And the Christian right (at least the most vainglorious of the bunch) did such a crack job at being such insufferable, hypocritical busy-bodies that they got broader society to loosen its distaste for realized debauchery. The pre 60s sentiment was what you do behind closed doors is tolerable if it never leaves the bedroom; active homophobia was isolated at best. The next generation had this collective memory erased in the 70s-90s counter-cultural blowback, supplanted by the big scary lie that there were clans of homo-hunters over the previous centuries.
I deleted my second Facebook account a month ago because of contagious vapidity; should have stuck with my decision 9 years ago. Anyone close already has my email address, phone number, or can track down my website when I get around to deciding on a tech stack. Are you getting enjoyment out of whatever social media platform you share with IRL acquaintances?
If anyone unironically repeats the right-wing snowflake soundbyte in person, firmly ask them if coherent language matters. Make sure the topic stays flipped, and ditch them if they get their panties get bunched.
Thanks, those two fuckers outpace their late-night host peers with American Psycho esque cookie-cutter personas.
https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-scary-truth-about-corporate-survival
Really, the longer a large corporation is in business, the more likely it is to succumb to the Gervais Principle.
Not the first report of moderator impropriety out of that subcommunity, but my mind might be misattributing that out its ass. A red flag to me was the userbase's willingness to latch on to thought-terminating slogans like AWALT; I've never seen that phrase applied or interpreted in a precise, dispassionate context. I also took issue with the various mgtow communities borderline embrace of enjoyment/consumerism as the highest virtue in life, which I personally find effeminate; that's a disagreement rather than a organization issue.
I did have an effort-post about clingy beta optics (techlead comes to mind) on the backburner, but I'll save that for somewhere else.
Edit: As a sidenote, why does this website remove the content of posts instead of delisting? If that's not just c/mgtow policy, that's somehow gayer than how Reddit does things.
Same reason(s) Greta and Hogg were appointed as notable; strategically promoting feelings over facts. When the root cause of a calamity also benefits your cohort, you better have a shield to distract the dutiful citizenry. Those who are bad at negotiating and general social awareness are both essential for many peoples' fortunes, and the root cause of preventable collective misery. Pull some strings, make it taboo to insult the poors (but only the non-threatening kind, fuck dem rednecks) , while your at it, paint some inconvenient policies and virtues as anti-poor; divide-and-conquer.
So do your part, and blame some victims today!
The consequences of compulsory schooling and the Prussian model have been a disaster for Western civilization.
Took a decade for studios to catch up with the Christian Counter-Strike and Battlefield server admins.
That barely crossed my mind, explains how it grasped onto upstanding public sentiment during the past decade.
Urban coastal ex-barista reporters imitating their betters, particularly petty-bourgeoisie yuppies who schmoozed their way in.
I find NPR habitually patronizing by virtue of being an aural opiate. Always reassuring the fearful flock that if they take establishment blue-pills their lives, downing box-wine in studio apartments stained with cat-urine, are fuzzy and wholesome. One month in 2016, there was some pre-recorded cheery spiel on repeat about how all the cynicism and toxicity (relating to politics) in life and social media can simply be tuned out; sounded straight out of some dystopian flick. Another opinion segment took the utter true-believer stance that politicians that believe politics is honest behave honorably and vice-versa for the crooked; stated intent over merit and results. I learned to bear my 7:30 commute with no more than the sound of traffic. I also realized that for the current generation, the conventional-minded had the potential paths of compliance or faux-rebellion carved out for them.
Edit: forgot to include the lucky strikes scene from mad-men.
The real issue with this movie is that at the end of the day, much of fast-consumption pop-culture is just garbage, regardless of what social trends are in vogue. Tolkien warned us about Disney being part of the denigration of culture, but normie conservative only take notice when the hostility is this overt. It's not even about this specific movie beating current Disney is good or mediocre, but that excessive copyright law aids the funneling of hundreds of billions to these pests.
That scene got weakened by the movies not having time to go into the background of Glorfindel's prophecy (second narrative casualty of cutting the golden Noldorian), and the Arnor blades. It is debatable whether using the original identity reveal before the stab would restore nuance to the Witch-King's character, or mess up his radiating dread. But I certainly hate that Eowyn is stripped of her unique motivations when she is grouped with girl-boss characters from other media.
