Folamh3
User ID: 1175
This might be a bit rambling so bear with me.
My mum once said to me that she'd read somewhere that attractive people tend to be conservative, the theory being that attractive people tend to be treated well by society as it currently is: thus, it's not in their self-interest for society to change dramatically.
People often use "conservative" and "right-wing" interchangeably (likewise "progressive" and "left-wing"), but that's not quite the phenomenon I'm describing here. I rather mean that people who are generally satisfied with their lives will not see it in their own self-interest to radically change society from the ground up, and hence will tend not to endorse policies which promise to do that. By contrast, people who are generally dissatisfied with their lives will feel that they have nothing to lose by radically changing society. What kinds of people are dissatisfied with their own lives? Per my first example, physically unattractive people; but also (non-exhaustive list) people with poor social skills, people who can't hold down a steady job, mentally ill people and, per the OP, neurotic people.
"So you're saying that the only reason people are communists is because they're ugly, friendless, unemployable and crazy?" Well, yes and no. It's not hard to find examples of people meeting that exact description, and I won't pretend I'm completely innocent of this mean-spirited tendency to sneer. There was some recent discussion here about "bio-Leninism" which, as far as I understand it, basically boils down to this.
But it's not a phenomenon unique to far-leftists. There's a subreddit called r/beholdthemasterrace, which catalogues examples of white supremacists/white nationalists etc. who are obese, lanky, out of shape or generally unattractive. This is, to my mind, a perfectly legitimate rhetorical technique: "these guys think they're superior to others by dint of their ethnicity, but look how weak, frail and ugly they are!" But people are making a category error when they describe white supremacists as "conservative". To "conserve" means to keep things the way they are. Anyone who endorses transforming the US into an ethnostate cannot be a "conservative" when the US isn't an ethnostate. Rather, American white supremacists are reactionaries: the changes they propose making to American society are just as sweeping, radical and fundamental as any of those proposed by Marxists.
Hollywood actors talk a big game about being progressive, but it's mostly of a surface level which will have little impact upon them personally ("yay feminism", "yay LGBTQ+", "yay defund the police [I live in a gated community and am accompanied by one or more huge bodyguards everywhere I go]"). You will be hard-pressed to find an example of a wealthy, attractive, popular and charismatic person endorsing or trying to bring about truly radical changes to the society in which they personally live. Even AOC's alleged radicalism is mostly for show.
I guess probably this boils down to horseshoe theory: people who are generally satisfied with their lives (low neuroticism, good social skills, physically attractive, no trouble holding down a steady job etc.) will tend to be boring centrists (in deed, if not in word) who correctly intuit that it's not in their self-interest to radically change the society in which they live. People who are generally dissatisfied with their lives will be far more keen to make huge changes to society, and will be drawn to any movement which promises to do that, regardless of whether it skews right or left. Historic discussions of the horseshoe effect and mass political movements have made hay of the observable fact that neo-Nazi skinheads and antifa recruited from the same demographic: football hooligans (angry, disaffected young men spoiling for a fight); or that it isn't difficult to find historical examples of large groups of angry, disaffected young men jumping ship from a far-left party to a far-right one (or vice versa).
How does this tie in to the original post? Highly neurotic (also physically unattractive, mentally ill etc.) people throughout history will always be drawn to movements which promise to radically change society, but in most of the West, the far-right movements are so heavily stigmatised/suppressed that most neurotic people never encounter them (except in a "look how evil and lame these people are" sneerclub context; see the aforementioned /r/beholdthemasterrace). If you're dissatisfied with your life, you spend far too much time on a social media platform (as most dissatisfied people do these days), and that platform has a policy of banning swastikas on sight - but, crucially, not hammers and sickles - you will be drawn to a far-left policy platform by default: it's the only game in town. (The rare low-life-satisfaction person who ends up endorsing a far-right policy platform will tend to be someone who encountered it in person, unmediated by social media censors.) Even if the high-life-satisfaction centrist liberals in your social circle don't actually endorse far-left ideas, they will probably react with a great deal more tolerance and forbearance if you start ranting about evil capitalists and the cisheteropatriarchy than if you start ranting about die Juden or 13/52. Low-life-satisfaction far-leftists are generally treated by centrist liberals with passive tolerance at best* and amused condescension at worst; low-life-satisfaction far-rightists are (quite understandably) ostracized and shunned by centrist liberals. If you live in a liberal society and are generally dissatisfied with your life, it's much easier to get away with being a far-leftist than a far-rightist.
