BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 47d 15h 15m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I have no idea what you are doing anymore. I've told you that I don't care what you call it, so long as we are talking about the same thing. At this point you seem to be fixating on words and definitions to get away from the meat of the matter. It just looks like you want to reject a framing of the conversation without saying it.
When someone is talking about the 'sexual market place' in the context of dating in the western world they are obviously not talking about brothels and prostitution. You are not being rational or precise with language when you play these word games. It is at best obtuse and obfuscatory.
The point I'm making is extremely simple. Man A gets approached by women, gets replies on dating apps and in general finds casual sex and relationships very easy to come by. Man B gets none of those things. In fact women don't even look at him for longer than 2 seconds to decide that he is not attractive.
Man A doesn't need to think about his life goals in terms of what he needs to garner attention from women. Man B does. Man B recognizes that if he does not come by some form of 'thing' or 'currency' or 'bargaining chip' or 'whatever word you want' to balance out his apparent unattractiveness to women, he will likely end up alone or unhappy. Both of these guys might be similar otherwise, but their struggle is not the same. Both want sex and affection. One needs the 'thing' to even be able to play the game, the other does not.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Generally special interest group characters fail since they take power away from the player.
The super special trans character can't be seen, as you point out, as anything negative. Now you, as a character in the game, have to contend with, to use old terminology, a special snowflake in your game world. A Mary Sue of sorts. You know this character is not going to betray you or anything like that. You are supposed to like them. That's the sole reason they are there. Because of that they will always lord over your world.
It's made even worse by the fact that since the trans character is almost always a self insert of some trans author, they get an elaborate backstory. They are painted out as being perfect and sympathetic. They are now contending with you as a main character in the story. This is bad and stupid.
To borrow from the old Diversity Propaganda playbook on how blacks were integrated: When you want to normalize something and integrate it into the ingroup of others, make it passive, harmless and subservient. When that has been established, make them valuable and endearing.
The ultimate version of this is making the trans person a love interest for the main character. Not that the MC needs to reciprocate. It might even be better to not give the player a choice to reciprocate. But making it clear that the trans character desires the MC gives the MC all the power they need to feel responsible for that character. Which is very powerful.
To that end you need to make the character look more like a trans persons anime profile pic on twitter than what a trans person who cares a lot about trans representation in gaming actually looks like in real life.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You can bargain with whatever you have. Party X wants something from party Y, and to get it tries to... 'convince' the other party by 'showing' them that he has something they want. How that is not bargaining I don't know and I don't care.
Raising the bar for definitions like this is, to me, an irrelevant game of words at best. If we don't disagree on the factual matter at hand then I have to ask again, what are you insinuating my argument is when I use the term 'bargain'?
This seems similar to objections to general manosphere terminology regarding the 'sexual market place'. Where the accuracy or utility of the terminology is disregarded due to it being too vulgar.
I mean, this is about love and companionship and all those nice, beautiful things, right? A relationship just can't be so ugly. True love is beautiful.
Well, from the perspective of a woman, maybe that's the case. They don't see their requirement for money as something vulgar and emotionally negative. They just see it as the way of the world at worst and a necessary stepping stone towards true love at best. But for a man, at least speaking for myself, it does seem rather crass and vulgar to gatekeep something as talked up as affection or 'love' behind a financial requirement. Really betrays and diminishes the entire concept. I mean, that's not something men are supposed to let get between their affection or 'love', right?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
(I'm going to agree with what you said with more words)
Kind of. You can increase your bargaining power. Like, owning a house or a decent sized apartment is enough to bag yourself a single mother. But in a Venn diagram of three items, 'prosocial', 'attractive' and 'realistically feasible for a young man', you have a very small intersection between all three. Small enough to justify saying, in my view, that these are not realistically achievable. Or at least I would not prescribe the prosocial constructive masculinity framework to anyone I actually care about.
There's a distinction we can make between personal life advice and social commentary. Yes, bettering your life is very possible and for most, easy. Study hard, get a good job, work hard. You get rewarded for this by the time you are 30 compared to if you don't.
