@Conservautism's banner p

Conservautism

Doubly Afraid of Change

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 23 18:45:23 UTC

I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 1719

Conservautism

Doubly Afraid of Change

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 23 18:45:23 UTC

					

I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.


					

User ID: 1719

Verified Email

Yeah, the reason is that the people paying him (the Kochs) tell him to care.

I know that you're implying it's because he's Jewish, but no smart person will believe that embodying all of the negative stereotypes about Jews is less likely to encourage anti-Semitism than allowing white people to have the same level of racial consciousness as Jews. I don't think most progressive Jews or cuckservative Jews no better, but Ben Shapiro and Jonathan Greenblatt do. That they behave in this manner anyway makes them a bigger threat to the Jewish people than to the white race, not that they're friendly to either. They care about their own career and nothing more.

The idea that disparate impact is something we need to look out for is what created wokeness.

I don't know who Hlynka is, nor have I seen their meme. Care to link it?

Those are not the people who need to forgive Hanania. The people we need to forgive him are the Republicans in Conservatism Inc. Typically, they go along with left-wing cancellation campaigns, then brag about how much better than the left they are for ousting the "bigots" from their ranks, while still engaging with the bigots on the left. The smart people who do this like Ben Shapiro are acting in bad faith, but most Republicans are just too stupid to notice the contradiction on their own. If Hanania points it out, there's a chance some of them will get it. And we NEED conservatives to read his upcoming book. Mass awareness of Griggs v Duke is the key to getting it overturned, which is the key to defeating wokeness.

But he doesn't have moral guilt. Like I said, he just has to flatly state that he once believed one thing and now believes another. Hell, didn't Obama flirt with Marxism in college?

He no longer cares about white nationalism. On the contrary, he's opposed to it, in the way that one would typically be opposed to any policy prescription, and he has written about his opposition extensively. He doesn't reject it on moral grounds, nor does he thinks white nationalists are untouchable and must not be associated with in any capacity. Therefore, he should treat his radical past the same way that a typical Democratic party elite treats the communist phase that they had in college, and not the absurd way that society demands white nationalism or fascism or whatever the boogeyman is be treated.

I want him to acknowledge the article and say that his views changed, but not grovel.

That's actually what happens.

This change was achieved through the government, not the marketplace.

I thought kids tell their moms what toys they want based on whatever kiddie stuff they've been watching.

If it was intended to sell toys, it wouldn't be PG-13. The film is targeted at millennial women who used to play with Barbie, not children who currently do. And it's on track to cross a billion dollars, so it worked.

They do force an interpretation via Ferrara's monologue, and they have blatantly counterfactual stuff like an all-male board room in a state where there illegal. But if you edit out the more on the nose parts, the movie does become open to interpretation, yes.

There's a camrip out.

What is FDS?

I'm still thinking about the Barbie movie. It occurred to me that, among the many plausible readings, there's one in which it's a parable about the responsibility that comes with the red pill.

After Ken reaches Kenlightenment, he immediately uses Facts and Logic to convince everyone in Barbieland that patriarchy is superior to all other forms of government. All of the Barbies agree to live under this system, but Ken worries that they may change their minds. And so, after the Kens are put in charge, they schedule a vote to change the constitution so that no woman can ever hold a position of power again.

Ken didn't do anything wrong when he convinced women to choose subservience, but he did do something wrong when he tried to force their permanent subservience. It's not that he didn't care about making the world better for the Barbies, it's just that he cared even more about making the world better for him and the other Kens. And despite his confident exterior, he knew deep down that patriarchy might not actually be the best system, so he needs a failsafe. Ken went from Jared "freedom of association" Taylor to Richard "peaceful ethnic cleansing" Spencer. That's when he became the villain.

To be clear, I am not trying to actually read the intent of the filmmakers. I just find it interesting how everyone can see a reflection of their own values in the movie. Some of my favorite political satire is stuff that doesn't take a clear stance, and when political propaganda is done so clumsily that nobody is sure what stance is being advocated, it accidentally becomes great satire.

Like, I'm not even sure the film does have a political message. I would just as easily buy that it's supposed to be a comedy without an real agenda as I would that it has an agenda it poorly communicates.

Those articles were from a time when feminists thought women cared about being pretty because they were brainwashed into it. The new Barbie movie comes from a new strain of feminism where caring about fashion and makeup are okay. I don't understand when, how, or why the change happened, but yay?

