@BaronVSS's banner p


Sort by controversial

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 07:02:15 UTC


User ID: 483


Sort by controversial

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 07:02:15 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 483

The events you identified are all for rich people. Most of the events, products and activities consumed by DEI are intended for common people.

I remember that the bare links thread was primarily used as a way to link to random things and to have people make comments on them that wouldn't be tolerated in any other thread.

It being introduced when it did told me a lot about our society.

I have a schizo theory and no better place to put it.

The average length of time an item spends in the news cycle has changed. What used to last for 2-3 weeks, maybe a month now lasts for months on end, and potentially a year plus. Society's reaction to Covid is the obvious material cause. By shutting down large amounts of human activity, governments prevented newsworthy things from happening. Covid remained the default news item throughout most of 2020, being punctuated only by the Floyd slaying, which took up most of the summer then yielded to the US elections before running to Covid for the next year. However, since the winding down of restrictions in 2022, this pattern has not ceased. The news cycle since then has been dominated by the self inflicted Cost of Living crisis and more recently we are seeing fallout from the latest episode of the Israel and Palestine show, which took place back in October.

Why is this? My schizo theory is the that there are two contributing factors. First is that increased internet use during the lockdowns gave news outlets much needed traffic and analytics data to identify how people use their site and what they most interact with. Where news items might have been frontpage and then accessible under the relevant section of the site (ie, health, entertainment, economy, etc) now has been moved into its own standalone section accessible from anywhere on the site. Second is that habbits have been solidifed amongst the population where they now check the news with a much, much greater frequency than they used to, but also "follow" stories of a particular narrative over a long period of time.

I have no idea how you'd go about testing any of this.

Yes, after about 10 minutes of parsing conversations I realised that no one is actually discussing the mechanics of woodland survival but instead it's largely a rehashed "men bad" struggle session.

At this point I've honestly just embraced being an oppressor. I will never be seen as anything else, so why try and change it?

After witnessing the events of 2020-2022, take my rightful place at the head of the queue.

The only person in life who will consistently look out for you, is you.

I do not see what sort of comfort this is meant to bring. This is no more helpful than the realisation that technically it isn't the fault of the wolf or shark if it has a hankering for your delicious flesh. Wolves and sharks still possess sharp teeth and will attempt to use them on you, while powerful moral spooks will compel other human beings to make your life a misery over things that have no material impact on either them or you.

I just laugh. I accept history as absurd. I read some nonsense in the news, and it makes me laugh how stupid everything is, and I don't suppose things were really less stupid in the past. I don't suppose that I'm less stupid. It's funny. You have to accept that basically illiterate positions, even if they're strongly-felt, are not strongly-reasoned. And that's how people are, and nothing you do is going to change it.

To quote the great Carl Brutananadilewski

I do sympathise with you. I experienced what you are experiencing now during the lockdowns. Almost everyone in my life was in support of them and spoke very highly of them, blind to the effects they were having on me. I am still dealing with the issues now.

During that time, whenever the topic of conversation came up I came up with situation appropriate lines to shut down or move the conversation on. When I couldn't do that, I drowned them out with loud rock music. Ultimately, you aren't going to convince them and the only real solution is to wait for this nonsense to exit the news cycle.

(Has it really been 7 months?)

I think there has been a change in recent years, brought on the effects of children having 24/7 access to porn during the pandemic. The porn is blamed, rather than government policy that prevented children from doing anything other than sitting down in front of an ipad and browsing the internet all day, but hey ho what are you going to do.

We must also not forget the parliamentary crisis of procedure caused by activism over recent tensions occuring in a region miles away from the country that very few people have a genuine stake in. Granted, a large part of the problem are enablers, not actual theists, but this problem still remains.


In what is perhaps the first win Secularism has experienced in a long time, a high court judge has ruled against a challenge brought forward by a muslim pupil claiming that lack of prayer rooms at hier school were a substantial opposition to her faith. The judge's reasoning is that the school explicitly advertised itself as secular and would not permit certain activities in an attempt to minise friction between pupils. This outcome was accomplished in spite of threats and bomb scares made to the school and criminal damage to both the school and a few of the homes of the staff who worked there.

