bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Don't forget the CBC is a crown corporation. Wholly owned by the Government of Canada.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
"slavery was a choice"
What he said was basically paraphrasing Bob Marley's Redemption Song (which was basically lifted from a speech by Marcus Garvey).
“We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind.”
-Marcus Garvey
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our minds.
-Bob Marley
Kanye was saying that 400 years of slavery is a choice, not that chattel slavery was. 400 years leads up to today. He's saying that people are mental slaves today, and you can choose to set your mind free.
Recall also that Nick Cannon eventually was forced to apologize not for racist, Scientology-esque pseudoscience about white people, but specifically for annoying Jews.
Nick and Kanye are basically parroting a lot of Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam, Black Hebrew Israelites, and similar black supremacists. Did Malcom X have some controversial statements about the Jews that were in a similar vein?
Anyways, I think the root of this is that black people moving up in society start 'noticing' how many Jews there are at the top. When half of Hollywood and the media are Jewish, half the white people in Ivy league institutions are Jewish, and Jews only make up ~2% of the population, then it seems logical to a black person to wonder if maybe it isn't the 'white man' keeping them down, since whites are under-represented in the media, in Hollywood, in academia, etc.
And with how connected we all are, now black people (and gentile whites) can peer much further than before. Even the poorest, most oppressed black person in the US can pull out their phone (lol) and quickly discover that half the famous white people he's ever heard of are Jewish.
It's only going to get worse. This is an extremely popular and pervasive topic in the black community. Throughout 2020/21 there were a few organizations that ran into turmoil as the black activists tried pushing out Jews. I think the Woman's March was one. I think the attempts to censor Kanye, assuming he doesn't back down, will lead to more support for him in the black community. This could end up like when Morgan Wallen (country singer) got cancelled for dropping an n-bomb, and then became even more popular. I guarantee most black people hearing Kanye talk about Jews will think every institutional action taken against him is proof he's right.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
so if someone identifies as a demigirl in some circles but to you they just say they’re nonbinary or even just “female”, they clocked you as a gender normie lol.
This doesn't seem to happen, though. Instead, it seems like a demigirl is far more likely to demand that gender normies recognize their demigirl status, to address them as such, and that the normies educate themselves on what a demigirl is.
All these multiple genders want their pronouns to be used and for society to accept them just like any other gender. I honestly do not remember the subcultures of my youth demanding that society treat them as 'normal'. That was antithetical to their very existence.
You know what I think happened? The internet made it soooo easy for a kid to rapidly 'specialize' in a subculture. You didn't have to seek out the music, the styles, learn the history. You could just pick it all up within a couple days. Most of these subcultures were extremely gatekeepy. With the internet, the bar became relatively lower for those with access, but it became EXTREMELY high for those who didn't.
But this resulted in people with basically a cliff notes understanding of a subculture forming the majority. There was no deeper understanding. Many might not have even liked the core aspects of a subculture, just certain aesthetics. So you have people who can say all the right things, but are only really in it for the outward appearance. Normies took over the subcultures.
Social media comes along, and the attention span of the average person collapses. Most people no longer have the depth of specialization to even pretend they are part of a subculture (hell, I get that vibe from the Tumblr post you linked). What happens is that people move away from the 'classic' subcultures, and begin turning innate human characteristics into subcultures, because a person is innately knowledgeable about that, and they can't be invalidated by being wrong, because they can just say "that's my experience/that's how I feel."
So no longer do you need to understand anything about the music you're listening to in order to bond with others. Instead, you can just pick apart things like gender and race, and begin to make a culture out of that. "I like to wear ballcaps sometimes" suddenly becomes being 'masc'. If someone says "Women wear ballcaps" they can just respond "well I feel masc when I wear one." Can't invalidate that.
Anyone and everyone can discuss all these things at length. There's nothing special about the shit nonbinary people are talking about. It's not hard to understand. It's just that I wouldn't attach my gender identity to the clothes I wear, how I feel on a particular day, my current emotions, etc.