That attrition is exactly what I meant, you just want to say you are right and reword it to fit your "can never" original point.
Look, I don't think you're arguing in bad faith or anything like that, but please reread my initial comment. I don't recall if my edit quoting the snippet came after your first response or not, but I assure you the context was in regards to those clutching onto whatever hierarchical power they have. My initial point was, and still is, that you can't beg to those in power to relinquish that power, which is almost self-evident. My supporting reasoning the later comment was that speaking of a shared characteristic as a cohesive group is a waste of time, excepting deliberate hyperbole.
Again, irrelevant. They still got great amounts of power. Just because someone else benefited and that power didn't bring them happiness like they believed doesn't change that.
Any strides women achieved in the past century are equaled out by the utter dis-empowerment of the working lower and middle classes. The married woman has more overt power over her husband than before 1960 or 1890, but the American family or individual has far less power than before 1930 until you reach $600k/yr household income. No disagreement that there are more women in explicit higher positions of power. The relevance is that women in the workplace and owning property isn't entirely a bad thing. The introverted woman doing concept-art for 20-40 hrs/week before heading home to walk her dog isn't causing the issues that the meeting obsessed finance/marketing folk are. Note that I am not stating that the doubling of the workforce was the transfer of wealth, as someone like Peterson would.
The top 1% person can do something entirely for themselves and it ripple across everything... Karen Horney had a personal hissy fit against Freud and created her entire progressive rot in the Psychology field.
Yes, but that's not a conscious decision to improve the health of their social class, and often enough not to those professing the same cause.
Edit: My preference for the cautious use of collectives in language is similar to the case some Youtuber made about 'color-blindness'. By proclaiming color-blindness, one is falling into the trap of using rhetoric that is conceptually polluted by the zealots. Similarly, I can't stand the conformist/normie majority's emotional susceptibility towards tribal identity and blind obedience over community responsibility; to be clear I don't consider you part of that reprehensible category.
Individuals acting in their own interest can make changes on the behalf of the group, so I don't know what that entire paragraph is trying to get to.
George Carlin's 'big club, and you ain't in it' only implies that a top 1% individual will risk himself for the class's benefit only if there's a visible outside threat, or if such actions would happen to significantly raise his status. Otherwise, the day-to-day modus operandi is individuals and factions vying for themselves; this has the added effect of ensuring the upper-class doesn't become unsustainbly large. The same principle applies to the peasantry, with how wages increased in the aftermath of Mongol invasions and black death.
Feminists, in this case, changed the playing field for all women despite being a minority of them.
And other commoners (losers in the Gervais Pyramid) were duped into thinking into thinking they were getting a great deal with feminism/progressivism/etc, while being distracted away from grand transfers of wealth throughout the 20th century.
"Powerful men" didn't bequeath power onto all women"
As in a king ceremoniously swearing in his loyal retainers. Some were swindled by beggars, but most were coerced by other elites and new bloods.
"You are speaking in flowerly vague terms to try and hold your point as 100% true in all cases possible, when a concrete example shows that its only usually true. I don't mean this to sound as aggressive as it does, but it was hard to even grasp what you were trying to say."
There's always generalisms and nuance; I'm just stating the overarching cause behind feminism 'succeeding' was social attrition, not top 20% men breaking down at the sound of pleading spouses and daughters.The entirety of the feminist movement, at least as pertains to politics, is my example. What you see as begging was really activists and pawns engaging in a whole bunch of maneuver and doublespeak. 'Oppose the newly passed 19th amendment and lose your business contacts while being placed on the wrong side of history.' I don't feel like conducting extensive archaeology on feminist history to pick out specific examples, since my original point was about not licking the boots of jannies and investor-hamstrung tech companies.
One thing to always keep in mind is how an human behavior is predominately governed by individuals acting in their own interest. Furthermore, a characteristic grouping people together, namely race, sex, or class, does not imply that individuals of a category work towards a common interest or support each other. Another comment correctly notes that women have always had some power, how much depending on circumstance.
