This relates to a marketing technique I was outlining to my family the other night. That is the "assumption of belonging."
I hold several opinions that are rational and perfectly reasonable to me. I am told that there are two camps of politics, the good guys, and the bad guys. I will assume that my opinions must fall into the good guy camp, and this makes sense since the bad guy camp are spoken of in only the most disparaging and exaggerated ways.
I meet a person who identifies themselves as a bad guy. I think "wow, I found one, this is incredible, they must disagree with all of my opinions since I'm a good guy and my opinions are intrinsic elements of being a good guy." But the more we compare notes, the more we realize that except for rare exception, our opinions are largely in alignment.
Then the bad guy explains exactly how his opinions align with his party's principles in fundamental ways, and I realize, I don't know my party's principles at all, I had assumed they were in alignment due entirely to the branding of my party as being the one that is rational, sane, and good. I brought my definition of what is rational, sane, and good into the party all on my own without comparing any actual policies, or any actual tenets.
This mistake was made easy, by the party deliberately marketing themselves vaguely, and in purely emotional terms.
It's not just "big tent" politics, its deceitful, duplicitous marketing. Tell me what I want to hear, but stop short of telling me anything foundational. This encourages the "assumption of belonging" and lets me fill in the blanks without realizing that it's just a scam. The big ideas are a secret, the core tenets are held to the chest, and absent them admitting it, a cynic can only then deduce that their real goal is shamming an army into propping them into power so they can implement what they really want to do.
Jesus' clever dismissal of a legalist's kafka-trap. It worked because it created a new kafka-trap for the accuser to resolve. Quoting it like it means anything definitive is the height of ignorance and arrogance.
For detail of anyone who happens upon this: Jesus was being baited into rendering an opinion on a hot-button political issue, whether Jews should pay Roman taxes. This had no correct answer, as saying yes would weaken his appeal and make him look like a Roman shill, and saying no would be construed as an instantly arrestable offence for fomenting rebellion against Rome. His answer was brilliant because it asked the accuser to determine the most germane element of the question: If the currency is stamped with Caesar's bust, and you willingly use it as currency, then aren't you already a slave to Caesar? If you can rectify that in your mind, as naturally you would be able to, it's just currency, its not some spiritually significant thing, its just a means to an end, then haven't you already answered the real question being asked: does paying taxes stand in opposition to living a spiritually fulfilled existence? If it doesn't then your question is pointless, if it does, then you're already guilty and the question is pointless.
I think the blatancy is part of the ploy. The media trusts in their ability to sell so much that they have moved up a phase to selling obvious shit as a form of demoralization. The comedian in question may just be a washed up nobody who's long stopped trying very hard, but the producers and writers are rolling with that, I think.
Less cynically, this is a knock-on effect of 2008 - present politics: mask fully dropped. Comedy used to be funny because the writers and comedians used to pretend to be for everybody. That pretense tempered their blithering idiocy to the point it was actually a consumable product. It also, as you point out, made their ever-present propaganda actually somewhat effective since it was designed to convince rather than berate.
He's in on it. They have to sell hard to get normies on board. After that they can outlaw dissent, which is their ultimate dream.
The more absurd the better, because of sunk-cost mentality for everyone that "goes along to get along." People who let this happen are required by their own conscience to never back out.
The social engineers have gone full bore because this is their gambit to gain a terrible control over society. Unquestioning loyalty of a populace too cowardly to resist, and then too ashamed to refuse to obey them after.
Over on the other site, there was a post recently that contained an article by a psychologist musing on this societal level stress-engineering. The article is fascinating and has been something I've been dwelling on lately.
You suggest the social engineers have created a desperate situation in order to pressure people like you into suicide, but the article supposed an even more sinister reason they'd apply breaking-level pressure to you: to create a psychological event akin to Pavlov's trained dogs. It's additionally spooky when you take his analysis that almost all of their efforts have the practical side effect of stripping your mental defenses to this kind of break (strong family unit [demonization and ostracization of fathers, pushing mothers into careers and out of the home], access to personal safety implements [restriction and removal of the second amendment], ability to vent your frustration openly [restriction and removal of the first amendment]).