All these gender 'subcultures' are for the normies. They have absolutely no barrier to entry, you need no knowledge, there's no learning curve. You basically just get to make YOURSELF a piece of the subculture. And you get to pretend you aren't a normie, and demand all the other normies abide by your subculture's rules.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
She tried committing suicide twice and failed. Suicide isn't difficult. A couple helium balloons and she'd have had a painless death. Maybe she wasn't intelligent enough to use google? Maybe she wasn't rational enough? Or.. maybe she was crying out for help, but kept getting the wrong answer. Maybe, deep down inside, she hoped that the 'official' route would have some actual pushback. We'll never know.
I have a strong suspicion that this woman is dead because we live in a society where we put victims on a pedestal. She was a legitimate victim, and that led to heaps of attention and sympathy and pity from people around her. They likely did everything for her. Her PTSD became an excuse for everything. Soon people got tired of feeding into her victimhood. She became a burden. And she could recognize this. But she's basically been trained to see victimhood as a way to get attention. So she does a cry for help and has a lame attempt at suicide. This likely happened when someone pushed back on her just a bit. And then she got more and more attention, and it became a shield. For awhile. But how long can you really put up with someone like that? So she does it again. And eventually she's led down this path, having been rewarded every step of the way for being a victim. Maybe she saw this as the ultimate reward. The pinnacle of victimhood.
Who knows, I'm probably wrong.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
What, exactly, would you have considered the appropriate response?
Empathy for the states that deal with this everyday.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
I always wonder what it must be like for cis-women that look sort of like transwomen. I've known a few women over the years that have sort of a 'trans' look about them, particularly as they got older. I wonder if it is tougher to be in that position these days.
About twenty years ago, when I was in high school, there was a new student. I didn't know jack shit about transgenderism, and neither did anybody in my school (that I know of; it was a rural school). The student looked like a girl, talked like one, walked like one. But there was always something off about her. Then the school year ended and I never saw her again.
Anyways, years later (actually just a few years ago), I was flipping through my yearbook and saw her. And I immediately recognized that she was trans. Googled her, and it turns out she's still trans, openly so, and streams (to an extremely small audience) on Twitch. Heard her voice, and it sounded just like it did when we were younger, but I could recognize that it was a trans voice. It was pretty interesting to me how, not knowing the concept of transgenderism, I viewed her as female. And it was also interesting how something in my subconscious picked up that something was awry. She was 'passing' simply because I knew of nothing else. Today, with transgenderism being taught at such a young age, I imagine the younger generations will be able to decipher between trans and cis people at younger ages, and much more accurately, despite the fact that many young trans people seem to be much more passable to me than 20 years ago. It'll be more and more difficult for 'passing' transwomen to actually be mentally categorized as women.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Some questioned whether marketing the movie as an important milestone in gay cinema made it less enticing than marketing it as a funny comedy.
When I was watching the trailer, I was really enjoying it. I got a really 90s/early 00s feeling from the dialogue. But then it got to the blowjob scene, and that was extremely off-putting.
Anyways, I wouldn't describe this as a RomCom, but instead as a SexCom. It's produced by Judd Apatow, and most of Judd's work is SexComs labelled as RomComs. SexComs are raunchy, typically aimed at younger dudes, usually peppered with attractive women, lots of sex jokes and innuendo. You're getting horny guys to come out and see hot chicks and comedy. Judd Apatow has slowly blended more romance into his sexcoms, and let off the gas a bit on the sex, too, making them a bit more palatable for general audiences. But there's a reason we're seeing Megan Fox get her tits massaged by another woman, and it isn't 'romance'.
With Bros, this formula isn't going to work. You're not going to draw in horny straight guys. Your average woman isn't going to be sexually attracted to the idea of this. Horny gay guys don't need to see a movie, they can just go and get a blowjob. So there's no real audience here.
