platform to drum up interest in his new album.

But to give you a taste: “Harriet Tubman actually never freed the slaves, she just had the slaves go work for other white people” is a thing he said, along with suggesting marijuana should be free, and that there should be no more Plan B contraceptive, instead Plan A, which apparently is a plan to give every person who has a child $1 million. (Not a bad idea, tbh.)

So what was this rally?

It was him kicking off his presidential campaign. He wore a bulletproof vest and talked for a while, to some cheers and a whole lot of boos. It appeared most of the people there were there to gawk at the stunt as opposed to, you know, support him for president.

So is this all just a stunt?

Most likely. West announced he was running for president a few weeks ago, but then a spokesperson said he wasn’t running due to not getting organized enough to get on the ballot in a lot of states.

Then West said he was running again. So, I have no idea.

He has a new album coming out?

Yes. He’s sworn this isn’t just a publicity stunt for the new album, but, you know, he also said that marijuana should be free for everyone, so how seriously you take him is up to you. There are parts of this whole thing that are worrying, however.

What’s worrying about it?

West has been very vocal about his mental health issues in the past, openly discussing them in his music, and for him to now launch a presidential bid in which he’s openly getting emotional and throwing pretty out-there ideas into the world is worrying.

It suggests, to some, that this isn’t a marketing stunt, or an earnest run for president, but rather a guy with some issues who clearly isn’t being held in check or helped by the people around him. I have no idea, and can’t speculate, but it’s all kind of sad and worrying.

Could he actually influence the election?

I sincerely doubt it. Suggesting, as some on the right wing have, that Kanye West would split the Black vote and take votes away from Biden is about as disrespectful as you can be to Black voters in this country. I’d say West might steal some of the Idiot Vote from who knows who, or the “I was just going to write in Mickey Mouse” Vote, but I don’t think that’s a major part of the electorate.

[lawrence-related id=929390,916061,757220]

J Cole’s new song ‘Snow of tha Bluff’, and why it’s controversial, explained

This isn’t a beef.

J Cole is considered by many to one of the best rappers of his generation. When he drops anything — be it a song, or an album, or even something as simple as a tweet — people listen, read and watch.

That happened again on Tuesday night when Cole dropped a new song for the first time in about a year called “Snow on tha Bluff.” It felt like everyone took a four minute pause to go listen to the song.

The results probably weren’t what Cole expected, though.

Instead of folks coming back with the usual “wow, this is fire” reaction they’d had to to his other songs, this time fans chastised him for the song’s content.

What is the song even about?

The song’s news peg is the current discussion about racial injustice and police brutality across the country.

Listen to it here.

what made this song different?

He expresses some deep insecurities in this one that we don’t normally hear. It feels like a diary entry. One that serves as both a confession and then a critique — of someone else and, eventually, himself at the end.

He starts off by saying people think he’s “deep, intelligent” and are “fooled by my college degree.”

Where does the critique come in?

Immediately after that line, he transitions into his critique of an unnamed Black woman who he says is “way smarter” than he is and is angry at all the systems the country is built on and constantly rants on Twitter about it.

He says she’s done all the reading and done all the work to validate her arguments and critiques, but also lashes out at people occasionally. And he felt that one of her Tweets was an affront on him.

And this is where the controversy starts.

Who is he talking about here?

Most people on the internet seem to think he’s talking about Chicago rapper, poet and freedom fighter Noname.

She first jumped on the scene for most people when she appeared on Chance The Rapper’s Acid Rap mixtape. Her music is mostly centered around the Black experience in America — particularly that of Black women — and how she grew up in Chicago.

She doesn’t make music as much anymore, though. Instead, she’s built a whole community through her book club that constantly reads about Black life, struggles and Black advancement.

But wait, Cole didn’t even mention her in the song

Cole didn’t mention her, but she fits the description pretty well.