Michaela Community School is not a typical institution, hence why it was not only able to fight back against Islamists, but also win. Situated in a particularly deprived part of London, it boasts extremely successful grades compared to not only the borough but the wider country as a whole. It accomplishes this through rules many consider extreme, including no talking in corridors, demerits for failing to remove your book from your bag and flip to the correct page in under 10 seconds and mirrors removed from bathrooms in order to avoid distractions.

Its head, Katharine Birbalsingh, is not a typical educator. An Indo-Guyanese woman and once a Conservative advisor for social mobility, her comments on education, society and the role of its members routinely antagonise left of centre commentators. Michaela is a free school, indepedent of the local authority and thus she is immunised against potential attempts by that local authority and other insitutions to instill accepted views into her school. This is I think a large part of why she won - she ultimately only answers to herself and those parents in her community who are in favour of her school and the way she runs it, and can thus ignore detractors in a way that an LEA controlled, union dependent teacher can't.

How can self worth not be a self defeating concept?

The human being is a social animal, and interacting with others is very important to them. A person's happiness, access to resources and even physical safety is determined by both their belonging to a group and their social position within that group. When a person feels that they have little worth and are downbad because of it, others around them will respond with platitudes such as "you need to improve your self worth" or "you to be confident!" Yet often, a person has low self worth or confidence because others assign low worth to them. This treatment need not come in the form outright abuse - if a person is repeatedly ignored or passed over then they end up attaining a low level of worth simply because they can see that others are recieving positive affirmations when they themselves are not.

Most things people do beyond fulfilling their immediate biological needs, such as eating and urinating, is to work to increase their social standing, which may happen immediately or over a long period of time. A person aware of their low worth must convince themselves into believing that if they perform certain actions they can accquire greater worth from the positive reinforcement provided by others. For example, that they dress in a way that will be more accepted by others, or that they act in a happy and upbeat manner even when they are not feeling so. A person must not act as though they have a high worth when this is not valued by others - you cannot for example go to a job interview and say that you are worth some 6 digit salary if this is transparently not the case. This is the fastest way to decrease the view of oneself in the eyes of others.

Hence, a person's motivations cannot ever concern themselves alone, unless you have the strength to withstand spending large parts of your life alone in very bad places. What good is prefixing self to worth if, for a healthy, adjusted human being, worth comes from places other than the self?

Usually, I write George Bataille esque diatribes about the unrelenting awfulness of the universe.

That's rough. I hope you make it back OK.

Can I ask how long you've been off work?

Can I ask how long your break was?

How shit of an idea is just quitting your job without a replacement job to go to?

I am completely, utterly burnt out on my current job. The past few months have been non-stop ass rape on a personal and professional level. We had redundancies sprung on us in December with zero warning that I only dodged because another person took voluntary redundancy, and before that we were doing 9 hour days for about 2 months due to the business promising far more than it could actually deliver. The personal shit could be its own post. I haven't properly unwound since september.

There has been a team change and my team now comprises of me, who works on software written in one language, two devs that work on completely different language on completely different software, and one dev that would normally be working with me but is tied up with temporary projects for the forseeable future. There is no one with lead or managerial capacity on the team. This is a random grouping of devs with no clear overarching goal and it feels like I'm just expected to somehow make it work when I'm least equipped to do so.

Every task seems to take much longer than it should. I keep making really obvious mistakes that I don't seem to ever catch in the moment. I keep saying or doing things that bother my colleagues and they don't bring it to me so I can fix and address them, but to my manager who schedules a meeting about 2 or 3 weeks after the thing in question has occurred to discuss it. My manager also now routinely brings up things that I did wrong in the codebase two or three years ago and beats me over the head with them. I was on holiday last week, and the last thing my manager did before I went off was meet with me to discuss my performance, and then had another meeting with me first thing on the Monday when I returned.