And it's not really a romcom. Not for a general audience. You could swap the sex of the leading person in most romcoms and have to do almost no rewrites to the plot or dialogue. Maybe the odd joke won't make sense. But for the most part RomComs are completely neutral on sexuality. But you can't even do this with Bros. The film would not make sense if the lead was a woman. The story is so tied to sexuality that it cannot be romantic for the majority of the population.
I can imagine why Eichner is so pissed about this. He's seen woke/gay shit getting pumped up and celebrated for the past few years, and he saw this as his ticket. Bet he had a piece of the pie on this and was expecting it to do $60+ million, and he'd be getting a chunk of that. Probably thought he'd be collecting awards, the media would be fawning over him, and he'd be the gay Apatow. And in one weekend that was blown out. Like getting 6 out of 7 numbers in the lottery, and then finding out a dozen other people did, as well. Birthday numbers. lol
As for the incest thing, I don't know how many would think that. I find the title a bit weird, but presumably it's based more on 'bros before hoes'. But even then I think many would be put off by it, as usually people see their 'bros' as being in the friend zone. Maybe Eichner, being a YouTuber, spent too much time online, and sees 'bros' in the context of "BROJOB BROJOB! CHOO CHOO"
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Reminds me a bit of the reporting about suicides at Foxconn and similar places. It's presented as though it's a major problem, but the suicide rate is lower than in the west. It's just that people in the west tend to not commit suicide at work, nor do they live in employer housing.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
What I would like to see is a harm tax put in place that adds onto every unhealthy item the cost per item of its societal harm: the projected healthcare costs, the loss from intelligent citizens working for corporations that poison us, the projected loss of productivity.
This is regressive and will just make it so the lives of the poor are even worse. The amount of money some poor people spend on smoking and alcohol, most of it going to taxes, is likely enough to buy a house.
Further, most vices aren't increasing healthcare costs. Smoking doesn't. Most people will get cancer in their lifetime. Smokers will usually get it around the age of 65. In a few years they croak. We save on their future nursing home costs, their social security, etc. Similar with the obese. They are unlikely to make it much past 65. Old age is the most expensive period for healthcare.
Honestly, smoking should be encouraged, maybe even subsidized. It barely impacts productivity during one's work life, and it kills when people are more likely to retire and start hoovering up resources.
There seems to be no actionable plan, ready for implementation, to halt the rising tide of ill health. The numbers are steadily increasing adjusted for age, with some numbers rising faster in the young than in the old.
I'm cynical. I believe the plan is to get people so fucked that they need the government, and specifically a nanny-state, far-left, socialist government. It seems to me that activists push to make problems worse, so they can claim they are the solution. Find a thing you want to eliminate (single family homes, meat, cars), attribute everything bad in the world to it (climate change, cancer, inequality, racism, etc), and then work make those things worse (endless bureaucracy and permitting, dysfunctional layouts, taxes) so that eliminating it looks like a viable option. When it's gone, you apply all the bad things to a new target you want to eliminate.
Having a grand plan is antithetical to this.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
The hero's journey typically starts with the "character vs self conflict", while the heroine's journey you describe is more like "character vs society."
The hero has to overcome some internal conflict before they can succeed in their other conflicts. But a heroine seems to not be overcoming her own internal conflict, but instead figuring out that her internal conflict is actually something imposed on them by society's stereotypes of women. Hell, the heroine's journey may be better parsed as "character vs (character vs self)."
There are movies where the heroine follows the hero's journey. Romantic films are big on them. The internal conflict is typically about which guy to pick, the trauma is some crap relationship from years ago. Lifetime/Hallmark movies do a lot of this, too. You'll see some big city lawyer (female) who has to go and close a deal on some property development in a beautiful small town. She goes and meets a handsome guy, usually they get off on the wrong foot. And he happens to run a failing business, which just happens to be the one she's there to buy. He bitches about how horrible the property developer is, but he has no choice but to sell. She hides that she's working for them. Internal struggle, people find out, everyone hates her, she realizes she loves the dude and hates her job, she quits her job and manages to save the failing business. Happy ending.
