Catchphrases like "trust the science" and "we're doing it protect our elderly and most vulnerable" are crafted by the media to specifically target women emotionally. Women don't need evidence or explanations when they're coming to a conclusion, they just need to know that "everybody else is doing it" and "people will think you're a bad person if you don't". Their motivations are all in-group/out-group.
Many, many men too sadly. I was drinking with a family member last night, a male, and he honestly said that you have to believe in climate change because David Attenborough said it was true. It's so stupid that it's almost funny.
This has been known and used for centuries. There's a very old joke in media about literally anything, but especially things that are completely neutral:
Hurricane makes landfall! Women and children hardest hit.
Yeah, pretty much. The other day I was talking to my mother about my hesitance in getting the vax and my dislike of what the government is doing here in Aus and I was met with the irrational argument of “what if you don’t get the vax and you get the virus and pass it along to some kid then they die from it? You’d be a murderer!”
To which I argued “No. I wouldn’t be a murderer. Because there is no intent to kill there. What’s to stop you, someone who is double vaxed, still getting the virus and passing it along inadvertently for the same thing to happen. Would that make you a murderer? Not in my eyes, because you had no intent to kill.”
Argument landed on deaf ears and I still got chewed out as being a bad person for not just willingly and blindly agreeing and how my generation is ruining the world.
Point being, there is no logic here, just pure raw emotion as that is what the media preys on. It truly is mass psychosis here. They have everyone so afraid that logic has gone out the window.
"Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey−fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean−mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy."
No, they really consider it an instruction manual. I'm not 100% sure it wasn't intended that way by Orwell either. (even though he claimed to despise totalitarians)
An idpol-obsessed marxist would read that paragraph as a condemnation of Winston. He almost sounds like Patrick Bateman there.
They know that barely anyone reads it, and barely anyone knows what's in it, so for now they're trying to reverse the content and make people think that the message of 1984 is "trust the authorities and support the community," when in fact it is the opposite.
This may or may not work. It depends on how successfully they can reframe the book and on how strong peoples' confirmation bias can be. Is bias really strong enough to make people extract the opposite message from a book, even when they've read it, just because they've been primed to see something that isn't there? Who knows.
If reframing the book doesn't work, then they'll try to ban it on a larger scale. Right now it's just small splinter groups trying to ban it, and the authorities are either pretending it doesn't exist, or reversing the meaning of it.
Not sure if it was here that I mentioned it, but has anyone noticed how whenever we see police going for someone, it's always the female police who have their baton out and begin beating the shit out of someone who isn't doing anything?
I've noticed this mostly in the UK and Australia, but I can't be the only one who's seen it, right?
You could attribute it to what we've been talking about here, but I've always seen those situations as a result of women never having learned what a real fight entails.
For example, how many videos are out there of a women just noodle arm striking a guy, either in a bar, or during one of these riots? Couple the idea that women are in fact treated more compassionately than men with the idea that they've been lied to as far as being as strong/fast/capable as men, and you have a recipe for someone who doesn't believe there will be any negative consequences for aggressive action, nevermind deadly consequences.
Meanwhile I can distinctly remember two police arrest videos, one where the suspect specifically targets the female officer and just beats the absolute fuck out of her, while in the other, chases her while she runs away waving her loaded gun around in fear.
Definitely. Our culture has created a crazy amount of women like this.
We've created a society where women are put on a pedestal and given a free pass to be as abusive as they'd like. Knowing that, they choose to take advantage of it whenever it suits them; especially when you mix that knowledge with inherent emotional immaturity that some may exhibit. I don't think many would argue that there are a large portion of women who put emotions before logic to begin with.
We can see this expectation they've developed manifested whenever there's an altercation that goes viral. For instance, when we see a video of a woman hitting a man and the man reciprocates by hauling off and smashing her — the look of absolute shock every single time is palpable.
Surprisingly — or perhaps not so — it's even further reflected when we take a look at domestic violence incidents in the lesbian community, who have alarmingly high rates of abuse.
When you add all the things that you mentioned with other commonly known truths, it paints a pretty clear picture. When there's practically zero consequences for a group, it's not unexpected they'll feel reaffirmed that certain behaviors are perfectly acceptable.
Of course they are. Women are group creatures who are afraid to have their own thoughts without putting it through a consensus filter first and making sure they agree with the group.
Thought I would pick up on something no one has mentioned here, yet: that woman is English.
Why is that important? Australia has a habit of importing so-called "whinging Poms", en masse. They fucking move here, and then so many of them never fucking "assimilate", and whinge and moan, but then still never leave.
They couldn't "earn" enough power and influence back in the UK, so they come here, where the culture is perhaps more "amenable" to it (these days) and live out there little fascist fever dreams...
There's hundreds of thousands of them. Particularly in Sydney (where this is), and Perth.
See also: the many Brahmin (top caste) Indians and other subcontinentals who got sick of not being able to abuse people enough in their own country, and so moved here for a) a "better" life, and b) to live out their sick power fantasies. Particularly in the medical field... Also lawyers and "academics", as such.
Catchphrases like "trust the science" and "we're doing it protect our elderly and most vulnerable" are crafted by the media to specifically target women emotionally. Women don't need evidence or explanations when they're coming to a conclusion, they just need to know that "everybody else is doing it" and "people will think you're a bad person if you don't". Their motivations are all in-group/out-group.