But from a social commentary standpoint, what does the life of an 'unattractive' man who does this look like between 16-27 compared to someone who doesn't need to? To echo Elliot Rodgers: "It's not fair!".
You piously work your way through your youngest and most exciting years starved of attention from the opposite sex to do what? Get settled for by the time you hit 30 by some woman who expects you to pay down all the loans she took to fuel her party days of college? Where she had sex with guys she actually wanted to have sex with? Meanwhile you, for all intents and purposes, are in a platonic monetary relationship with this person. You know she doesn't like you the same way she liked those other guys.
I think every man knows in their heart that such a state of affairs is tragic and humiliating. Potentially more tragic and humiliating than just folding. After all, is such a life really worth working hard for?
I think that, regardless of everything else, the 'prosocial' crowd has a lot of heavy lifting to do. Though I agree with @TheDag to an extent. You need meaning, a greater purpose, a true faith to overcome this. There's no way you can tell a non-insignificant percentage of young men that they will simply have to ignore their own emotions and bootstrap themselves through the loneliness whilst there's an ongoing propaganda war on social media where everyone is trying to out-advertise and out-sexualize everyone else to show off just how much fun they are having.
But short of resurrecting Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler, I don't know the intended way to do that.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
None. It's not that you are bargaining that's the point. It's what you are bargaining and what for.
You can't consider yourself 'masculine' after working away to become 'high status' to attain the thing some other guy has been getting without having to 'work'. It just doesn't add up. Which leaves all of these prosocial 'constructive masculinity' prescriptions dead in the water.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think you are employing the 'I don't like the connotations of this so I'm going to call it a fallacy' fallacy. I'm not stretching the meaning of 'bargaining' here at all. Beyond that I don't know what you are insinuating that I am arguing for. I am giving a description of reality. If you want to use different words to describe it, go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that most men have to learn that just being themselves isn't good enough. They need something more. Which is where the entire self improvement become masculine and worthy crap comes from.
Is a woman wearing makeup to attract men "bargaining" too?
Kind of. She's leveraging what she already has.
To help elucidate a bit, a part of the frustration monetarily successful women have described in media is that they want to be able to bargain for a better man than their looks could command but can't since a lot of men don't care about their money. I.e. their money has no bargaining power over the men they want. So they write articles about how men are intimidated by successful middle aged women or whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You are bargaining with the hypothetical woman when you decide to become a tall guy working at Goldman Sachs to garner her interest. You bring being tall and having money, she brings whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Just attain high status and signal interest
I.e. bargain.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't find my 'dismissal' callous. I explain it in the rest of my post.
You can't be 'masculine' when you have to bargain with women for access to their genitals. They give it away for free to those they actually like. And how much you work has nothing to do with it. That fact doesn't just leave the authors 'constructive masculinity' dead in the water, it leaves practically every 'socially positive' definition of masculinity dead in the water.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
These articles are the dumbest thing. There's seemingly an entire industry of women giving men bad advice on whatever topic women know nothing about. 'Masculinity' is probably the worst one. What is only slightly less worse is the retreading of ground everytime it comes up. Where people pretend 'masculinity' is even a thing.
You are not your grandfather or great grandfather when it comes to physicality, but you are your grandfather when it comes to your brain.
In the 1940's a bunch of American soldiers came to Iceland to occupy it due to WW2. The social consequences where that of Icelandic women falling for the exotic soldiers. This became recognized as a social phenomena. Icelandic men didn't like it, Icelandic women didn't care insofar as there were no consequences. Given that the occupation forces almost outnumbered the male population of Iceland there was plenty of Icelandic male 'hysteria' surrounding the issue.
I like that example since it gives way to some very obvious truths. It doesn't matter how 'masculine' you are. There is no objective barometer. If the woman wants you then that's that. If she doesn't, you eat shit. No matter how much you work, no matter how big your hands and forearms get, you are always liable to be outcompeted and women will never apologize for choosing what they want. This is a competition. Be a winner, not a loser. Because believe me, you will never work as hard as an Icelandic farmer in the 1930's.