Before anyone takes offense and bites my head off, please accept my mealy-mouthed concession that this is a tendency rather than a law: one may occasionally encounter a high-life-satisfaction person who nonetheless really thinks that changing society from the ground up is the right thing to do, or vice versa. My point is that such people are the exception rather than the rule.
*It's a similar dynamic to how vegetarians interact with vegans: they aren't committed enough to actually adopt the other person's worldview, but feel sort of guilty about it and end up cowed into silence.
Folamh3
1yr ago
I like when the one based guy who writes for The Onion is let off the leash: https://www.theonion.com/negative-review-of-a-wrinkle-in-time-peppered-with-cr-1823656342
Cultural critics are pretty much a captured industry at this point. Criticise a K-pop or Taylor Swift album and you'll be doxxed within the hour; criticise a nerd property and there'll be AI-generated porn depicting your wife and children plastered all over X; criticise a property which has been presented as woke/diverse/progressive and your peers will be calling for your head; praise an album made by four white guys with guitars and people will call you a regressive rockist conservative; praise a film which doesn't uncritically endorse modern progressive values and your peers will be calling for your head; criticise a walking simulator and people will accuse of hating LGBT people; offer lukewarm praise to a video game published by a company who has a big marketing contract with your employer and you'll lose your job.
No wonder so many modern film reviews sound like they were written by someone with a gun to their head.
Folamh3
6mo ago
Years ago, my uncle met Clinton very briefly and later remarked that Clinton had this incredible power to make you believe that he really cared about you, yes you, personally, even if you were just one person in a queue of hundreds taking turns to shake his hand.
Folamh3
8mo ago
digging back to the ancient year of 2009, Climategate
Am I the only one who finds Moldbug's writing style completely incomprehensible? He rambles on for paragraph after paragraph, smugly self-assured, and at the end of it I come away with literally no idea what he's trying to say. The only thing I'm confident of is that, whatever it is he believes (which is something I am wholly unable to glean from the actual content of what he's written), he thinks it's so self-evident that you'd have to be an utter cretin not to already believe it.
It's an experience not unlike reading TLP/Edward Teach, but at least in that case the incomprehensibility does seem to be deliberate (for whatever reason).
Folamh3
1yr ago
Awhile back, Scott expressed cautious optimism that, were cancellation (although he didn't use that term) to become a bipartisan, symmetric weapon, it might lead to a sort of stalemate, wherein both sides agree to lay down their arms for the sake of a bit of peace and quiet.
That was in 2015. Hindsight is 20/20 so there's no sense in pointing out that his optimism was misplaced.
Nonetheless, whenever the right succeeds in pushing back against woke nonsense (even when the reaction is totally disproportionate to the perceived offense, as it probably is here), I can't help but feel a little glimmer of hope. Not because I want the right to win handily, but because I want Scott's prediction to come belatedly true. If the right can demonstrate that they are just as capable of overreacting to perceived slights as the woke left are, maybe that will result in a lowering of temperature across the board. But they have to actually demonstrate it: they have to put their money where their mouths are, it can't just be empty talk.
Or maybe this boycott will be a one-off, next quarter every McDonald's Happy Meal will include a copy of The Anti-Racist Unicorn, Tucker Carlson will grumble about it from his den, but McDonald's stock index won't budge. Who knows.
