Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
(meaningness.com)
Comments (19)
sorted by:
tl;dr prohibit girls and trannies
Old thinking, needs a revisit.
Take the fandom convention scene. Sociopaths DID largely take over conventions for a while, and a lot of them are now gone, because while they're good at winning power struggles, they're far less capable at actually accomplishing shit.
Consoomer drones != sub-culture
You can't gatekeep what you don't own. If Disney decides Star Wars is for faggot feminists, you can't do anything about that other then give up on it.
Deny the mindshare. Star Wars was only three movies (six if you're feeling froggy) and that's it. I don't understand hate watchers for this reason, especially when the new shepherds outwardly say they hate you, the existing fan.
Huh? "The Force Awakens"? Is that a real thing? Sounds fake.
Kind of. If you have a large and popular forum that offers a clear pushback against the heresey, it atleast allows some of the fandom to not dissolve into worship of disney's diseased leftovers.
But, because jannies are trannies, the majority of them gleefully hopped on that train and called anyone not on thier side misogonistic incels.
...yeah, I'm still fucking bitter.
You can if the owners are apathetic about what they let outsiders get away with. Disney notoriously isn't apathetic about controlling their IPs. But that carelessness has been the downfall of many other subcultures when no-one has the balls to fight interlopers trying to build fences on land someone else cultivated.
Not quite true. While Disney does "own" the IP, the public is perfectly capable of shrugging and saying "nah, not canon." In the long run, this is what must happen.
Reading this: https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17rT6ifYoN/i-remember-a-time-i-wanted-my-ho/c
I recalled the posted article. Old but relevant.
A great read, punching above its weight even 8 years ago.
Good article
Sociopathy isn't a real thing, and continuing to use it grants them far more power and prestige (thanks to generations of Hollywood literally making it up to make nonsensical characters work) than they deserve.
But I guess amoral and degenerate are still too big of no-no words because bad men used them.
What's the difference?
Sociopathy tries to give it an air of being an actual clinical disorder, which it isn't and the closest, antisocial personality disorder, only vaguely appears like it sometimes. Its at best a Legal Term that lawyers made up to try and get the Insanity defense.
Amoral and degenerate and all the other relevant labels are moral judgments, which denies these types the label of "special neurodivergents" they crave so much. And simply says they are actively evil shitbags choosing to be such due to being weak, pathetic, and/or malicious.
Would it be easier and shorter to list mental illnesses that are real?
Its against the common narrative here, but I think Psychology is in fact real.
I know. That's why I asked you. I think schizophrenia is real, for example.
I think most of the major mental illnesses are quite real. The subcategorizations get a little dicey, because humans aren't uniform enough for those more precise mental illnesses to consistently manifest. So you end up with the same maladaptive behavior internally showing up as three+ different illnesses despite being the same thing.
We lack the technology necessary to truly understand the brain in any depth, and until that day is reached its going to always be a pretty rough system we are working under relying heavily on self reporting, aka the brain explaining the brain after the information has been run through the brain.
Which also means our solutions to those illnesses is shoddy at best. Its why almost all meds are some variation of "turn them into zombie, no longer is showing symptoms underneath all the lethargy."