Similar story to be heard from Japan after the war. Was this veteran turned beggar not masculine enough? Did he not prove his worth? Fighting for the cause? No, because he's a loser.
You can replace the nerd lore of this guy with all the nonsense of 'becoming masculine' or in any way 'worthy'. It's the same dude otherwise.
Not to sound too much like something from MEMRI TV but in a world where a woman is opining on how men should best prove themselves to win her affection there is no 'masculinity'. Just pathetic men with no control over their society.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't disagree that public architecture is a top down thing. I disagree with its end product. I don't care how erudite the designers are when describing whatever it is they put on paper. I care what I feel when I stand next to it.
An unpainted concrete box that has rust leaking from the windows makes me think that the thing is unsightly. A similar concrete box that is properly painted and maintained, by comparison, looks nice. In so far as I know something about craftmanship and skill, I would at least like to imagine that some of it was required to put the thing together. That there are some details meant to look pretty. If that can't be conveyed then I as a living human being standing in the flesh have a very narrow positive basis to judge the thing on. If all you have is a clever idea or a lofty political message then it matters very little unless you actually write it on the side of the building. Because I can't say I feel the 'democratic' spirit radiating off those ugly greenhouses.
I agree there is a sort of political truth underpinning everything. It's much easier to appreciate the art of your ingroup and empathize with the noble cause behind it. But how we get from political cause X to an endless sea of glass, steel and concrete laid bare is beyond me. It feels like we are going 'the Nazis liked simple beauty that appeals to the common man, we hate Nazis so lets do something ugly that appeals to those who can truly appreciate the beauty of the Emperors New Clothes.'
The amount of derision I see towards what is called 'modern architecture' goes far beyond just "far right" wingnuts. To that end I don't think perceptions of beauty are as much a product of conditioning as you do.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't understand the trade you are offering. There's no necessary link between the two.
A town in my country renovated a lot of their downtown to carry on a traditional 'old downtown' vibe with modern construction technology. It didn't take the abolition of non-directly-useful science and math. It was just a matter of people being sick to death of vulgar displays of glass, steel and concrete that had started to dominate other towns. Instead the townsfolk got colorful and traditionally framed houses.
It wasn't a matter of some meta-physical revival of the "far right" and their "bizarre" policy suggestions. It's just people with power not being inside their own assholes(and the town was close to going bankrupt afaik). It didn't take a fancy foreign architect educated in Boston to design the thing. A local design office did the job just fine. That might have been a big blow to the ego of some people involved, who could otherwise have made themselves feel very important and high status by rubbing their shoulders with big names and grand ideas. But no. Not needed. It looks great and fits the town.
Sure, math can be beautiful. Sure, architectural design in and of itself can be beautiful. But most people aren't good at math and most people don't know the history to appreciate the full extent of a clever architectural design that incorporates this and that style in a novel way.
I don't think it's a matter of some deep issue or a 'core' of anything. Public displays need to appeal to the public. Not the vanity of whatever person is in charge. You are not special for liking the things you like. A 9 year old who likes a statue of a soldier is no less worthy of experiencing public displays of beauty than someone who is highly cultured, sophisticated and articulate.
The only relevant thing left is to decide what things that the public does like should be displayed to them.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
For a tl;dr: you make a lot of fine points, but for some reason tie them to 'race'. Most of these anti-racist arguments therefor end up not being anti-racist at all. They seem more like general individual based introspection arguments. For what it's worth I'm not against any of them specifically, I'm just not sure what they have to do with typical 'racist' thinking which, most of the time, deals with groups and averages.
As an example, from "Taking Responsibility":
Deterministic thinking is not specific to 'racist' thinking. Typical 'I can't' most often heard from children doing homework is a great example of this. On top of that the argument falls over itself when you flip it around. Believing yourself to be destined to lose is bad. But believing yourself to be destined to win is good. It's obvious from this that the 'bad' here is not determinism but self defeatism.