Folamh3
1yr ago
I've argued with feminists on this point, and they've used essentially the same argument as is widely used to explain female underrepresentation in STEM i.e. women are naturally just as strong and fast as men, but the patriarchy systematically discourages them from pursuing physical activities, so they never develop the relevant skills.
I don't want to Chinese robber the entire movement: most feminists I've met personally are well aware that men are stronger and faster than women for biological reasons.
I'm getting incredibly sick of the "rationalist" affectation/verbal tic of "statistically" "quantifying" your predictions in contexts where this is completely meaningless.
"But I think it would still have over a 40% chance of irreparably harming your relationship with Drew"
"Nonlinear's threatening to sue Lightcone for Ben's post is completely unacceptable, decreases my sympathy for them by about 98%"
What it does mean to have a 40% chance of irreparably harming her relationship with Drew? Does that mean that there's a 60%, 70% etc. chance of it harming her relationship with Drew, but in a way that could be fixed, given enough time and effort? What information could she be presented with that would cause her to update her 40% prediction up or down?
The numbers are made up and the expressions of confidence don't matter. It's just cargo cult bullshit, applying a thin veneer of "logic" and "precision" to a completely intuitive gut feeling of the kind everyone has all the time.
Why do trans issues keep getting posted, over and over, when it’s a largely irrelevant issue to the vast majority of people?
I'll put it the other way around - why are establishment bodies constantly pushing trans stuff when it's a largely irrelevant issue to the vast majority of people? In the US, there are 39 separate days in the calendar specifically for celebrating trans people (and an additional 77 days for celebrating trans people as a subset of LGBTQIA+), even though trans people represent about 0.4% of the population. (By contrast, black Americans represent 12% of the population, yet Black History Month famously takes up the shortest month in the Gregorian calendar.) Gender ideology is being actively promoted in schools throughout the Anglosphere. The modern pride flag (the new, horrendously overdesigned one with designated stripes specifically for trans people) is routinely flown for weeks at a time in cities throughout North America and Europe, often at the decree by civic bodies like city or county councils, including no less than the White House.
The trans rights movement can't enthusiastically push this shit and then turn around and go "why are you even talking about this, it doesn't affect you lol" whenever they get the slightest amount of pushback on it. You brought it up. When you stop pushing it (or at least dial back the aggression and penetration of the message), we'll stop pushing back against it.
Freddie deBoer advises people to beware activists who carry business cards, and thinks that this is essentially an example of the principal-agent problem. Professional activists have a financial incentive that the problem they're working on addressing not substantially improve, or even get worse. deBoer gave the example (https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/some-principles-and-observations #7 in the numbered list) of a journalist who was excoriated by BLM supporters for the crime of - praising BLM for achieving many of its stated policy goals.
I have a family member who works for a non-profit providing support and legal advice to single mothers, and she gets very defensive whenever anyone points out that if the rate of single motherhood were to significantly decline, she'd be out of a job.
I can't remember where I read it, but I once read an article arguing that this is the underlying reason the trans issue has dominated so much of Western discourse for the last ten years or so. After gay marriage was legalised in the US, the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people working in the pro-gay rights nonprofit sector suddenly found themselves without a raison d'être. They were then faced with the choice of finding a new job, or staying in their current job but finding a new battle to fight to justify their continued employment.
I suspect it's a skills mismatch. Years ago I watched a video essay in which the author outlined the concept of "chaos cinema". It's that style of action cinema you're all familiar with because it was all the rage in the 2000s and 2010s (maybe even today, I don't think I've seen any action films which came out in the last five years): omnipresent shaky handheld camera, cuts every half a second, lens flares up the wazoo, post-production blurring, dirt on the lens. It's a style of action cinema more prone to inspire disorientation than excitement, nausea than an adrenaline rush. Think Paul Greengrass (Bourne, Captain Phillips), Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace, World War Z), just about every Christopher Nolan action film, Hunger Games.