Anyways, what I hate in many Hollywood movies is that the female lead doesn't have the initial struggle at all. The story is basically reduced down to just the main conflict, but we go through the motions like there's a character vs character conflict. Instead this is basically just targeted at the audience, it's a "character vs (audience vs society)" conflict or something. Like we're supposed to expect her to fail, to struggle, but she doesn't. Our expectations, as they say, are subverted. And we're bigots if we think that the character should have struggled. Really what we're seeking is for the character to grow. If our heroine happened to meet the enemy at the beginning, it'd be a short film rather than a feature.
I've felt many recent female characters are basically written like one-dimensional villains, but they happen to always win.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Looking at memes, Reddit, and Twitter's response to the dating habits of Leonardo DiCaprio would lead me to believe that people under 26 are minors, lol. If someone can't consent to sitting on Leo's dick, can they really consent to having their own dick removed?
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
*Moreover, making conservative knock-offs of mainstream products has a strong Christian Rock problem. Christian Rock is bad because it affirms the dominance of the secular rock music paradigm.
You know, in the 00s there were a bunch of Christian rock bands that seemed to break into the mainstream without most people thinking of them as Christian rock.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Should do a movie where The Rock is dropped into medieval times. He believes his greatest asset is strength, so keeps going to battles. But he just casually points out seemingly common sense things, which inspire great leaps forward. Basically a time travelling Forrest Gump. Then when The Rock comes back to the future, society is extremely technologically advanced, but he's looked down on as a dumb brute.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
If he were criminally charged, I think it'd become an even more successful PR stunt.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
If we accept as fact that most women say they don't want to be leaders, then the argument from (the left? SJW? feminists?) will be that this is internalized misogyny, that our culture and the way we raise girls is what causes them to not want to be leaders. If we raised girls (and boys) in a gender neutral/fluid environment, removing their parents' biases as much as possible, then the world would swell with women leaders!
You can probably find research showing that most women want to stay at home, raise kids (maybe), and not work. But I have a feeling that the response from the left wouldn't be 'ok', it'd be "this is the result of the patriarchy."
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Could also being leading to soft disclosure. Now, when conspiracy types talk about soft disclosure with UFOs, they are usually talking about the government basically priming the public so they won't be shocked to find out aliens exist.
But we've soft disclosures before, but usually they make the thing more farfetched than the truth, so that the truth looks mild in comparison.
A good example is chemtrails. This conspiracy popped up around the early 90s, and quickly went into the mainstream, with cable networks having all sorts of 'documentaries' about it. It would later turn out that congress was secretly investigating the use of chemicals, sprayed from airplanes, over the US (and other countries, like Canada, the UK, Mexico, etc). Also the spraying of chemicals on the military, predominantly US Navy ships.
By the time a report was published publicly, around 2000 iirc, it made little impact. Chemtrails were a 'crazy' conspiracy, 'debunked' by the media, and had largely been framed as being about mind-control (and the spraying on the Navy being connected to time travel). I believe the real purpose of the spraying was to test fallout patterns. But they were using chemicals (and bacteria) which may (or may not) cause cancer, and sprayed it over American citizens (primarily the west coast) for a couple decades (which coincided with the rise of crime and serial killers, though I doubt they are related; but maybe the chemicals/bacteria could trigger violence in certain folks? Though I doubt it..)
Operation LAC (Large Area Coverage) was one of the largest.
But if you mentioned to someone that the US government was secretly spraying potentially harmful chemicals over American citizens for 30+ years, most would connect it with the chemtrail conspiracies and immediately consider you to be a crazy loon.