On top of that, she had a tweet critiquing an also unnamed rapper for not contributing when the George Floyd protests first broke out.

So why are people mad at Cole?

We live in a country where women — particularly Black women — do not feel safe. They are assaulted regularly and their voices are suppressed. Whether Cole intended for it to be or not, this song turned into another form of suppression.

And, considering that this was just days after activist Oluwatoyin Salau was found murdered after she had been sexually assaulted, the timing could not have been worse.

Cole’s critique basically amounted to him telling this educated woman who he says is smarter than him on the issues to educate him instead of talking down on him, which is neither that woman’s job nor her responsibility. Whether it’s Noname or not. Especially after Cole admits openly in the song that he hasn’t done the work to educate himself.

Did Cole apologize?

Well, not really. He said in a Twitter thread this morning that he stands by every word in the song.  He also wouldn’t confirm who he was talking about.

However, he did say that he follows Noname and “I love and honor her as a leader in these times” in that same thread. And lauded her for doing the work while critiquing himself for just being a rapper.

That’s not really an apology, though.

Is this a beef?

Nah, it’s definitely not a beef. Maybe a misunderstanding, but not a beef. At some point, hopefully, Cole actually speaks to whoever he’s talking about and clears things up.

But that’s probably what he should’ve done in the first place.

Fornite’s ‘The Device’ event — and why so many people are furious about it — explained

Fortnite servers filled up in one minute — 30 minutes before scheduled start — locking out fans who’d waited for weeks for the live event.

On Monday, Epic Games’ online multiplayer game Fortnite finally released teaser footage of Chapter 2, Season 3 of the game: “The Device.” The event drew outrage from fans who couldn’t take in the event live due to limited server space.

If the above sentences may as well have been written in German to you, you’re in luck: We’ve got you covered.

Let’s dive into the event, what happened, why some fans are so mad, and what the fallout from this is expected to be. Actually, before we get into all that, we’ll start at the basic stuff. Let’s get you caught up.

So what is this now?

Fortnite is an online multiplayer video game that’s immensely popular with gamers of all ages, as well as Drake.

The game has several different ways to play, including a 100-person “Battle Royale” where you go up against 99 other people online in what’s essentially a shoot-em-up free-for-all.

To keep the game fresh, Fortnite periodically introduces new seasons and chapters to change up the map and introduce new elements to the game. “The Device” was the event celebrating the launch of Chapter 2, Season 3.

Uh…what?

A popular video game was showing off a new map to its fans.

Got it. So what’s the issue?

“The Device” event had already been delayed three times, so fans were pretty antsy about finally seeing the new look of the game they love. The event was slated to start at 2 p.m. yesterday, but Epic Games told fans to show up at 1:30.

By 1:31, the servers were completely full and they couldn’t get anyone else in.

So it’s like tickets to a concert sold out.

Exactly! But unlike a concert venue, there isn’t any, like, fire code limiting capacity for the people who should be able to attend one of these events. Really, the only thing limiting the size of this event is the server space that Epic is willing to commit to it.

They committed enough server space for it all to fill up in one minute.

So fans are mad.

Yep. And it’s not just totally sour grapes — Epic has shown it can get the server space to put on massive events. For a Travis Scott event they streamed, they handled massive numbers.

For this event, they either didn’t fully anticipate the demand or weren’t willing to fork over money for the additional servers, and so fans are peeved.

Hm. Interesting.

Yeah. They’ve got a point. But then again, the whole video was up on YouTube very shortly after the event.

So the people were just mad they had to wait a few minutes to watch something that’s on a computer anyway?

Listen, you said it. Not me.

[jwplayer OoiQzY0t-q2aasYxh]

Trump’s executive order on social media platforms, explained

Understanding the executive order that was sent out about social media platforms.

Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world. This isn’t really a sports story but as denizens of the internet we feel this applies to us, and want to break it down for you. 

