@Closedshop's banner p

Closedshop

話說天下大勢,分久必合,合久必分

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 22:44:37 UTC

				

User ID: 894

Closedshop

話說天下大勢,分久必合,合久必分

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 22:44:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 894

Probably not really enough meat on the bones here for Culture War thread but it also doesn't really fit anywhere else. I really wanted to talk about this year's Chinese New Year Gala put on by the Chinese government. For those that want to watch the Gala in its entirety, here's a playlist of the Gala in 4 parts.

I'm an ethnically Chinese person born in Mainland China and moved to America in my youth. This means that I'm celebrating Chinese New Year (or Lunar New Year or Spring Festival if you want to be more politically correct). For those that don't know, since the year 1988, the Chinese Media Group (state run broadcast company) have put on a Gala that starts on New Year's Eve and runs into New Year's day. Generally, this is one of the biggest broadcasting events of the year in China. Every year the shows include traditional performances mixed in with skits, modern songs, and other segments. I myself have very fond memories of watching past Galas with my family, including cousins and grandparents. While the Gala is always popular, the general consensus is that they have not been as good as the years have gone on. In my memory, the 2000s had the best Galas by far. (The Gala really misses Zhao Benshan since his ousting.)

That's all background information about the Gala, and as you might be able to tell, by this point, the Gala is completely engrained into Mainland culture. If you refer to "春晚," most mainlanders know exactly what you're talking about. What makes this year's especially interesting to me, however, is that it seemed to act as a coming out party of sorts. In the same way that the 2008 Olympics acted as a way for China to display its thorough modernization, it's clear to me that the Chinese government wanted this gala to do the same. From the kung fu robots to Lionel Richie and Jackie Chan duetting We Are the World, the entire show seemed to radiate something akin to menace and arrogance (also funny to me because two of the five singers in the video are coming from countries that are actively committing ethnic cleansings). Online, there's been a lot of talk regarding the comparisons between the Chinese backflipping robot and the Tesla backflipping robot, and it seems that those in the Party were specifically trying to rebut some of the criticisms of the Chinese robot. The feeling was especially clear with the duet. To me, it was saying "We are so rich and powerful now that we can incorporate a core part of American culture into our own Gala as a part of our propaganda efforts." China always tried to incorporate western performers in their acts as a way to boost their own prestige (one obvious example is The Great Wall featuring Matt Damon, Willem Dafoe, and Pedro Pascal). And westerners used to look at these attempts with bemusement when China was still seen as a second-rate power, but I think the mood very much changes now that China is quickly gaining legitimacy as a viable alternative to American hegemony.

All of this is obviously coming on the heels of the multitudes of criticisms that have been levied at America, Americans, and the American government. Much ink has already been spilt regarding the obvious decline of America as a power and the rise of China as America's rival. This attempt at display of cultural power is especially stark when contrasted with the recent speeches at the WEF. Everyone seems to be in a very Chinese part of their lives as the Chinese government has seemingly succeeded in their online marketing (propaganda) campaign to convince the wider world that China is an advanced Eastern country, on par and perhaps surpassing South Korea and Japan. A (long) while ago, I made a review of Ne Zha 2 and at the end, I wondered whether eastern cultural dominance would continue. It seems that the answer is firmly "Yes." Not only will eastern cultural dominance continue, but Chinese culture, which had notably lagged behind in the past, is taking up more of the cultural space. And whereas South Korea and Japan are explicitly friendly nations, what happens to America and Americans if Chinese culture becomes dominant? Unfortunately, from my perspective, the future is not bright. It's by no means hopeless, but the collapse of American cultural hegemony is just another crack in the dam.

Side note: I'll talk about a childhood Gala memory. When I was a kid, my favorite parts of the Galas growing up were always the 小品s. These are ~15 minute humorous stage sketches that generally convey some form of wisdom at the end. When I was a kid, Zhao Benshan was a mainstay at almost every single Gala. He's from the North East region of China (formerly known as Manchuria, though Chinese people don't like that name nowadays) which is the same region of China that I'm from. He spoke with an exaggerated accent North Eastern accent that I also speak Chinese with, including the colloquialisms and slang. He honestly put North Eastern Chinese culture on the map. I'm not exaggerating when I say that he built a small media empire during the aughts and early 10s, with nationally syndicated TV shows, live shows, and even international tours. For about 20 years, he was present at almost every New Year's Gala, and he'd always perform a sketch, which would be one of the highlights of the entire show. Recently (when Xi JinPing ascended as Chairman) he was ousted due to supporting the wrong political faction. Now he's relegated to the North Eastern part of China as a local celebrity. The Gala dearly misses his presence, as the quality of the sketches after his ousting has taken a downturn. I'll share some of his greatest hits at the Gala, but unfortunately, many of the sketches don't have subtitles and are incredibly hard to translate. These sketches rely on wordplay, cultural references, and specific knowledge to be funny so as to be nearly incomprehensible to someone who doesn't understand Chinese, and especially the North Eastern dialect of Chinese. For myself, it really is impossible to overstate how important he was to the New Year's Gala.