A later article (which I can't find now) noted that this trend coincided with a spike in Hollywood hiring directors who didn't cut their teeth making action films to direct action films, in hopes of lending them a little cachet and respectability. Before he was tapped for Batman, Christopher Nolan made understated psychological thrillers; before Bond, Marc Forster made intimate dramas and quirky comedy-dramas. The skilful directing of an action film, contrary to what Hollywood producers might believe, is not an easy thing to do, and one shouldn't assume that the ability to direct an intimate character drama necessarily translates to the ability to direct an action film which is exciting and engaging. So these directors, with colossal budgets at their disposal but essentially no experience in how to stage and shoot an action sequence effectively, took the easy way out. Let's just get fucktons of coverage from every angle and shake our cameras like we're having an epileptic fit, we'll figure it out in post.
Note that this approach can technically "work" in producing an action film which is true to the franchise in question, provided the director (and, more importantly, the screenwriter(s)) actually have some respect for it and understand why it appeals to people. The Dark Knight is widely considered a faithful adaptation of the Batman comics despite containing some of the most incoherent action sequences ever put to film, and the received wisdom was that the Nolan brothers and David S. Goyer had really done their homework in understanding the comics.
I think there's something similar going on here. We're making a new Indy movie, yay! Who's going to write it? We could hire a screenwriter who has an established track record in writing screenplays in the action-adventure genre, but that's not enough - we don't just want our Indy movie to make bank, we want it to have prestige. Everyone who's anyone is talking about that Fleabag girl, who's got her phone number?
The trouble is that, while Phoebe Waller-Bridge may be a talented playwright and screenwriter in her comfort zone (my girlfriend made me watch the first episode of Killing Eve the other day and I barely laughed, but everyone who's seen it tells me Fleabag lives up to the hype), she may not really understand what makes Indiana Jones appeal to people. She may, in fact, have nothing but contempt for the people who enjoy Indiana Jones. So when a Hollywood producer gives her a fat paycheque and tells her to "put her own spin" on the franchise - well, she's going to deconstruct the shit out of it, isn't she? It's not bloody Shakespeare.
Folamh3
11mo ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you have got to chill out with the rampant ellipses.
Folamh3
11mo ago
I don't think /u/FarNearEverywhere's point was that working life is drab and meaningless, rather that employers are pretending to be covering the costs of their employees' abortions under the guise of feminism, but it's really just naked self-interest. Paying for an abortion is cheaper than paying for maternity cover.
Years ago I had an idea for a goofy story concerning two characters independently plotting mass shootings in the US. The first character is a misogynistic incel who wants revenge against the Stacies and roasties who've rejected him all his life in favour of Chads. The second character is an Islamic fundamentalist who believes the West is fundamentally, irreparably rotten and degenerate, and the only thing that can save it is the immediate imposition of an Islamic theocracy.
All the logistics and planning for the two mass shootings are ironed out. There's just one problem. The first protagonist is of Arab descent and is named Muhammad Assan: he's savvy enough to realise that, even if he publishes a manifesto long enough to rival Elliot Rodger's, the motivation for his mass shooting will be attributed to Islamism (even though he himself is an atheist) purely on the strength of his name and ethnic background. The second protagonist, meanwhile, is of Chechen descent, is named Adam Abubakarov, only became a zealous Islamic convert in college, and is ambiguously Slavic enough to scan as "white": even if he screams "Allahu akbar!" before commencing his rampage, he realises that his name and skin colour means that his rampage will be assumed to have been motivated by far-right extremism, hatred of women, James Holmes-esque psychosis or similar; his religious beliefs will be a footnote at best. So both would-be murderers are stymied by how to ensure that the underlying messages for their respective rampages are interpreted as intended.
The solution? It's 70 years old and no less effective for it: they'll swap rampages. Adam will publish Muhammad's manifesto under his own name immediately before shooting up a sorority house, and Muhammad will blow up a synagogue immediately after distributing pamphlets containing passages from the Qur'an.