It really does seem like you say, that the elites are going for bust. However, I'm finding humor in their desperation. I've never seen so many openly hostile to the Left. They have made themselves into the epitome of 'no-fun, no-freedom' and seem overly comfortable in their media apparatus to convince everyone to follow along.
There are more media-skeptics every day being blasted in the face by terrible movies that sell themselves solely on how preachy they can be, news programs that can't be described as anything other than partisan cheerleading and outright libel, video-games that push the envelope of just how disgustingly putrid their female characters can made to appear, and TV shows that interlace racial terrorism and homosexual deviancy into every 12 seconds of air-time. These things are now full on parodies of themselves.
Even so, barring a gigantic event, I don't believe we're yet at a place where any particular outcome is inevitable. We may slip ever more into the abyss, or we may slowly pull out. A massive accelerating event may happen that drives us hard into one outcome or the other. I have given up predicting what will be tried.
You aren't alone. We are here.
Highlander 5: The Startovering has been in development hell since around 2005. The franchise has been a consistent moneymaker no matter how badly they bungle the individual entries, so it makes perfect sense to me. The fact that they've tried to be careful / were accidentally held back from making whatever turd made sense at the moment this time, is probably in the positive column of things happening with this one.
Previous Wording Defined as credible threats of violence or incitement to violence where there is a reasonable probability that the content would succeed in actual action against the target, recognizing that such causation should be rather direct.
New Wording Defined as containing threats of violence or likely to incite violence.
Fuck straight off UK Office of Communications.
I like him, but I haven't read a whole lot of his stuff directly. I had a co-worker who was extremely well-read who enjoyed talking at length about any author I wanted to ask him about, and we spent many a lunch on the works of Dick. Apparently he gets very strange in the deeper cuts like some of his journal writings in Exegesis.
I didn't either until an English teacher in college who was covering Shakespeare's Othello made the point. She interpreted Iago as the poster-child for unfettered praise heaped onto a person through their life. When they reach their peak as adults they are confronted with the tragedy of being mere second-best at something and that is the toxic frame of mind that can fester into the jealous rage that exemplified Iago's character. He conspired to destroy a national hero just because he cast a long shadow.
Enough people tell you you're the greatest, and you believe it, you may even be tempted to kill to make it so.
To a Christian it is an inherently dangerous attitude to deny the providence of God's work in your life. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't move in confidence and assuredness, it only means that you shouldn't credit yourself alone for your successes. Pride is a sin in the lethal sense because it supplants God's greatness with your own, looking at your accomplishments and doing the "I made this" meme when you owe your existence, circumstance, and talents to the One who created you.
It comes off very strange to a non-believer, especially in the West in the modern era, because we grew up with the "You're Special for Just Being You" Mr. Rogers philosophy ratcheted to a billion in public schools and applied to everything. We have a deliberately bred generation of egomaniacs who treat the world and everyone in it as extras in their story instead of trying to get along humbly and peacefully.
So proud you must be to wear a forehead dildo and scream "Suck it, bigot!" while in broad daylight on main-street in your parade of thousands doing the same toward the kids the school bussed out to watch.
I responded to this initially on the other forum, but I'll repost my comment here:
What they mean by "gate-keeping" is self-evident. And on the face, you might be bewildered because it is a senseless accusation that shouldn't carry any weight. You assume there must be some 'code' or hidden meaning behind the term because of its obvious mundanity and pointlessness, but there isn't. They mean exactly what they are saying, and the 'hidden' element is that they are themselves just shallow and weak enough to think they're insulting you with something that frivolous. That's their whole big move. Accuse you of breathing.
Now, there's obviously more to it, but the crux of the issue is this over-sensitization to all conflict that has promoted this kind of basic commentary into the realm of 'abuse' and 'attack.'