As for your personal maximum capacity for achievement, the argument you make falls to similar issues. The point about 'maximum genetic capacity'(my paraphrasing) is not about you personally, it's about you in relation to others. The reason Usain Bolt could become the world's fastest sprinter is not because of his magic training or the sand in Jamaica. The guy started training very late at 17 and his diet consisted mostly of McNuggets straight from McDonalds. It was his DNA. If you thought you had a genuine chance in competing against him, you were stupid. But if you liked running track, why let that stop you? Just run to see what you can do. The problem here is not 'race' and minimizing it changes nothing. It's our lizard brain competitive spirit trying to outcompete Dunbar's number when in reality it is competing against 7 billion people.
As for "Information and Stereotyping"
Making conceptual arguments about this seems rather pointless. We don't need conceptual arguments to figure out that blacks commit more crime than do whites. On top of that, making the argument individualized further leads us astray from the utility of 'race'. Since 'race and crime' generally refers to populations, not an individual instance in someones life.
To meet your conceptualized argument head on: If I am walking alone at night and there is a guy in a hoody and worn out jeans walking towards me, I'm not going to think he is mugging me. Ever. Because that sort of thing has never happened where I live. Ever. But if you live in the USA in an average black neighborhood, my instincts would be potentially dangerously wrong because the chances are no longer 0. Because average white Scandinavian town and average black USA town are not the same. To that end race is useful. One town is average USA black, the other is average Scandinavian white. You can comb through the finer details but race is still there as a fact of life. Ignoring it would be stupid.
As for "Policy"
The reason affirmative action is bad is because it is trying to fit an unfit population. There is nothing wrong with affirmatively actioning a bunch of otherwise neurotypical 140 IQ people into colleges. They would probably do very well and better the school and society. The problem arises when the population is on average at 85 IQ and demand for 'diversity' outstrips supply of college material people.
If you want 'diversity' there is no magic process that can fix your problem with blacks. Without a mechanism that selects unfit people to meet your 'diversity' quota, you will not meet the quota. Without a program that is designed to cater to these unfit people, you will not see many of them graduate. Without unfair you get less than 1% black at the elite level. With those kind of numbers you will be seeing 'calls to action' against your racist policies.
As for "Immigration"
We are again using conceptual arguments. Why make those arguments imprecise? Here's one: lets have an immigration system that only imports good people we will all personally like who will also benefit the economy and save a child and/or pet in need.
OK, we don't have that. What do we have? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00148-017-0636-1
- We present life cycle estimates of the potential fiscal impact of immigration considering the cost of immigration on the margin as well as on average. The main conclusion is that immigrants from Western countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from non-Western countries have a large negative one, which is also the case when considering only non-refugee immigrants.
We have information. For some reason, despite race being allegedly irrelevant, geographically isolated population groups perform differently when placed in the same environment. We can theorize a system of import that weeds out the 'bad'. But that still leaves the fact that there are so many bads that they need extensive weeding out when compared to 'Western' people.
What I don't understand is, why do you care so much to ignore this sort of information? You could make a similar case for ignoring anything. Just figure out some proxy for it and voila. But that doesn't change the reality behind it. The kind of systems that functionally racially discriminate against blacks are conducive to healthy and happy western societies. You can dress them up how you want, it doesn't change the fact that people notice. And it's not the white identitarians.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
A fish opining on the positives of the surface and the negatives of water is still a fish and nothing will change that.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The data in that link is still suffering from undercounting. Point being that fluctuations or a convergence with current data would still not impact the truth value of the statement that hispanics commit more crime than whites.
I am not sure what you mean, but if age is the key factor, then your concern should be about age, not race or ethnicity.
It would be both.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I remember reading articles on the hispanic crime rate and its convergence with the white crime rate. I'm hesitant to believe those reports given the chronic undercounting of hispanics in crime and incarceration in general. https://apps.urban.org/features/latino-criminal-justice-data/
But besides that, if age is a maximally relevant factor it would only start playing a part if the immigration of young people from South America was at some point halted.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It came to me in a dream.