Folamh3
1mo ago
See also this article. TL;DR: National Book Award winners (and American novelists in general, by extension) used to come from all walks of life, but in recent years winners and nominees have been dominated almost to the exclusion of all else by college-educated novelists who have completed MFAs. This has the effect of making recent acclaimed literary novels insular and hermetic, with little of the grit, colour or life experience of literary novels from decades past.
While I am not a particularly big guy, I will self-report that I do believe my work as an endurance athlete has substantially shifted my views against egalitarian perspectives and more towards personal responsibility.
In this post, I argued that support for authoritarianism could be tied to internal vs. external locus of control, and specifically a person's belief that they are capable of protecting themselves from harm (or lack thereof). All things being equal, a gymrat is probably more likely to think he's capable of defending himself from a mugger than someone who rarely exercises. Even a physically fit person will tend to be more confident in their ability to flee from someone who comes at them with a knife, when compared to an obese person who gets winded walking up a flight of stairs. If you don't think you can protect yourself from harm, the natural assumption is that it's the government's job.
This theory would predict that men will generally tend to be more libertarian than women, that gun owners will be more libertarian than non-gun owners (e.g.), that women with husbands will tend to be more libertarian than single women ("I can't defend myself from a home invader, but my husband can protect me"), that younger people will tend to be more libertarian than older people (particularly pronounced in men as their body stops producing as much testosterone).
There was a lot of pushback on my theory at first brush, and the way I phrased it made it sound a bit like I was saying all Democrats are effeminate weaklings and all Republicans are ripped alpha males (obviously neither is remotely true). I think the internal vs. external locus of control might be a more productive framing: an authoritarian believes that it's the government's responsibility to protect him from various kinds of harm (whether that means criminals, Covid or mean words on the Internet), whereas a libertarian believes that it's his own responsibility to protect himself from most kinds of harm. For most people, if you can't do something (and don't want to put the effort into learning), it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from thinking that you shouldn't be expected to do it, that it isn't your responsibility to do it - because otherwise you've admitted that you have responsibilities which you're shirking. From this perspective, support for authoritarianism is sort of like weaponised incompetence on a societal level: much like your annoying colleague who insists that they can't do some trivial task in Excel because they're "not good with computers", authoritarians are people who are unable to protect themselves from harm, refuse to learn (or even change their behaviour in order to make harm less likely) and demand that someone else do it for them. And that belief doesn't sit in isolation: if you think it's the government's responsibility to protect you from a range of harms (up to and including nasty words on the Internet), that necessitates the creation or expansion of governmental bodies to carry out said protection, which means raising taxes. Conversely, if Joe (believes that he) can protect himself from certain kinds of harm, and the people who think it's the government's responsibility to protect them from that harm want to raise Joe's taxes to fund it, Joe will quite reasonably retort: "I can do this myself and don't need the government's help - why can't you?"
It's also worth reiterating that a person's assessment of their ability to protect themselves from harm can be flat wrong: there are plenty of physically fit Zoomers who are made of glass and think that catching Covid is a death sentence, and plenty of Red men in their seventies who refuse to get vaccinated, stop smoking or wear a seatbelt. But there's probably some kind of middling-strength correlation between one's actual ability to protect oneself and one's personal assessment of one's ability to protect oneself from harm. To reiterate, a man who goes to the gym three times a week is more likely to believe that he can protect himself than a man who doesn't. A man who owns a gun is more likely to believe that he can protect himself than a man who doesn't, even if he's a clumsy oaf who's more likely to literally shoot himself in the foot than shoot a home invader.
Nonetheless, when Hovde says that fat people are responsible for their own bodies, it seems to me that most Red Tribers basically agree and accept that they’re fat because they like burgers and beer a little too much
As I pointed out here, it's fascinating to note how recently mocking obese people for refusing to take responsibility for their condition was a left-coded belief. Consider this meme, or this one, or this one. Post these on left-leaning subreddits ten years ago and you'll be showered with upvotes; post them today and you'll be accused of being fatphobic, unless the subject of the meme is clearly a member of the Red tribe (prominent MAGA hat).