I really think Tom Ford can be your house. A lot of their masculine scents should be up your alley considering the restrictions.

If you've already gone through all of the designer brands (brands that are not perfume-only, such as Hermes, Chanel, and Dior. These are generally found in department stores such as Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, and Macy's, as well as Sephora and Ulta) I'd suggest you look into niche brands (brands that only create perfumes and perfume themed products, such as room sprays, body wash, candles, and diffusers). I'll try to suggest a few for you. Let me know if you've smelled any of these before:

Byredo Blanche Absolu de Parfum: To me, this is what comes to mind when you describe the scent as soapy. Byredo has a lot of clean, soapy scents, so I'd suggest you try their entire lineup. There are similarities to Lazy Sunday Morning, but to me, this is superior. Speaking of Lazy Sunday Morning, Maison Margiela also has Bubble Bath and Beach Walk, in case you haven't given them a try yet. They both give me a clean, fresh, soapy feel.

MFK 724: This one has specifically been described as clean and soapy. I've smelled it and I concur. I like it a lot, but because I already have a couple of this style of scent, I won't be getting it for now. Along the same line from MFK as well is the Aqua Universalis line from MFK.

Nonfiction Gentle Night: This one is a bit of a shot in the dark (tbh these all are), but Nonfiction is a Korean brand, so there may be a connection. I've smelled this only once, and I do remember it reminding me of washed laundry. I really only remembered this because you said the guy was Korean, but their scents are actually all fairly good. My Korean ex loved this company.

Shiro FREESIA MIST: This is also more of a shot in the dark. Shiro is a Japanese brand and most of their perfumes are of a fresh nature. Freesia Mist leans more feminine, and is slightly off theme, being more fruity and fresh rather than soapy, but to me it smells like a very high quality shower gel. I'd suggest this to you just to try it even if it's not The scent.

Hope you find what you're looking for.

You caught me at a time bit of a busy time, so I won't be writing full reviews, but I'll suggest a few for you to start off with. I'll try to hit the notes you like and avoid the ones you don't, but I don't know what climate you are in or what situations you're going to be wearing these in, so you need to try these to see if you like them. I also don't have encyclopedic knowledge so I can't hit everything. These are assuming unlimited (within reason) budget:

Tom Ford would be a great starting point: Tobacco Vanille, Noire Extreme, Fucking Fabulous, and Tuscan Leather are some that I think fit into your criteria. Tom Ford is an established house, so everyone will recognize the name, if that matters to you.

Coffee Break from Maison Margiela technically has Vetiver as a note, but I don't detect it at all. It's vanilla-y, creamy, and sweet. It's not a coffee bomb, but I can definitely smell the note. I like this in fall or winter.

Stronger with You line from Armani is another you might like. Intensely and Parfum don't include notes that you dislike, and both include vanilla as one of the main notes. Mainly for cool to cold weather.

Nautica Voyage is actually a pretty interesting pick for you. Smells of citrus and cucumbers, and you can get it pretty much anywhere for $15-20. Completely inoffensive, and you can go a little heavier with sprays.

Baccarat Rouge 540 from MFK is heavy, syrupy, sweetness. Technically leans feminine, but I'd say it's unisex. It's very strong so go lighter on the sprays when in warmer weather.

Bleu de Chanel L'exclusive is essentially BDC Leather edition. Pricy, but a good alternative for every day wear. It's quite nice in my opinion.

Millésime Impérial from Creed is ocean fruits. Smells to me like a summer day at the beach when I have my sunscreen on with a nice watermelon slice. If the price tag makes your eyes water like it makes mine water, try Milestine from Armaf. It's a very close clone (95%) and it costs less than 1/10.

