Re: “The Lifestyle,” usually when something has a shit-eatingly simple name like that, I assume there’s a lot of entitlement going on. The uber-rich in one of America’s least affordable cities, if not just the no. 1 entry on that ranking, all going around with the attitude that they deserve that kind of anarchic hedonism, that they fucking EARNED it by having a lot of money or marrying into money. Fuck the rules, fuck the law, we have money, this is no more than our due! I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone whom “the Lifestyle” becomes “the Cause of Death.”
I’ve been told that German culture is a little skeptical about overt nationalism and symbolism like flags ever since, well, but it seems like even if you felt that way, it would be fine to wave your flag in a friendly competition among nationally-representative groups/people where all the others were waving THEIR flags. Like, the flag unifies everyone in the country. Here they’re saying we represent 20 percent of the country (claimed on surveys) and probably really 5-8 percent (once you take out all the girls who think they’d date a girl but wouldn’t really, the “non-binary” people just looking for attention, the “trans” people who are caught up in the internet’s lies, etc)
Man, I know the media was all in a lather already on the day Ma’Khia Bryant was rightly offed by a police officer since it was literally the same day the Chauvin verdict dropped, but that lady who tried to say “teenagers get in knife fights all the time, it’s no big deal” was a new level of retardation even given the SJW context. Like, even some SJWs were like, ummm…
Natty bound is trolling a bit obviously, but even then the lefty here is actually making a somewhat more sensible version of the insurance argument than you usually see. He limits his statement to essentially, “my stuff is insured” which is a fact he’s in position to know. Usually lefties say “that’s what insurance is for!” after they’ve burned down the business of someone who did nothing other than happening to be in the same city as them, as an ex post facto rationalization for why it’s okay that they burned it down, and where they could not have known whether or to what level the place was insured. They certainly never call ahead and check!
And hell, this lefty even conceded that property crimes should be punished!!! Most “insurance-for!” lefties imply or just outright state that they think people should not be punished for rioting-related destruction. So I kinda gotta hand it to this leftist! We finally found one who has at least one ounce of sense! Mark this day on the calendar, and tell him what he’s accomplished before he starts clarifying that he assumed the hypothetical B&E committer was white, and that if he was black it’s not a crime in that case!
Sometimes I think it’s a matter of being able to see it coming. Same principle as “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” The Anne Boleyn show obviously didn’t invent cynical race-swapping as an attention / free marketing generating technique, but it was definitely a huge step up in the sheer level of cynicism: the first really prominent example of just outright goading the audience by taking a main-character figure who really lived and who we have paintings of, and making her the wrong race on purpose. It was so blatantly cynical, and such a new level of boldness that we hadn’t quite encountered before, that I can forgive people for being stunned into silence a bit.
But that only works once, for obvious reasons. Once you’ve seen them blacken Anne Boleyn, you’re not surprised when they blacken Cleopatra, and people are more prepared for the fact the industry will pull stunts like that, and thus more prepared to call it out when it happens. But I’m glad people are calling it out. It could have gotten high audience scores and the Hollywood press, which operates largely as a mutual back-scratcher with actors (who scratch back by granting access which sustains the press in their cushy non-contributing jobs), would STILL write the same articles about how racist “some” fans are. They would just take a “even when the thing is successful, racists still complain” tack as opposed to this “why are racists review-bombing?!?” tack. So since the press will try to work the racism angle either way, people might as well call out shitty products and especially call out shitty cynical techniques for generating attention.
From what I’ve been told by leftists, this “white supremacist ideology” shall include meritocracy, work ethic, individualism, interest in one’s own family, uh… showing up on time to things…
“This lot” hate them for even trying to escape the complex! I’ve never met a black person who was interested in education and self-improvement who does not have a story about being called “white” as a pejorative, or being accused of “acting white,” for their efforts. Obviously it isn’t white people using those terms and attempting to shame people into perpetuating the victimhood-poverty cycle unto the next generation by those terms.
And transgender and related nonsense is much more common among the middle and upper classes than it is among the lower and working classes. I think the explanation for that statement and the idea expressed in the OP are related.
And fuck, same county as the cover-up of the kid who took advantage of gender inclusive rules to access girls to rape.
When the “non-binary” have to state which dorm they want to live in and pretend it’s apropos of nothing else.
I hate how funny that was lol
Well, one of the things cults famously do is invent new words, and new usages and connotations for existing language, especially connotations that can be used to separate the enlightened elect (themselves) from the unenlightened rabble.
I always get the feeling that supporters of open borders have this weird idea that immigrants who stream in will just kind of be placed in all those empty areas in the mountain west or something. Or else they’ll just be farmworkers and of course most leftists never visit a farm, or even notice them as they go around the country, so agricultural work is just something that happens somewhere else and isn’t their concern. But there’s only so many jobs in agriculture to be filled, and so the immigrants who don’t get them are going to have to go somewhere. And they aren’t going to go to an empty area of Montana and build up a new town. They are going to go to places with infrastructure, where there might be jobs to be found. And some of those places are full of leftists. This can’t be that surprising to these people, and yet apparently it is.