So my feeling is that the UFO/UAP thing is simply a soft disclosure. People have aliens and craft that break physics in their minds. A few years from now congress will publish some random report that fully explains UFO/UAP (though the report will likely not contain ANY terms related to that), it'll be so dry and unexciting that the media will barely be able to stomach giving it a blurb, and the public will remain largely unaware of its existence. If you ever brought it up to a random person, they'd label you crazy and think you were talking about UFO/UAPs (which will get 'debunked' over the same time frame; it'll fill the public discourse and inoculate them against the truth, keep conspiracy theorists focused, instead of snooping into other shit looking for something; and basically get 'believers', particularly ones with an ounce of credibility, to take positions that they will be unwilling to abandon for a less tantalizing truth - and even if they do change their position, the machine can simply point to their old positions to discredit them among most of the populace, especially those in the media and academia).
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
In an old thread about this, someone linked to Steve Pinker's AMA, in which he had this to say;
It's the "moralistic fallacy," the idea that we should shape the facts in such a way as to point to the most morally desirable consequences. In the case of rape, the fear was that if rape has a sexual motive, then it would be natural, hence good; and instinctive, hence unavoidable. Since rape is bad and ought to be stamped out, it cannot come from "natural" sexual motives. My own view is that these are non-sequiturs -- rape is horrific no matter what its motives are, and we know that rates of rape can be reduced (in Better Angels I assemble statistics that US rates of rape are down by almost 80% since their peak). One surprise that I experienced upon re-reading Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book "Against Our Will," which originated the rape-is-about-power-not-sex doctrine, is that idea was a very tiny part of the book, thrown in almost as an afterthought (Brownmiller said she got the idea from one of her Marxist professors). Most of the book is a brilliant account of the history of rape, its treatment by the legal system, its depiction in literature and film, the experience of being raped and reporting it, and other topics. It's also written with great style, clarity, and erudition. Though I disagree with that one idea, I would recommend it as one of the best and most important books on violence I have read.
Anyways, years ago there was a thread in AskReddit, in which someone asked rapists why they rape. It was a long thread, but one component that was noticeable was that it clearly had nothing to do with power. This, of course, pissed off a ton of people, and the thread was shut down and later scrubbed because it was deemed harmful. I think some 'psychologist' had come out to say that the thread could encourage more people to rape? Anyways, that seemed like a significant moment where the tide began to turn for open discourse on Reddit.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Iron Beam and similar directed energy weapons. They can allegedly shoot down satellites. Apparently China, Russia, Israel, and the US have these weapons. There also may, or may not be, DEWs in space, which can either shoot down other satellites or possibly ground based targets (I can't imagine they'd be too effective shooting the ground, unless they are one time use, or spend a hell of a long time charging; maybe a nuclear powered one could do it?).
The Jewish space laser conspiracies started with simple 'space laser' conspiracies. There was a growing conspiracy around various forest fires being done by DEWs. Lots of videos of California neighbourhoods burned down, but all the trees and stuff being untouched; melted cars; and then there were 'strange' light beams visible on some weather satellites. I just follow conspiracies for fun, so I don't really try to remember all the details.
Then the Space Force came out, talking about how China and Russia had DEWs in space (or targeting space?). And so then the conspiracies around DEWs went into overdrive. I don't know how the Jewish part ended up being added, but I assume Israel. If not Israel, then it's probably just 'The Powers That Be'. You can attribute any conspiracy to the Jews.
Turning the frogs gay was about a chemical (atrazine) that was getting into the water (usually from runoff from farms), and frogs exposed to it would change into females. So it's really the frogs are trans, rather than gay. And if 'they' means the government, then I suppose we could blame them. So 'they are turning the frogs gay' is mostly true.
And space lasers almost certainly exist; whether they are space-based and shooting at other satellites, or ground-based and shooting into space. Don't know about space to ground. I imagine there's a >90% chance that a Jewish person was heavily involved in designing it. And I imagine there's a >50% chance that Israel has some. So Jewish Space Lasers seems mostly true to me, though probably not quite as nefarious as the wording makes it seem.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
I think it's just generally bad policy to use minor crimes like that as a pretext for finding people with active warrants. It is detrimental to society as a whole.