Please feel free to give me feedback as well. If you tried these, let me know what you liked/didn't like. I'm just an enthusiast, not an expert.

Never had this issue but I might not be understanding what you mean. Do you have example sentences where this happens?

"뭐하고 있어요?" was the correct answer, and What I heard was "어호이새여"

"지금 좀 바빠요" was the correct answer, and what I heard was "치감전파패요"

This was purely a sounds to writing test, and I don't know enough words in Korean to know what the characters meant, meaning I didn't have the context of whether the characters made sense together or not. I literally questioned my sanity after seeing the correct answers. Apparently in the first example, I missed an entire character being pronounced.

I've started learning Korean recently, and I've run into trouble. Unfortunately, my teacher, being a native Korean speaker, has a hard time sympathizing with my issues, and has given me the simple advice of "practice more." I'm not saying the advice is incorrect or not valuable, but it's not very helpful when I don't even understand why I'm making the mistakes I am.

I'm having trouble distinguishing consonant sounds in Korean. Multiple consonants all sound similar. Not even between normal and double consonants, but different consonants that are supposed to sound different all sound the same to me. In fact, sometimes I have trouble hearing the consonant being pronounced at all, especially at the beginning of words. I can, with difficulty, read characters out loud. But when listening to characters being spoken, I cannot write them with sufficient accuracy. This is a problem that I've talked to multiple Korean speakers with and it seems that it's something that they intuitively understand to the point where they have trouble understanding my problem. Is this something anyone else has struggled with, and what are some things that I can do to help?

Personally being a dumb MBA I feel like I can perfectly segment pnl between subprime borrowers and rich people. If I make money on subprime and lose money on rich people I can just shutdown the rich people business and deploy more money to poor people. So the academia people are most likely wrong based on simple logic?

In your imaginary scenario, would you be lending money to every single homeless person you see?

Where? In NYC or Silicon Valley, that's just barely acceptable. In Dothan Alabama, that's a comfortable living.

I'd suggest that all of the groups you listed (barring Japanese, who never existed in large enough numbers to matter) are at least of Christian denomination, and while cultural differences between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant are large, they're nowhere near as large as the differences between any Christian denomination and Hindu or Islam.

Further, the culture in the U.S. in the 18th century was vastly different from even modern day U.S. culture. Integration and assimilation was both expected and enforced. Nowadays, not only is it not expected, but to suggest that some immigrant group should integrate is treated as racist. You say that nativist backlash against immigration was an integration problem, but I'd suggest that it's the exact opposite. Nativist backlash happens when immigrants do not integrate. Without any pressure from natives, why should immigrants integrate? You see this exact problem in Canada and Europe. Do Indians in Canada behave like Canadians? I don't even mean that they need to stop being Hindu, but do they stop throwing their religious idols into public waterways or stop shitting on public beaches? Do Muslims in Great Britain act British? I don't even mean that they need to convert to Christianity, but do they not stab you for burning the Quran or not harass women for not wearing a covering?

Before I do a long reply, let me ask you two questions. Are there any differences between the German, Irish, Polish, Italian, and Japanese examples you listed and the Indian and Muslim examples I listed other than just geography (i.e. one example is specific to the U.S. and the others are not)? If so, what are the differences between the examples you listed and the ones I listed, and are they large enough so that the examples you list don't apply anymore to immigration today?

If the answer is no, there aren't any differences, then we should just leave it at that.

Very simply, "A country is not an economic zone" rebuts the idea that policy should be made purely for economic gain above other goods. Specifically, this is used in Far/Alt right circles against Neo-Cons and Liberals as a rebuttal against the idea of importing workers and offshoring work. The point of the argument is that a country is not an economic zone, but a culture, a people, and a land. An "American" is not someone who lives and works in America, or even merely an American citizen, but someone who shares American culture. In the American example, "American people" doesn't really mean anything because Americans are such a mix racially that there's no real such thing as "racial Americans." The point about culture is very real, though. For the most stark example on race, look no further than Japan. A "foreigner" with a Japanese passport who is even born in Japan is not and will never been considered "Japanese."