I’m on record recommending people watch a YouTube series called “The Alt-Right Playbook.” It’s by a hardcore leftist SJW but it’s worth a watch because it’s the best explication I’ve ever seen of how Very Online extremists behave, argue, interact, etc. The overarching theme is that they act with regard to strategic concerns rather than truth/accuracy/consistency. Each video highlights and names a different technique in the toolbox of such truth-free activists. The blind spot in the series, of course, is that the creator thinks it’s just “the alt-right” who does the things he’s noticed, and not illiberal extremists and agenda-mongers of ALL stripes. So if one can ignore the specific references to political allegiance in the videos and recognize that everything the creator says also applies equally to his own illiberal confederates, the series is endlessly enlightening.
But long story short, what the lefty journalist is doing is a combination of the techniques described in the videos “Never Play Defense” and “The Card Says Moops” from that series.
The Conservative is an idiot though. The Constitution says the government must not limit your right to bear arms. State law defines what constitutes self-defense, which was the ACTUAL issue in that trial: did he have a STATE-LAW right to use arms the way he did under the circumstances. (Obviously, the answer was “yes.”) Plus, I’m sure millions of ding-dongs of all political stripes are certain they know how different trials should play out based on their “research,” but reading a few articles and tweets is nothing like being in court and having it all presented to you in one burst, and I mean ALL of it, not just what media outlets both (1) can find out and (2) want you to know about. You should never claim to know all the facts about a case if you’re only present as a potential juror, but of course the follow-on conclusion is the same as Posobiec makes, that you should not try to eliminate yourself as a juror on that basis. Same conclusion, different reasoning.
The nerve of some people lol. He was literally acquitted through a successful showing that he acted in self-defense and they say “this really sucks for PEACEFUL protestors.”
You know how they say any media headline phrased as a question can be answered “no” … well this isn’t a headline question but I think the same principle applies here.
I hope I don’t end up having to vote for Trump. But of these, Noem is a serious pick and the other two are pure attention stunts. I assume he’ll pick one of the attention stunts.
Hahaha I have trouble believing “feminist men” make headway against “anti feminist men.” I mean, I’m not ragingly anti-feminist I don’t think, just kind of… “not feminist” and I’ll call a faggot a faggot because I’m a guy and we’re ruthless with each other. In part because MOST of us can take it. Like, I don’t think I’d sit there and try to pound my chest and refute every point and shout over the feminist semi-man. I’d just sit there, hear his entire spiel, and then say “…sounds gay” and move on with my day. Some dude who wanted to fight the feminist on his points would have him in tears.
Yep, they just had to find any chain of words that could end in “and therefore this is problematic.” That’s basically their one rhetorical move.
Here they had to force a very square peg of an argument through a round hole, but it’s only important that someone vaguely smart-sounding is saying the thing is problematic. That way Generation TL;DR has something they can vaguely point to that they think defeats the original chart. It’s marketing strategy 101, just get ANY counter-narrative out there, most people won’t read it and the people it’s for (wokesters) will just assume it’s true because they are already on the “it must be problematic” side just from sheer bias. This guy just did the service of providing the thing they can vaguely point to.
This sounds like a cry for help by an oppressed person of color in mental distress, whom the system has failed at every turn.
I guess if he had shit on an American flag that’s what we’d hear. His mistake of course was that the perceived movement of action was up the progressive stack rather than down.
A lot of kids today are shocked to learn that even circa like 2006-12, almost all Democrats would only go as far as to say they didn’t think the state referenda trying to officially define marriage as one man-one woman that were common in that timeframe were necessary. Almost no one wanted gay marriage. Some were cool with “civil unions” which was even then seen as a cop-out by supporters. I’ve been challenged on that before, and then the follow-up was, surely that was just the white Democrats right?! And then I pull up stories on Obama and his “evolving” opinion.
It’s amazing how much easier life is to navigate when you were raised on rotten.com, are mentally healthy, and (less relevant here but more relevant in daily life) have a sense of humor. Especially as to the rotten.com part, as a 10 year old I was enjoying looking at pictures of, like, people decapitated when they fell on the sharp tip of a wrought iron fence, or guys who got run over by steamrollers and had their brains shot through their craniums, with the extended spinal column still attached.
So I have the mental fortitude required to deal with violence imagery, even if (maybe especially if) it appears unexpectedly as happened to these people.
But “modern audiences” as it were seem to have been coddled and protected from birth, and to have been treated to a life where the “needs” of the least stable and most fragile minds were made the standard for all.
“He could have been part-Scandinavian-woman, absolutely.”
So “colored” is an okay word again? Or is that only for the Elect?
I kinda wish this line of hers would become a meme.
“We know the protests weren’t peaceful but they might have been peaceful, absolutely.”