I'd be curious to see research regarding whether obese conservatives are more likely to hold themselves responsible for the size of their bodies than obese liberals. My gut feeling is that, the higher a person's BMI gets, the probability of blaming their condition on factors outside their control approaches 1, regardless of political alignment.
As much as we'd like to claim that Red Tribers have internal locus of control and Blue Tribers external, I don't think it's quite that simple. I think the real difference is between people with high life satisfaction and low life satisfaction, or high-status vs. low-status. If you're a Blue loser who can't hold down a steady job, the reflexive cope is to blame the patriarchy or Amerikkka or say that you can't work because of your depression or fibromyalgia. If you're a Red loser who can't hold down a steady job, the reflexive cope is to blame it on Biden flooding your county with Mexicans who'll work for peanuts. Successful people, whether Red or Blue, are bound to attribute their success to personal traits and hard work: the "nepo baby" accusation stings even if (especially if!) you self-identify as a woke person who acknowledges that society is set up in such a way that numerous people are afforded all sorts of hereditary unearned privileges. A successful woke person placing their hand on their heart and declaring, unprompted, "I acknowledge that my success is partly a result of my unearned white privilege" is effectively a kind of humblebrag, because the category includes hundreds of millions of white people who are nowhere near as successful as them. Good luck finding a successful woke person placing their hand on their heart and saying "I acknowledge that my success is partly a result of my dad buying me a house when I was 21 and getting me an internship in Lockheed Martin because the CEO is his golfing buddy."
Folamh3
5mo ago
I'm in a bit of a funny situation.
I'm sure many of you are familiar with Freddie deBoer, author of The Cult of Smart and How the Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement. He's been a controversial and polarising figure in online journalism for as long as he's been writing, who describes himself as a Marxist but whose politics are much harder to pin down than that designation might suggest. He became embroiled in scandal some years ago when he suffered a psychotic break brought on by his bipolar disorder, in which he knowingly falsely accused a fellow journalist of being a multiple rapist, followed immediately by a lengthy stay in an institution and being prescribed a cocktail of medications he (to the best of my knowledge) still takes to this day to manage his condition.
Today he published an article outlining his predictions (the subheader describes it as "a warning, or notes for someone else's manifesto") for a dramatic increase in anti-tech terrorism in the coming years - why it might come about, and what it might look like. But his piece is no more a "prediction" about the future of anti-tech terrorism than a guy called Fredo admiring your house and telling you what a shame it would be if something happened to it is a sincere compliment. No: having gestured towards the idea in the past, Freddie is now nailing his colours to the mast and going Full Uncle Ted. Between the article's lengthy descriptions of the specific vulnerabilities inherent to the modern internet infrastructure, his "lament" about the unavoidable human lives that will be lost as a result of anti-tech terrorism, and the literal screenshot of a recipe for nitroglycerine - any sane person would reasonably interpret the piece as incitement to violence, lacking as it does even the fig leaf of appending "in Minecraft" to the end of every description of a violent act. As with an increasingly large number of his articles in recent months, the comments are disabled, and with obvious cause - this isn't a discussion, it's a call to arms (you don't even need to be a paid subscriber to read it).
My comment is not about whether anti-tech terrorism is good or bad or whether it's appropriate for deBoer to use his platform to incite violence. (For what it's worth I think his diagnosis of the underlying causes of this future movement are pretty spot-on, and the despair he feels when witnessing the negative impacts of big tech, social media and smartphones is certainly something I can relate to - hell, I read Industrial Society and its Future and was enthusiastically nodding throughout.) My comment is about deBoer.