On Wednesday evening the White House announced cryptically that they would be releasing a new executive order targeting social media platforms. On Thursday, the order came out, and … it was a bit confusing.

So let’s get to the bottom of the executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which on its surface appears to be an order for agencies to look into the possibility of these companies being held legally responsible for content posted to their platforms, but is much more likely about a personal feud Trump has with Twitter.

Yeah. It’s a lot. Let’s answer your questions.

So, this is embarrassing, but: What’s an executive order?

Not embarrassing at all! Glad you asked. An executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States. It’s a power given to him by the Constitution as the overseer of the federal government. It’s not quite a law, as it doesn’t have the approval of Congress, but it is enforceable, and can be overturned by a judge.

OK, got it. What’s this particular executive order about?

It’s about social media platforms. Trump claimed the order would be a “big action” and some wondered if he would try to shut down social media platforms for not, in his mind, giving equal treatment to conservative voices (or, more importantly, himself).

It didn’t turn out to be that.

So what is it?

In essence, the order would limit legal protections for social media platforms if they don’t adhere to standards of neutrality.

What are “standards of neutrality?”

Unclear. The order doesn’t really specify. They’re just supposed to be generally fair, to the President, one would sort of have to assume.

Why do these companies need legal protections?

So, this all stems from definitions of “platforms” vs. “publishers.” Social media companies have long maintained that they are platforms, i.e. just a space where free ideas can flow.

This would mean that they are NOT responsible for anything posted on their platform. If they were defined as a “publisher,” it would certainly be different.

Basically: Right now, if someone uses Facebook to, say, libel someone, the person posting could get sued for libel, but not Facebook. Trump’s executive order aimed to weaken those legal protections, by having agencies look at whether platforms could be sued for content posted on their site.

How is that even enforceable?

Basically, it’s not. It’s Trump commanding people to look into something. But it’s pretty clearly a shot across the bow of social media companies, by threatening a legal protection they’ve existed under for their entire existence. If Facebook or Twitter can be sued for anything posted on their platforms, they’d be sued nonstop.

So what’s this actually about?

It sure seems to be about Trump being mad at Twitter. The company made the controversial call this week to start issuing fact checks or labeling warnings on certain tweets from the president. The platform isn’t deleting the tweets, but it is putting notes above them explaining why the President is lying or, in a tweet early Thursday morning, “glorifying violence.”

This ticked off Trump mightily, and shortly thereafter the order came. The executive order mentions Twitter numerous times, despite Facebook and YouTube being larger platforms.

How will this end?

Eh, who knows? Most likely it will be forgotten and moved on from, unless someone in the U.S. government decides to make the case that social media companies can be held legally responsible for the content published to their platforms, in which case, I can’t even wrap my head around the litigation that would happen there.

[jwplayer aabLudiI-q2aasYxh]

Why the Chunky Dunky’s had Nike’s SNKRS app trending again

The L’s were abundant this morning.

Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world.

Being a sneakerhead has its perks, for sure. As a sneakerhead myself, I can vouch for that.

Generally speaking, you have to have pretty good taste in fashion to be this way — yeah, I’m tooting my own horn this morning. You also get pretty good at finding deals on just about everything which becomes useful on birthdays and holidays.

But, if we’re being honest, it’s mostly an existence filled with contempt. You wake up on some mornings asking yourself “why am I like this?” as you wait along with thousands of others in a virtual line for a shoe that will probably sell out before you get a chance to get it.

Tuesday morning was one of those mornings. And that’s why Nike’s SNKRS app is trending again.

Wait, what’s the SNKRS app?

It’s a platform Nike uses to market and sell “exclusive” pairs of shoes that are limited in supply. You can read all about it in this story I did earlier this year.

Why was it trending on Tuesday morning?

Because — and I mean this quite literally — everyone and their mother was trying to get the Nike SB Dunk “Chunky Dunky” this morning in a special drawing on the SNKRS app this morning.