Consider the example of Japan for a minute. Suppose that in the blink of an eye, all Japanese people on Japan ceased to exist. Then, in another blink of an eye, Every single Japanese person that used to exist was instead replaced by Indians. How long do you suppose it will take before Tokyo resembles Mumbai or New Delhi? At that point, would "Japan" still exist? If you agree with "A country is not an economic zone," you would say that if that happened, Japan would essentially become India, and "Japan" would no longer exist outside of the name and as a number on a spreadsheet. Therefore, the more a country imports foreign workers in search of cheap labor and economic gain, the more that country destroys its own culture. Eventually, this reaches a critical mass where the country would have replaced its original population. This is essentially the death of the original country. Consider again the Japan example. Suppose that the Japanese people, instead of disappearing instantly, slowly went away over the next 20 years. Over the same 20 years, Indians come to settle Japan. I'll ask the same questions again. How long do you suppose it will take before Tokyo resembles Mumbai or New Delhi? At that point, would "Japan" still exist?

I'm partial to this argument as it's something that is not really in dispute outside of the West. I'm Chinese, and if you ask a Chinese person what "China" is, you'll get a very similar answer: Chinese culture, Chinese people, and China as a landmass. It's mainly the West (America, Canada, and the Eurozone) that's done away with this idea, much to their detriment in my opinion. Ask Canadians about how well importing Indian workers has been for them. Ask the British about how well the Muslim population gels with the native population.

I've been going back and rewatching some anime from my childhood. Currently, I'm rewatching Bobobo-bo-bobobo. It's one of the only anime in my mind that has a dub that's superior than the original sub. The plot is translated well, but some of the jokes are actually better when translated. The narrator, for example, is much superior in the dub. This brought to mind an interesting question: Which anime dubs are actually superior to the originals? Bobobo and Ghost Stories are the only two that come to mind. Bobobo being true to the original and Ghost Stories being completely different.

What are you guys' picks for anime that have superior dubs?

I don't know if there's a term for this, but it's something I've noticed. Suppose you have the head of an agency called the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency, and the whole point of your agency is to regulate Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. What many people would expect is that the head of the agency would naturally be an expert on Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Instead, what we see in the real world is that the head of said agency is not an expert on any single one of the things that he's supposed to help regulate, let alone all three. I think this becomes more pronounced the further you move up the political chain, all the way to the President. No senator can be expected to be an expert on economics, nuclear power, firearms, and The Middle East, but they are all expected to weigh in, and potentially vote regarding all of these issues. The President gets this worst of all, as he's supposed to execute on every single issue Congress votes on. This seems to be built into the system from the start.

Perhaps it's just another sign of how completely warped the federal government has become compared to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

I was no “chad”, just a short skinny effeminate guy. I had an awful personality, little interest in women and still a few hook-ups and flings just happened from going with the flow.

Nice humblebrag. Now I understand that was most likely not even meant as one, but that's how it comes across because that's how awful it is for most men nowadays. I'm not going to rehash Radicalizing the Romanceless, but it's even worse nowadays than when that article was written. Men are suffering.

And I think you're right in that it's worse in America, especially compared to East Asia, where I and my family were from originally, but with how widespread the American ideological contagion has become, I don't see thing getting better any time soon.

That part is not about working, but about taxes.

The existential dread that you've truly wasted the one life you were given on this Earth, and there is no going back.

As opposed to the existential dread that you've wasted the one life you were given by working? And not even for nothing, but to actively fund the destruction of everything that used to give life meaning.

Then you die. Or at least many do.

Everyone does.

Clubbing is just another thing that gen z has killed, I'm afraid. I've never been to a club in my life, so I can't relate, but if you just search on youtube, you'll find dozens of videos that lament how the clubbing culture from the 10's is completely dead.

I've been to a single music party (concert?) though, and I have to say that I don't think I've ever felt more out of place than I did when I was there. The music was alright, but I don't take drugs and I don't dance so it was just awkward for me to be there. Didn't help that the friend that actually invited me canceled at the last minute.

If you’re a regular straight person, everything is basically designed for you. You can ask out basically any single member of the opposite sex. People try to set you up with their friends/co-workers/whatnot. You can hook-up with random strangers at a party if the chemistry’s right without having to worry if they’re in the <5% that’s attracted to you, if you’re sexually compatible, or if you’re trans and passing, that they won’t react violently.

I have to ask what you're basing your statements off of because none of these statements are true for the "average" man, and they haven't been for at least the last 10 years. Full disclosure, I'm a late millennial/early zoomer (late 90s to early aughts) straight male.