I don't know what your deal is. You made a decent post on an interesting topic. Was there an ulterior motive? What's the angle here? The accusations that you are doing some sort of White Nationalist operation to secretly 'recruit' or whatever seemed really stupid to me. And they seem even dumber now given how poorly you are going about it if that were the case. You look more like a Rabbi painting a swastika on his own synagogue.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Like most writing on Hitler and the NSDAP it seems to take out of context verbal derision as important opinion and a leading guide for the inner workings of both Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, when in reality it was probably just 'Franco wont help in the war effort, what a prick.'
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I said as much to begin with. This is just imagination land and the examples are broad and not universally applicable, but that's not the point. The point is to get to a place where we can imagine and embrace an instance where less brown people is beneficial to white people and see where that leads instead of traversing weeds and red herrings.
Every counter example you gave relies on immigrants existing in the first place. The political landscape without immigrants is not just different, it's more right wing. On top of that, we are not comparing crime rates against time. I think it's a given crime has been trending downwards with time. We are instead comparing crime rates between people. Blacks have a higher crime rate. Hispanics have a higher crime rate. The societies these people come from have higher crime rates.
The point is not to say that living with browns is unmanageable for whites. Sure, you can get a programming job and live well. But would your lot be better if you did not have to outcompete every brown spud looking for a better life in America? If you did not have to bear the burden of a dysfunctional group of browns. Not just you personally, but every aspect of your environment. Are the news channels talking about some politically relevant thing like where best to place the new bridge or are they talking about black kids not knowing how to read after graduating high school? Are we looking to advance education to help our best and brightest or are the best funded schools filled with illiterates?
Sure, you can pick the examples apart, but I'm kind of relying on you not to. Instead hoping you can recognize that in the places where the examples hold up, the idea of white identitarianism isn't any more or less bad than any idea based on self preservation and the pursuit of happiness. And I think we got to that point given your argument shifted away from a basic pursuit of happiness towards a basic pursuit of happiness without doing harm to others.
This new caveat changes things a bit. Since it's kind of de facto true that any action you take can be construed or contextualized to harm others. And since it's obvious that living with white people is much better for browns than living in their own societies, do we just resign ourselves to the fact that brown people living with white people is a sort of axiomatic right of theirs? To that end, who is keeping score of harm? Because my entire argument to begin with was that the harm goes both ways, which is why I think whites have a case to be made from the standpoint of their own best interest, rather than always considering the white mans burden before making up their mind.
Browns don't want for liberty. They want for white mans liberty. No one is keeping them from emancipating themselves in their own countries. They could reach for the stars if it wasn't for the fact they have to live amongst themselves. I don't disagree with the notion that the white man can carry these browns like he has been doing for decades now. The point is what impact this is having on his back. That's harm. And it's harm caused in the white mans homelands, and he has no place to turn to when it gets damaged beyond repair.
(As a sidenote, I'm ignoring the broad geopolitical 'it can't work' arguments. We all know white societies work just fine. Two distinct nations separated by clear and enforced border can still trade. Japan facing a demographically induced economic downturn is a self correcting problem if you don't flood the country with immigrants to prop up an economy that outscales the native population. Conflating political/moral progressivism with technological advancement is not something I agree with. If you can import people you can deport them. If you can prop them up in your own country you can prop them up in theirs until your conscience tells you you've given enough handouts.)
I agree to an extent. The sort of woe is me type ingroup expression is distasteful. But on the other hand there is another angle to that line of argument.
To keep things simple, as an example, be young and try buying a house. Depending on where you live your quality of life is lower than your parents since the price of housing has so dramatically increased. Depending on where you are in the world, to the extent that the price of housing has increased as a result of increased demand, it is in many places primarily an increase due to immigration.