I don't know really if I want to get another dev job or go back into education or work a shit but slower paced job for a while. I do have friends/family I can stay with and I have more than sufficient savings for the forseeable future, so that part is not an issue. I am primarily concerned on the effect it will have on my ability to get jobs going forward.

Late, but I just wanted to say that you are my favourite poster on the internet. Never ever stop.

I believe OP view's will become further solidified if you give him more blackpills, not less

Due to wider economic changes, Homer Simpson's lifestyle and achievements are no longer feasible for the rate of effort that he puts in. One thing I didn't point out in the above post is that men now face vastly increased competition for all the signifiers of male success from not only women in their labour pool but also globalisation. Had he been born 20 years later, Homer would have turned into Lenny or Barney.

He was banned for only ever posting about the Hock. His reddit account is still active, so clearly he hasn't gone into the woods to his death.

Society vs Male Radicalisation II - Male Role Models/Surely This Time Our Plan Will Work

I was on the internet this week, and I found this:

Labour to help schools develop male influencers to combat Tate misogyny

It is interesting to note that there is an increasing shift towards talking about "role models" for young men and boys as a means of cooling the gender kerfuffle, rather than by repeating feminist talking points at males until they concede as was the case when I was a teenager. The Labour Party, the UK's apparent next government, has come up with policy to reduce the influence of Andrew Tate among schoolboys with the intended aim of safeguarding women and girls. It means to do this by creating counter role models to whom boys can look up to. This would not even the utterly embarrasing 30 year old boomers trying to guess what resonates with children, but would consist instead of older volunteer boys taken from within the same school. This if it is implemented, will have educators select the real life version of Will from Inbetweeners as its senior male role model and think themselves of sound mind for doing so. You are only ever going to get uncool loser types volunteering, and it is the fear of becoming an uncool loser (or worse) that motivates young men to go and consume manosphere content.

Feminism's defenders will counter that there are many existing role models available for men, often listing real or fictional people like Ryan Gosling, Marcus Rashford or Ted Lasso. These men are either fake or literal one percenters whose lifestyle an average young man has no hope of to attaining. This betrays a complete lack of understanding about why men choose the role models they do and how they attempt to emulate them. These role models are deliberately or implicitly chosen as role models for young men by people who aren't young men often because they display qualities that are useful, rather than valued, to society. This is because almost all policy dreamt up by institutions concerning Men and Boys is not to their benefit, but instead to neuter a perceived threat against Women, Girls and the wider society. For every Marcus Rashford, there are multiple Mason Greenwoods or Kurt Zoumas who continue to receive all the signifiers of male success and receive no punishment for any of their transgressions.

It is clear that what educational and social institutions want are meek, inoffensive and productive men who do not question the rules of society. This is in direct contrast to what young men want, which is to be outspoken, to be popular with women, to be socially and economically successful. No role model ever produced or selected by the state could manage this, particularly not when operating under the notion that it must maintain women's liberation, which itself requires the stifling of men. I question for how much longer this approach will be kept in place. There are hundreds of people like Andrew Tate across SM, each ready to teach boys what society is unable to teach them. Educators can more easily dispel Tate because of the sex trafficking offences and because Tate himself is a clown, but people like Hamza, whose lived experience is much closer to the boys he is trying to proselytize to than that of Tate's, they have no counterargument.

How can society adapt to what is gradual extinction? Women would still have to bear 2.1 children to keep the population at a consistent rate. Human groups exist off the fact that some people do all the work and receive no remuneration (slaves, 12 year old congolose lithium miners) and others benefit from it.

We have the best non-technical universities and black underclasses, you wouldn't believe it

Your society will rapidly fail to pay its taxes. Generally, Men participate in a ceaseless hustle to make as much money as they can as it is one of the key indicators of worth they are judged by. This burning drive is necessary for society to have surplus production, even if it consumes the men in the process. In contrast, women are the net beneficiary of taxes due to various reasons such as being the recipient of child and housing benefits and other spending.