Chris envied adult rock stars, as it was made clear in one segment of Rock School I saw on YT, and wanted to become one of them. Obviously neither Simmons nor the producers, nor anyone in his social circle was enough of an asshole to point out to him that, as far as I know, not one rock icon started out at age 15 as a reality TV contestant, and in general they never start out as kids, so it was not like his chosen path offered real chances of making his dream true. It also seems obvious to me that both Simmons and the producers were more or less aware that he had no real staying power because there was no originality to whatever talents he had (I suppose). The novelty aspect of it all was bound to peter out eventually, and he was going to fade away. I doubt anyone explained all this to him.
It was also clear as day by this time that fame can be a heavy burden that not all people are mentally equipped to handle. If you’re convinced that fame is what you want and you end up getting it, you also lose what you had i.e. an ordinary life, which will not seem like a loss at first, but you’ll likely end up feeling lost later. Your entire social circle, everything and everyone you’ve known, will dissolve, and you’ll no longer know whom to trust. And if you also lose the limelight in the end because the audience becomes bored with you, you end up with nothing, staring into an empty abyss. Again, probably none of this was explained to Chris.
Are you convinced that the US used to have such a culture in the past indeed? In a nation that rejects the idea of nobility?
The ruling class in modern society has no Noblese Oblige because they are extremely mercenary.
I’d argue the real reason they lack it is their belief that they climbed up to their current status due to their own abilities and not class privilege, as opposed to the aristocracy of bygone monarchical systems whose status was ‘unearned’. Stemming from this belief is their notion that any average citizen can become one of the ruling class through ambition, hard work, merit etc. They don’t believe they have obligations to common folk because they don’t believe they are fundamentally different from them.
I’d take this post as an opportunity to bring up the suicide victim and late British celeb Lil’ Chris, although strictly speaking he was not a child actor but a reality TV star, someone I never heard of until coming across his story in one of those ‘ list of people who could not get over it that their 15 minutes of fame was over’ Youtube compilations. I think it was kind of a shitty move on the part of Gene Simmons and the TV producers involved to take a teenage boy from an English prole family with obvious unresolved psychological tendencies of attention-seeking and other mental health issues, sell him the fake fantasy that he’ll become some huge rock star and then throw him on the scrap heap when no more money could be milked from him.
Before tattoos have become completely commercialized and gentrified (so to speak), i.e. not a staple of white trash status anymore, there was a time when tattoos were only worn by prostitutes, soldiers, sailors and criminals (the latter group obviously also having included some former soldiers and sailors). Platner's tattoos are pretty much just a throwback to those days.
I recall reading that the 2016 election was rather close in New Hampshire and Vermont(?).
'noblesse oblige' only worked in societies which adhered to the concept of 'noblesse'. Modern society, on the other hand, does not believe that the ruling class assumed its status through hereditary privilege, consequently it does not believe either that the ruling class is obligated to anything by its status.
Trump is a weird exception in a lot of ways, but he’s also done unusually poorly in New England
In which election?
I wonder if part of the dislike is that he has the wrong sort of tattoos; too much 'white trash' and not enough 'progressive rainbow hair septum piercing sleeve art' style.
You're not telling me that there's anyone out there sincerely accusing a soldier of this, are you?
I see. I'm also guessing that Gingrich was concerned about the DC cocktail party circuit influencing the Congressmen's children and wives. Then again, maybe he wasn't thinking that ahead.
Isn't that a false parallel?
Bisons are majestic though.
In its essence the Wall is simply a biological reality - boys generally mature slower than girls but women also generally age faster then men. It's no wonder that an age gap of 3-5 years has been widespread in marriages throughout history (on both sides of the Hajnal Line, as far as I know, but again, I'm no ethnographer). And in societies where early marriage and childbirth plus enforced monogamy are the norm, the Wall practically does not matter, as the average woman hitting the Wall is already a wife and the mother of multiple children, plus soon to become a grandmother, in fact. So she already bought into the social fabric.
I suggest there are three main aspects to the Wall in the current social reality. One: there are more and more women hitting the Wall when they are single or at least childless, which then causes lots of hurt and disillusionment. Two: the worsening trends of female alcoholism, drug use, prescription pill abuse, sedentary and unhealthy lifestyles in general are all accelerating ageing, which makes the whole phenomenon worse. Three: a small but visible and loud minority of women are capable of spending a great deal of resources on anti-aging measures with notable success, which in turn creates the widespread illusion that the problem is much less worse than it actually is.
The Wall is about sexual value, not social value, as hitting it entails a strictly biological/bodily transformation.
Your appearance obviously invoked motherly feelings as long as you were just a boy, that is all. It has nothing to do with The Wall.
Anything is unlikely to be well-defined when any discussion of it is purged from society instantly even on the internet.
People way more comfortable interacting with strangers' small children than in Australia since there are more small children around.
I think the more likely explanation is that the pedophile predator threat is part of the public consciousness in Australia but not in SE Asia. And I doubt the fertility rate is higher in SE Asia than in Australia.
Essentially everywhere has ample childseats.
Do you mean restaurants and third places in general?
As someone who hasn't seen the movie I assume there are two things going on. One: the store owner, unlike his female therapist, is not college-educated, which is a significant social barrier to a potential relationship between them. The therapist would probably suffer social ostracism if she paired up with him, which obviously could be offset were he an attractive stud, which he isn't. Which leads to - Two: it'd be possible for a store owner entrepreneur and a therapist to have a successful marriage, as the difference in terms of social status does not seem to be that big, but again, mutual attraction needs to be there for that first.
Marriage proposals are all submitted and answered in writing by law. Unless you can produce such a document, the authorities will assume that you're unmarried by choice. Just an idea.
Can you please explain in what sense is Southeast Asian culture more child-friendly than Australian culture?
I always assumed it takes place in NYC. Then this thread reminded me for the first time that there's a desert in the story as well.
If you don't want them, just be honest about why
I think the first and equally important step is admitting that you don't actually want them.
That’s also my suspicion. If we’re talking about the college-educated demographic, if one does not have a long-term partner at graduation, the chances of future marriage and parenthood are probably dropping drastically. I’m guessing there is research bearing this out.
The focus of this report is a lot narrower than the previous one which means there are fewer fun takeaways. Two facts stand out. There's been a lot of speculation about coupling not working, people delaying childrearing so they are unable to get that third child, et cetera, but the report doesn't bear any of these concerns out. Men and women are still moving in together, but the major driver of the decline is that there's a growing cohort in which the couple never decides to have kids. A lot of DINK-couple (Double Income, No Kids) are no longer as eager to become DICKs (Double Income, Couple o' Kids) as they used to be.
https://www.themotte.org/post/3555/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/410740?context=8#context
- Prev
- Next

Such incidents are bound to happen in any country where the police force as well has been indoctrinated for decades with the idea that white racism is the worst evil to ever exist in the universe.
More options
Context Copy link