As an aside, the piece mentions parasocial relationships between celebrities and their fans as one of the things deBoer finds most distasteful about the modern technological society. Obviously, I don't know deBoer personally - it would be foolish of me to think I can draw accurate inferences about his mental state based solely on his public writing. But given his history of bipolar disorder, psychosis, and writing remarkably lucid and coherent articles while in the grip of an escalating paranoia (he has openly admitted that one of his most famous pieces, "Planet of Cops", was written in such a state), this latest article of his made me quite concerned. It's certainly surprising for a successful writer who just bought a house and is trying for a baby with his partner to so openly encourage his tens of thousands of readers to blow up 5G towers - and if some security guards are killed in the process, well, omelette and eggs.
But even if I knew for a fact that he was on the brink of a manic episode, I still can't just reach out to him and say "dude, are you okay?" He's written in the past (I can't find the article) about how much he hates it when he publishes something, and someone emails him to ask "dude, I read your last post and I have to ask - is something wrong? Is your bipolar acting up?" when it's abundantly obvious that they just disagree with the post and are using his mental illness as a cudgel with which to dismiss his arguments out of hand. As an intelligent person who's gone to great lengths to manage his mental illness, I can't imagine how insulting, disingenuous and condescending he must find this dismissal-framed-as-compassion.
But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that it's unfair of people to dismiss his writing with "whatever dude, you're nuts anyway" doesn't change the fact that his condition has (and presumably does) impacted on the content and style of what he's written. If I were to reach out to him, what I'd really like to get across is the idea that "Freddie, I'm not even saying I disagree with your latest article - I'm saying that, even if I agreed 100% with your article, the content of it and the way it's written makes me legitimately concerned that you're on the verge of a severe episode. I'm not the person to help you, but I think you should seek help."
Am I overreacting? Does the piece come off as more sane and level-headed than I'm presenting it?
I recently rewatched seasons 1 and 2. One that jumped out for me was a season 1 episode in which a black politician is running for President. House scoffs at the idea that a black man could ever be elected President, and by the end of the episode the man himself admits that he doesn't expect to win, but thinks it's worth it in hopes that the act of doing so might inspire change.
In the second episode of season 2, there's a nine-year-old girl with terminal cancer who asks Chase (a thirty-year-old man) to kiss her, as she doesn't want to die without having been kissed. He's reluctant, but eventually does it. His colleagues tease him about it, but it's presented as an essentially compassionate act.
In the third episode of season 2, the cause of a Mexican day labourer's illness is a disease he contracted from a rooster at the underground cockfighting ring he works in. One suspects that this plot point would be decried as promoting harmful stereotypes against Hispanic people if it happened today.
There's a season 2 episode featuring a couple who practise consensual RP and BDSM. It's eventually revealed that the wife is trying to murder the husband for undisclosed reasons. You could argue this is stigmatising people with kinks.
Folamh3
9mo ago
Recently I listened to this song (which slaps): https://youtube.com/watch?v=wYsMjEeEg4g
Been around the world and found
That only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
"Only stupid people are breeding" is one of those Redditor lines that you can only get away with if you make it very clear that you're referring to dumb MAGA hat-wearing, moonshine-drinking sister-fucking rednecks from Alabama. Any suggestion that the observation might be true, and apply just as much to, say, Pakistani immigrants to the UK practising cousin marriage for five consecutive generations, will get you slapped with "umm that's so racist and eugenicist".
Folamh3
2mo ago
More frequent short bans would be much better.
He received stacks of those, too.
Folamh3
5mo ago
The 22-year-old Onion article comes to mind
Zero chance of that getting published today lmao
Folamh3
6mo ago
I came to Scott for the based anti-SJ takes and stayed for the mind-bending philosophy and futurism. Between these it's easy to miss that the man is really witty.
Folamh3
7mo ago
Or at least that you can't depict a character behaving like this if they're intended to be a likeable anti-hero the audience can sympathise with (up to a point). Nowadays a character could only be depicted behaving like this if they were an out-and-out villain without any redeeming qualities.
The most widely memed shot in the ad showed a white man checking out a girl from behind and his black friend advising him not to do so. Maybe I'm being paranoid but I don't think the respective races were accidental. Don't make me break out FBI crime stats on which races commit more sexual assault per capita.
More options
Context Copy link