Many, many men too sadly. I was drinking with a family member last night, a male, and he honestly said that you have to believe in climate change because David Attenborough said it was true. It's so stupid that it's almost funny.
This has been known and used for centuries. There's a very old joke in media about literally anything, but especially things that are completely neutral:
In Canada, the joke is changed to "Women and indigenous people."
“Immigrants of colour and indigenous”
So if I am displaced by indigenous people claiming their land back, can I go back to my colony and claim my fair share?
Yeah, pretty much. The other day I was talking to my mother about my hesitance in getting the vax and my dislike of what the government is doing here in Aus and I was met with the irrational argument of “what if you don’t get the vax and you get the virus and pass it along to some kid then they die from it? You’d be a murderer!”
To which I argued “No. I wouldn’t be a murderer. Because there is no intent to kill there. What’s to stop you, someone who is double vaxed, still getting the virus and passing it along inadvertently for the same thing to happen. Would that make you a murderer? Not in my eyes, because you had no intent to kill.”
Argument landed on deaf ears and I still got chewed out as being a bad person for not just willingly and blindly agreeing and how my generation is ruining the world.
Point being, there is no logic here, just pure raw emotion as that is what the media preys on. It truly is mass psychosis here. They have everyone so afraid that logic has gone out the window.
We need a separation of science and state.
"Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey−fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean−mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy."
People being "gross icky meanie poopyheads" in a dystopia? How dare they!
Do they really?
No, they really consider it an instruction manual. I'm not 100% sure it wasn't intended that way by Orwell either. (even though he claimed to despise totalitarians)
An idpol-obsessed marxist would read that paragraph as a condemnation of Winston. He almost sounds like Patrick Bateman there.
They know that barely anyone reads it, and barely anyone knows what's in it, so for now they're trying to reverse the content and make people think that the message of 1984 is "trust the authorities and support the community," when in fact it is the opposite.
This may or may not work. It depends on how successfully they can reframe the book and on how strong peoples' confirmation bias can be. Is bias really strong enough to make people extract the opposite message from a book, even when they've read it, just because they've been primed to see something that isn't there? Who knows.
If reframing the book doesn't work, then they'll try to ban it on a larger scale. Right now it's just small splinter groups trying to ban it, and the authorities are either pretending it doesn't exist, or reversing the meaning of it.
Not sure if it was here that I mentioned it, but has anyone noticed how whenever we see police going for someone, it's always the female police who have their baton out and begin beating the shit out of someone who isn't doing anything?
I've noticed this mostly in the UK and Australia, but I can't be the only one who's seen it, right?
You could attribute it to what we've been talking about here, but I've always seen those situations as a result of women never having learned what a real fight entails.
For example, how many videos are out there of a women just noodle arm striking a guy, either in a bar, or during one of these riots? Couple the idea that women are in fact treated more compassionately than men with the idea that they've been lied to as far as being as strong/fast/capable as men, and you have a recipe for someone who doesn't believe there will be any negative consequences for aggressive action, nevermind deadly consequences.
Meanwhile I can distinctly remember two police arrest videos, one where the suspect specifically targets the female officer and just beats the absolute fuck out of her, while in the other, chases her while she runs away waving her loaded gun around in fear.
Definitely. Our culture has created a crazy amount of women like this.
We've created a society where women are put on a pedestal and given a free pass to be as abusive as they'd like. Knowing that, they choose to take advantage of it whenever it suits them; especially when you mix that knowledge with inherent emotional immaturity that some may exhibit. I don't think many would argue that there are a large portion of women who put emotions before logic to begin with.
We can see this expectation they've developed manifested whenever there's an altercation that goes viral. For instance, when we see a video of a woman hitting a man and the man reciprocates by hauling off and smashing her — the look of absolute shock every single time is palpable.
Surprisingly — or perhaps not so — it's even further reflected when we take a look at domestic violence incidents in the lesbian community, who have alarmingly high rates of abuse.
When you add all the things that you mentioned with other commonly known truths, it paints a pretty clear picture. When there's practically zero consequences for a group, it's not unexpected they'll feel reaffirmed that certain behaviors are perfectly acceptable.
Of course they are. Women are group creatures who are afraid to have their own thoughts without putting it through a consensus filter first and making sure they agree with the group.
Who else would follow the Party so doggedly?
Should have grabbed her and chucked her in the ocean
Should have done much worse than that.
Hold her underwater and see if the mask helps
BRO YOU SHOULD NEVER HIT A WOMAN NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!
"FUCK YOU, PIG!"
Thought I would pick up on something no one has mentioned here, yet: that woman is English.
Why is that important? Australia has a habit of importing so-called "whinging Poms", en masse. They fucking move here, and then so many of them never fucking "assimilate", and whinge and moan, but then still never leave.
They couldn't "earn" enough power and influence back in the UK, so they come here, where the culture is perhaps more "amenable" to it (these days) and live out there little fascist fever dreams...
There's hundreds of thousands of them. Particularly in Sydney (where this is), and Perth.
See also: the many Brahmin (top caste) Indians and other subcontinentals who got sick of not being able to abuse people enough in their own country, and so moved here for a) a "better" life, and b) to live out their sick power fantasies. Particularly in the medical field... Also lawyers and "academics", as such.
I want to donate 1500 pieces of brass to her. I’ll send them via AK-47
Jesus Christ how are people not killing themselves over there I know I would living in that orwellian shit hole
They've been disarmed that's why.
Thanks ill keep an eye out.