You can ask out basically any single member of the opposite sex

You can do that in the same way that you can run through a minefield and not get blown up. The fact of the matter is simply that the consequences for running into a vindictive, cruel, or simply insane woman is now much greater than it ever was in the past. They used to tell you that the worst thing they can do is say "no" (this was never true, but it was true enough to be good advice maybe 15 years ago) but now the worst thing they can do is pull out their phone and start blasting your face all over the internet. And that's not even the worst thing they can do. If she calls the cops on you, you'd really be in hell.

People try to set you up with their friends/co-workers/whatnot.

First of all, dating at work is on of the worst things you can do to yourself. Again, it's simply not worth the risk. You're not putting just your reputation on the line, but your career as well. Secondly, maybe this is just because of my circles, but I've only ever once seen someone else even attempt to set up their friends. It happens so rarely, that I have to seriously doubt that it ever happened at all, even before the current climate.

You can hook-up with random strangers at a party if the chemistry’s right without having to worry if they’re in the <5% that’s attracted to you, if you’re sexually compatible, or if you’re trans and passing, that they won’t react violently.

You can hook up with strangers at a party (Personally, I'm not sure where these parties are or who's going to them. I haven't been to a single party outside of work events after college). This is one that might be colored by my own experiences, but I have never hooked up with a stranger at a party, even when I was going to them back in college. I have to assume that it's due to my deficiencies because it apparently happens enough to other people for it to be a prevalent thing.

Plus most straight men seem to be attracted to most women? I don’t understand it but it should make your life easier to not be picky.

In my experience, it's not my pickiness that's the problem. Or maybe it is. I don't consider myself unattractive (I give myself 6/10 simply because I'm tall and not overweight and I don't have any physical deformities), but according to at least a sizable minority of women, most men are unattractive, so in reality a 6/10 is probably actually a 2/10.

All in all, I legitimately don't know on what basis you're making your claims because they run almost completely counter to what I've experienced as a straight male. I have to assume that they must have been true in the near, or even distant, past, otherwise they wouldn't be so oft repeated. The only people who talk about how supposedly easy it is to date are either old and out of touch or have at least one attractive trait that is above average (looks, charisma, or money). None of the people who I consider "average" have the experience of dating being "easy".

where and when it is supposedly the situation?

AFAIK it was never ever in no location considered the way you claim

The other poster is too narrow in saying just sex, but for most of known human history, men trade resources for sex and offspring. What exactly do you think a man is doing when he provides for his wife? Divorcing your wife because she was barren, while frowned upon, was completely acceptable. Maybe it's different in the enlightened 21st century (I don't think it is), but historically, most, if not all, marriages were entered into to support tangible, real world gains. Love was something you developed later, if it developed at all.

There seems to be this presumption that disagreement must stem from misunderstandings or poor messaging rather than sincere values differences.

Or even worse, it's because you're stupid or evil (or both).

you can't possibly believe that illegal immigration is bad for the country so you must actually be a secret racist trying to get rid of brown people

For my part, I'm disgusted that so many people seem to think it's okay to cyberbully celebrities

Saying mean things about someone online is not cyberbullying, especially when she specifically searched her name to see all the mean things people said. Also, her entire business is attention, so negative attention is just a part of the bargain she made. I have no sympathy for someone who literally courts attention receiving negative attention.

look into the face of a god

deny its existance

Just how based can one man get?

I suppose that’s not quite the same, as there isn’t the presumption of agreement.

That's the real difference for me too. There's less of this "voting against your interest" messaging on the right. It seems that if you disagree with the left, in their eyes, you're either stupid or evil.

tumblr in anno domini 2025

But yeah you completely articulated some of my feelings on this subject. Great writeups.

Then she goes basically says later (can't find it now) that though she knows she's breaking taboos, she thought being kind and honest and data driven would be enough to break the stigma and have people treat her with respect, basically. And to be fair to her she does seem to be doing that stuff.

Idk if this is actually a thing, but I'm recognizing a pattern here (lol). There seems to be a group of people that I've noticed, broadly on the left, that apparently think that saying something I find completely reprehensible in a nicer way, it would make me agree with it more. Like if they asked me nicely enough to rape my daughter, that I'd somehow be convinced (purposefully hyperbolic example). Outside of Aella, the whole SAM (Speaking with American Men) initiative is indicative of this line of thinking. SAM seems to be focused on how to "market" Democrat's ideas to men instead of finding ideas that men actually want. I don't know if this is just me or if anyone else noticed this or if I'm just recognizing too many patterns. To me, it's back asswards, but what the hell do I know.