Your post makes me think the movie could've been truly amazing if the script was revised to say that women are essentially equal in status to men now, but that both men and women feel listless. The movie as it exists implies that women are second class citizens, and the plight of the Kens (so far as I can tell) is meant to be read as "what if men experienced the same existential crisis women so? Wouldn't that be crazy?" But despite the film's bias, there is still a plausible centrist egalitarian reading there. I wonder if there was internal conflict behind the scenes over whether it's okay to portray the complicated nature of modern manhood and womanhood without explicitly saying that women have it worse.

I saw a copypasta on /tv/ that edited America Ferrera's monologue to be about men, and I think if it was toned down to be less incendiary, it would've been great if Ken delivered it.

"You have to be masculine, but not overly masculine that it's toxic. And you can never say you want to be manly. You have to say that you embrace your feminine side which is just as powerful... but you still have to be manly. You have to have money, but you can't ask for money because that's pitiful. You have to be a boss, but you must never tell a woman what to do. You have to make the decisions but you also have to listen to what women want, which they don't know, before you make a decision that will always be wrong. You're supposed to make time for your wife and kids or you're a cold and distant father, but not so much time that it hurts your career, or you're a failure of a provider. You have to be unselfish and think of others, but you can't be too selfless or people will see you as weak. You have to tolerate women's bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you're accused of being whiny and told to man up. You have to be chivalrous but not so much that it's chauvinistic. You have to be kind to women but not so kind that you're creepy or boring. You're supposed to be strong and confident for women, but not so strong and confident that they feel oppressed or that you make other men angry at you. You have to be romantic and spontaneous but not naive and cringeworthy. You have to take the initiative and make a move without being told to, unless of course your attention is unwanted. Always be grateful for your privilege and feel passively aware that being a man is easier than being a woman. Remember that this is the 21st century and it is time to think of women as equals but also remember that women are oppressed and dis-empowered, so do not think of them as equals. You have to never be too weak or too strong, never be too kind or too cruel, never be afraid or cocky, never be too quiet or too loud. And you must never, ever complain. Because you are a man, everything is easy for you and everything that goes wrong is your fault."

A movie like this couldn't exist today. It'd be pilloried for being stuck 20 years in the past. But it'd be great.

Please link me any good analyses of the Barbie movie you've read, be it on Twitter, Substack, or wherever. CW stuff is especially desired.

Right, but if someone deliberately misgendered a trans person repeatedly out of a refusal the person's chosen gender, that would bother them. What I'm wondering is, would that bother cis people? If not, then the fact that it bothers trans people is an aberration. I'd like if there was data on how cis people react.

I did mean the former, yes. I know that being forced to wear a dress and act feminine is not something most men would like. But I was just thinking about how upset trans and enby people are when misgendered. If someone isn't dysphoric (and almost no non-binary people are dysphoric), then the attitude towards misgendering should be no different from that of a cis person.

Has there ever been research on how ordinary cis people would react to being persistently, deliberately misgendered? I don't think most of them would care once the initial shock wears off (which means all human beings are functionally non-binary), but I have no data backing this.

You'd think that the opinion of Jewish people would matter more than the opinion of any other group. Thanks for posting, though.

Is there a poll surveying opinions on the ADL, particularly from Jews? Googling "ADL opinion poll" just found me polls done by the organization, not about the organization.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the parents would be culpable! They're being told by The Experts that their kids will be chronically depressed and possibly even kill themselves without treatment. It's understandable that they'd give consent. And The Experts aren't necessarily malicious, either. My post isn't about casting moral judgement on anyone, it's about what we let kids do and why.

First, what professional do you have in mind? Medical doctors are trained in dispensing medicines, so it makes sense that we'd go to them for dispensing of a medicine. I don't know what profession is trained for what you're asking, or what professional standards you'd apply to them? MDs are probably the most tightly regulated profession there is, barring a few unusual ones like nuclear engineers. You say a medical professional, but unlike dispensing a medicine, I don't see why the question of matrimony is a medical one and why a medical doctor would have any particular expertise in it.

I mean, in order for a minor to receive HRT, a psychiatrist has to give approval, right? I don't know how it works, but I assume they ask some kind of pointed questions of both the minor and their parents in order to decide whether the issue they have is more likely to be dysphoria or something else. This power could be given to a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, or a.. yeah, this is a good question. I don't know who it would be.

Then why aren't they trying to ban marriage to minors in the states that allow it?

Wait wait HOLD THE PHONE HERE. skims the Wikipedia article So, uh, is there an exception to statutory rape law for married couples? If so, that's quite disturbing. If not, then the only benefit for the adult would be that they would get their spouse's money.