You've properly identified that they are using 'gate-keeping' as an insulation against their own exertion of effort and standards of behavior. Just like 'racism,' 'sexism,' and even 'pedophilia' they mean to capture a connotation of something dire and apply it to something mundane:
Ask woman a question = sexist
Ask a black man a question = racist
Watch anime = pedo
Have any standards = gate-keeping
The flaw in all of these is that fundamentally of conflation using the barest of common traits (a woman is involved, two races are involved, anime character looks young to someone) while evoking the worst possible scenario with the accusatory word absent context as a form of pre-winning the conflict through the old political trick: "What matters is not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge."
You might notice that one of these is not like the others though. Gate-keeping is perfectly normal, natural, and has a fundamental place in all professions, interests, and practices. Even in its most dire connotation the worst you have is a private club you aren't a member of, and probably shouldn't be. It is YOU who are at fault for being envious of a place in which you do not belong. But they take this common 'evil' and stretch it to mean that all borders are bad, all standards are pointless, and all group-identity should be abolished because it is 'exclusionary.'
Finally, there is a nefarious and intentional insidiousness at play as well. They want access to your group, not because it is attractive, but because you have it. They want to use that access to destroy what you have, mark it as their territory, and force you to leave. It is a power-play. They're happiest when they are collecting scalps. Trophies to share with their friends who also rage against the machine that is patriarchy, maleness, whiteness, western-ness. You are their political enemy, and your possessions, your toys, your hobbies, they will delight in destroying while you watch, helpless because you weren't able to 'gate-keep' them out. They laugh at your pitiable failure to protect what you loved. They laugh because your sadness is their mission accomplished.
A good comment on the article points out that the critical element here is the coddling of the young. "If you are a teenager your opinions deserve to be destroyed." Treating the young like they are idiot savants instead of the actual idiots they are has brought us to this cultural point. Special Snowflakes are the logical endpoint of "you can do anything you want, little jimmy!" culture of the 80s in schools.
By lying to children and telling them they are presumptively great instead of admonishing their hubris and encouraging the requisite humility, we have raised two generations now of egomaniacs by default. When they are confronted by the reality that they are pathetic they suffer a mental break and in the BEST case, begin to learn about life extremely late. In the typical case, they retreat behind their pillows and cultivated psychoses to deny their eyes. In the worst case, they double down and band with a subculture that denies them nothing while extending their lies to all elements of reality.
The latter is the SJW group, and they have grown quite naturally and steadily because we still haven't adjusted our attitudes toward children. We continue to raise them in this way. The effects in society will continue to progress as they have and worsen until collapse if we don't address this flaw in reasoning.
Children are stupid, treat them like it.
That's because amending your withholdings is your responsibility. It'll stay the same and you'll either be charged next tax time or have a refund. You should incorporate which you expect into your planning and submit a new W4 (in the US) to your employer to correct any situation you don't want to occur.
Why have such hoops like requiring you to say certain things rather than BE certain things to be in a league. Lets skip to the chase and abolish gendered leagues entirely. Simple, fair. Women all lose their livelihoods unless they're mutant freaks, but hey. We're into mutant freaks this year.
Small factoid: The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" was a term used by Hillary Clinton in the 90s to impugn anyone who deigned to disagree with her. Identical in meaning and absurdity to her later "Basket of Deplorables." Rush Limbaugh, at the time, made fun of this by selling coffee mugs with the text "Charter Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."
Found one: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/laMAAOSwISBfhNjm/s-l300.jpg
So you're saying we must punch the bitches instead? I dunno if that's the right course, but I'm willing to try it on your suggestion, fearless leader and guru of manliness Sir Tony.
I came in thinking you'd posted this for the irony, but I see you actually think this is reasonable advice. What is wrong with you these days?
Men: you dare to use feminine tactics when masculine ones are forbidden? What are you some kinda sissy? Shut the fuck up.
The Opera devs were bought out and went on to make Vivaldi. Opera has been scuffed for around 8 years.