The quote applies pretty well with that context, part of the explanation of how many women find themselves miserable situations, either of their own making or decided by previous generations' (both genders) policies and attitudes. "Powerful men" didn't bequeath power onto all women, some powerful men and women outmaneuvered other powerful persons by duping commoners into accepting a phony, dysfunctional equality and using that momentum as ammunition.
Japan proves the virtue of a society upholding traditional values, but let's not pretend that doesn't have a dystopian element. Due process for commoners is a pipe-dream, corporations disallow a work-life balance, business and commerce is shackled with anticompetitive red tape. The Edo period had the right idea that foreign modernizing influence would irreparable once taken root.
What was disgusting about r/cringe was the delusion that their set of opaque rules deterring towards miscreants was clever. The specific rule was "cringe situation must involve 2 individuals". I don't take issue with wanting to keep low-effort noise out (ex. r/wholesomememes or 95% of r/all), but the patronizingly polite doublethink, that these self-congratulatory hall-monitors and their camp-followers adopt, stinks worse than shriveled taint.
Their writeup was on the same meta discussion subreddit I got bot-banned from for posting a comment a year covid was $current_thing.
There was a line in Ender's Shadow about how you can't accure power by begging to those who have it. If I ever get around to making a proper Reddit successor, I will spend countless sleepness nights making sure these parasites are confined to the room they made a mess of.
Edit: From the opening chapter, "Because these fools always look up for power. People above you, they never want to share power with you. Why you look to them? They give you nothing. People below you, you give them hope, you give them respect, they give you power, cause they don't think they have any, so they don't mind giving it up." Power is both bottm-up and top-down, but not bottom-up in the "fight the power, we oh so radical" LARP sense you get from Tom Morello.
"You've been banned from [insert subreddit consisting of an ephemeral, meaningless slurry of content] for posting on unrelated wrongthink community" is usually unremarkable. But this was neutral ground for exploring the upsides and downsides of the website, and ironic casualty of "dissent is direct violence" hysteria that will define this decade. My fault for disregarding that some of the original powermods (godofatheism) were on the modlist the entire time.
'A cult-like belief in contemporary collectivism, does your audience need the definition of collectivism?'
That might be a bit monotone and condescending for a TV interview, but keep the pressure on the interviewer when she's asking underhanded questions. The question is underhanded because the interviewer deliberately interrupts a train-of-thought with an open question, and doesn't have softball questions to demonstrate that she, the interviewer, has researched the leading pro and con viewpoints on wokism. Also, any ambitious guest should have the goal of patronizing a normie audience.
What's the best lazy opposite? Normie or npc (slang, liable to either be too niche or too diluted), pawn or conformist (edgy teenage philosophy, and too many contexts); blue-pilled (poisoned by the pickup-artist debate); peasantry or pleb (a bit too general), pedestrian (buy your car and be cool unlike those foot-commuters , and conform to communities engineered to be strip-mined by The Man)? Guess I'm relegated to calling folk a bunch of submissives.
Obama already had a dismal, establishment voting record in the senate. I still hold a grudge against those that flopped from Paul to Obama or Sanders.
Crypto production won't ever be directly controlled, since cash is already digital and serves that purpose. Normies have already been conditioned with authoritarian personalities, and newer generations have no inclination to reverse this trend. Crypto trading is already mostly controlled by the establishment, lumping it with other regulated commodities as an inflation/wealth hedge. The best we can hope for is that the crypto-bubble pop has shaken much of the dead-weight speculative asset trading. Maybe Monero will have a trickling uptake in utilitarian usage, which was necessarily delayed by the 2015-2022 crypto status quo.
The rural deep south wasn't the entire West, and the key word I used actively homophobic. The laws went untouched since there was a valid (and since vindicated) unconscious concern that societal acceptance of buggery would risk other societal norms and institutions. There wasn't widespread fear of god reenacting Sodom and Gomorrah for overlooking a bit of vice. Note that when I say "never left the bedroom", I meant that depending on circumstances, it wasn't even an open secret that an individual(s) was homo. Here's a expounded upon case of the progressive agenda revising the public's collective memory of recent history.
Type 2 discrimination was beginning to fracture in the South until states enacted Jim Crow laws. The blowback from that era, titles II/VII of Civil Rights Act and Great Society welfare, has done an impressive job of breeding latent racism and steadily dragging American society towards collapse.