Did anyone get it? I have no idea. I can tell you I didn’t. Yes, my Tuesday is going just fine. Thanks for asking.

The Chunky Dunky? What? That sounds like an ice cream flavor.

That’s because this shoe was specially made for a collaboration between Nike’s skateboarding arm (hence SB) and Ben & Jerry’s — yes, the ice cream company.

Here’s what it looks like.

Is that why Ben & Jerry’s is trending too?

Yup. Sure is.

Why couldn’t everyone buy this shoe?

Its simple supply and demand, basically. There are thousands and thousands of people across the country who ended up wanting this shoe after seeing it on Twitter or Instagram or wherever they saw it.

The problem is, Nike didn’t make enough pairs of this shoe for everyone to be able to get one. And, in turn, a lot of people came up short.

Basically, this.

Alright, so what? Why is anyone mad online? It’s just a shoe!

IT IS NOT JUST A SH—Ok, ok. *Takes a deep breath*. I’m sorry for yelling. But this isn’t just any regular old shoe. I mean, it has cow print on it!

Aside from that, you have to think of it as a collectors item you have a choice in wearing. It’s a rare pair. You can’t just buy it on resale, either — it is literally being sold for thousands of dollars right now as we speak.

It only retailed for $100. Getting this shoe would be a come up.

Whoa, that’s a lot of money!

It is!

Why would anyone pay that for a shoe? That’s crazy.

It … It is.

Why are you like this?

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[lawrence-related id=889174]

[jwplayer LqSI0Ntf-q2aasYxh]

The Jimmy Fallon blackface controversy, explained

Understanding what’s happening with the Jimmy Fallon blackface scandal, which surfaced this week.

Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world.

This week the internet hordes turned their ire onto NBC late night host Jimmy Fallon, over an incident in which he appeared on television in blackface over 20 years ago. The Twitter hashtag #jimmyfallonisoverparty got some traction on Tuesday morning, and it was a whole thing.

How did we get here? How did the most inoffensive late night show host end up as the newest person to get called out en masse on the internet? We’ll break it down for you right now.

So, Fallon, huh?

Fallon.

What happened?

This week video surfaced of Fallon on Saturday Night Live in 2000, doing a bit in which he impersonated former SNL cast member Chris Rock.

Oh no. Did the impersonation go the full —

Yes. Yes it did. Full impersonation. Including blackface.

Oh no.

Oh no is right!

How is this just coming out 20 years later?

This video actually resurfaced two years ago as a response to Megyn Kelly losing her job on The Today Show.

Wait. What does Megyn Kelly have to do with any of this?

Good question! In 2018, Megyn Kelly was pushed out of a role on The Today Show after she argued on air that wearing blackface for a Halloween costume was appropriate.

In an effort to highlight hypocrisy, right wing internet users surfaced the footage of Fallon as a response. Basically: Kelly lost her job, but Fallon got to host The Tonight Show, and they both did the same-ish thing. Sort of.

But that was two years ago.

Yes.

So why is it back this week?

Unclear. It’s re-resurfaced, and I can’t begin to explain why.

Is Fallon as culpable as Kelly?

Eh, it depends on how you want to look at it. Fallon did not just paint his face black and run out on the set of SNL. Someone wrote a script, presumably it was approved by a host of people including showrunner Lorne Michaels, a makeup artist painted his face … a lot of people had to be involved to get Fallon out on that stage in blackface.

He of course could have refused, and should have. But to compare Fallon taking part in a tasteless sketch in the year 2000 and Kelly arguing blackface was appropriate in 2018 is tough to do. They’re just entirely different situations.

Fallon hasn’t tried the Chris Rock impression since, has he?

Unfortunately, he sure has! He wasn’t wearing blackface, but he tried it out while hosting the Golden Globes. It … did not go over super well then.

Well, now I understand this. I think. Thanks?

Can we understand anything now?

[vertical-gallery id=915594]