First, you're mostly just going to catch the stupidest criminals this way. The smarter criminals will be able to evade capture for much longer. So we're only catching people who would have eventually been caught, anyways.
Second, stupid criminals will make stupid choices. They'll make the decision to run/fight more often than not. This means cops could get injured, or some dumb criminal (and many criminals are legitimately mentally retarded) will get hurt/killed. And today that could lead to city-wide protests that cause hundreds of millions in damages (from looting, vandalism, and just lost economic opportunity from businesses being closed and consumers staying away).
Third, as a political consequence, we end up with police pulling back, and stupid policies saying not to enforce quality of life crimes, and even some non-violent crimes (primarily drug and property crimes). And that's just going to make life worse for everyone.
Here's what a better system would be. We get a bunch of lowly paid people who issue small tickets to people who violate simple laws. Traffic and parking violations, fare evasion, jay walking, littering, etc. We put these people in stupid, non-threatening uniforms. They are instructed not to chase people, not to look for warrants, not to arrest people. If something goes wrong, they run. If a citizen ever lays hands on these individuals, we send in the real police to do a summary execution. Otherwise cops aren't involved in anything to do with those stops or enforcement of those laws.
We take cops, and instead of paying them $100k+/year to hopefully catch people with warrants and guns while enforcing petty crimes and civil violations, we send them to catch people with warrants by actually looking for the people who have warrants. And they can do things like respond to burglaries, stolen property complaints, things like that.
And this way, if cops end up killing someone, it likely won't be over some petty shit. And if riots do break out over that, politicians and citizens won't be targeting the quality of life enforcers. They can still operate and continue a constant level of enforcement, so that cities don't fall to shit.
It's absurd to pay police officers to be stopping people for broken traffic lights, or for littering, or for evading fares. Because then everybody becomes guarded in their interactions with police. You'll always worry that a stop is about something more. It's unhealthy to have a populace that is constantly worried when police are around, especially if crime is high and you want police around more.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Google something that does have results (usually they says x million), and go like 20 pages in. There's nothing. Hell, results repeat over and over throughout those pages.
And another experience I had the other day, I googled something and it told me there were like 5 pages of results. Clicked to the last page and suddenly it millions of results and pages after pages.
Anyways, I think there are multiple reasons this is happening. First, Google is constantly trying to keep spammy results out of the search (they've gotten pretty bad lately, imo). It is relatively easy to get a website to the top of the results for most searches. Google is constantly adjusting their algorithm to deal with shit like that, but people learn pretty quick how to overcome that.
The side effect of this is that you're only ever going to get results from large websites that have a dedicated team who are working to get their results on Google, and spammy websites that are literally solely dedicated to getting a high rank. Basically 99% of the internet from even a year ago will be penalized in the results, because they aren't following whatever 'best practices' Google has decided on today. You won't find the internet of the 90s or 00s on Google anymore.
Another thing is that Google wants to control what you see. The concern over 'misinformation' means that most websites are going to be penalized, while the mainstream media and some social media sites get prioritized.
I also personally believe that Google is beginning to create a walled garden. 95% of people are searching for the same 5% of content. From a business standpoint, Google can prune 95% of their results and most people won't be impacted (or at least most searches won't be impacted). This would save them a lot of money, and make them profitable as all hell. This is even more true for YouTube, which has an even WORSE search than Google. I'm simply amazed at how many repeated videos I see when I search something, how many videos completely unrelated to my search, unrelated to my search terms, and they are all from 'big' accounts. I pop on over to Google and search for YouTube videos, and suddenly there's an unimaginable amount of content that I am actually looking for. And I can only imagine that if this were the old Google search, that I'd get an even better experience.
Honestly, I prefer Yandex these days. DDG, Bing, Google, they are useless.
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
Remember in 2017 when they gave Bill Nye the Science guy a Netflix show, with no rules on content, where they’d talk about sex and swear and stuff… and somehow it was more moralizing, condescending, and insulting to its audience than the children’s show?
For some reason I grow fonder and fonder of that video. I really enjoy how she's singing about her vagina and such, dressed in a sexy outfit, but is completely unable to manifest an ounce of sexuality in her performance. She stomps around like an elephant on stilts.
To your article, does it really matter what the legacy media is up to? Their power has been waning, and I imagine that a lot of society's problems of the past few years aren't actually because of social media or political divisions, but because the legacy media is grabbing onto anything to try and stay relevant, and flexing every muscle to show its power. It doesn't care if it's cancelling some random soccer mom in Bumfuck, Nowhere, they are simply doing it as a way to show that they hold power. They are trying to curry favour with the right groups in order to strengthen that power. But at the end of the day, if all you can do is squash random nobodies and relegate 'dissidents' to far-flung corners of the web where they get more views than CNN does on a good day, then I feel like legacy media has lost the war already.
The legacy media spent 4+ years pushing 24/7 propaganda and barely got Trump out of office. And the heavy lifting on that can probably be better attributed to Google and social media (and probably even moreso to the FBI giving social media a 'heads up' about Trump's October Surprise).
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
But why go through all the trouble?
I'd imagine just eliminating subreddits isn't ideal, when its possible you can convert them into whatever the rest of Reddit is. Then instead of an exodus, you get to slowly shape the discourse of people you don't like or agree with. Why give up control over your outgroup?
bsbbtnh
1yr ago
The consent framework in the west precludes those in positions of power from being able to engage in intercourse with someone under their control. Teachers and students, police and suspects, prison guards and prisoners, etc. Those are typically outright illegal. Many professions don't allow it, like professors and students, doctors and patients. Some are iffy, like a boss and employee.
There seems to also be a push, at least culturally, to label other power dynamics as invalidating consent. Like a celebrity and a fan, an older guy and a younger (but legal age) woman.
Anyways, many people who are very 'progressive' on power dynamics and consent seem to also subscribe to the idea that only white people can be racist, because racism = prejudice + power. If we accept both positions, that unequal power structures undermines consent, and that there's an unequal power structure between whites and minorities (predominantly blacks), then this should mean that all interracial sex between a black person and a white person is rape.
This sort of popped into my head over the story about some folks in California being concerned that white people may qualify for reparations, because they may have been a descendant of a rape baby. It got my thinking about how interracial relationships are typically portrayed in the media; a white male slave owner sleeping with a slave is a rapist, since the female slave obviously cannot consent due to the power dynamics. Whereas a white female slave owner (or someone adjacent to the slave owner, who still holds power over the slave, like a wife or daughter) and her male slave are portrayed as having equal ability to consent.
When black people stray from the path of MLK and into Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and the Nation of Islam, they typically start blaming Jews, rather than 'white' people. The ability for gentiles to distinguish gentile white people from American Jews is basically an cognitohazard for black people. Once they see that roughly half of 'white' people in Hollywood, the media, in the top universities, are Jews, they start to wonder about their own oppression. If Jews, making up roughly 2% of the population, can be so visibly represented, but blacks, who make up 13%, aren't, then is it really the 'white' man, who is also underrepresented, really oppressing them?
Imagine if 30% or more of Hollywood actors, journalists, academics, were Muslims. Or Native Americans. Or gay (though it do feel like that sometimes, lol).
And despite gentile whites being underrepresented in basically all the 'elite' positions (other than politics), the push for diversity comes not at a reduction of Jewish overrepresentation, but by continuing to whittle away at the representation of gentile whites. And gentile white representation is being largely relegated to the white LGBT community.
So it is easy to see how some black people (and white people) get drawn into Jewish conspiracies. And really, if you're fighting for 'equity', that's the group you're going to have to wrestle with.
More options
Context Copy link