Now what if I allow myself to imagine what my life could have been like if the price of housing had been lower. What would the job market look like if it was not driven on the expectation that an endless stream of foreigners would be there to pick up the slack? Isn't it possible that the life of the average whitey could be better? Not in a comparison to other whites. But just as a general thing. More purchasing power, cleaner streets, less crime. There would still be class stratification, but so what?
In other words, it's not about what you could have in multiracial America, it's about what you could have in monoracial America. It's not about what you could have compared to the Joneses next door, it's what you could have compared to your mirror image in a different America. Because you can have good things in both Americas. But one of them has some very obvious downsides the other one does not have.
To that extent I don't see ethno-national aspirations of a life free of the White Mans Burden to be a whine any more than the aspirations of foreigners who want to live in white countries to be a whine. Those foreigners imagine a better life in the White Mans Backpack. I've never encountered any righteous indignation directed at them, telling them to stop being so envious. "I want more. I deserve more!" Why can't they just accept their lot? Why aspire for an environment where you are more likely to flourish?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Was there ever a large market of comic book nerds? Superhero movies seemed like a safe family/normie friendly thing until they started to really suck. But the industry somehow managed to poison the whole ecosystem of watching a movie as well.
For starters, the actual quality of the movies became bad. Bad CGI, bad story repeated again and again. Uninteresting characters (wtf is Ant Man?) intertwined with some of the worst aspects of comic book storytelling. And they then pumped these movies out non-stop, moving further and further in some adult nerd direction to a point where staying in the loop became impossible for the family folk. And that's not counting all the TV shows that tied into the 'universe'. Many of which were terrible.
Going to the theater was always an event. But you can't make an event out of something that's been normalized. It seems like the industry cooked the golden goose by releasing too many things in too short a time whilst mixing and matching special with normal.
On top of all of this they decided to move into some pro-ugly anti-white anti-male direction, pissing of a portion of the vocal nerds, as well as the Chinese. So now who is left to enjoy your 'universe'? Half the nerds are in uprising. The family folk have sort of tuned out. Maybe little Johnny really likes the flashing lights and everything but the movies are now something mom and dad really dread seeing. Making them much more likely to tell the kids to wait until its on Netflix.
Worse yet if Johnny just spends his time on Youtube watching his favorite childrens entertainer lambast the movie for being terrible. Being the first kid in class to see something like Captain Marvel can't feel as cool as being one of the first kids to see Iron Man 3 or whatever. I mean, it's about some lady.(again, wtf is Ant Man?)
All in all, it would be easier to blame external factors for why things are going how they are going if the actual product wasn't bad. As a barometer, Guardians of the Galaxy, from what I've seen, is still chugging along just fine.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't think it is a hard question unless you want it to be.
Similar to how it is universally preferable to have friends and not constantly fear for ones life, I think it's universally preferable to have easy access to housing. And I think access to housing trumps nigh every other need outside of food and water.
It seems to me we can have a very simple baseline definition of 'quality of life' and come away with the fact that a 'good economy' doesn't matter in any meaningful sense to a lot of people.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Nigh every actor champions pro-immigration and pro-diversity rhetoric.
You seem to have constructed this idea of the heartless New York journalist who hates the working class, but on issues such as working conditions and minimum wages they are surely much more pro-workers' rights than the median.
I can't help you with that, given I did not write such things.
If you want people didn't 'ever give a crap', maybe have a look at Republicans.
Why not both? And for what it's worth, Republicans think just as fondly of themselves as journalists do. They don't see themselves hating anyone regardless of how harmful the policies they support are.
Lol. A credulous hack. Just being anti-US doesn't automatically make you brave and noble or produce good journalism, especially if you're running cover for dictatorships; she is ostracised for good reason.
But being pro-truth when it happens to side against the mainstream rhetoric on Assad does make you a good journalist, even if just by chance.
All of this seems besides the point though. Your argument about journalism and the stated position of journalists being somehow different to the position of construction workers was just bunk. I'm not surprised you would try to talk yourself away from it with irrelevant stuff but it's not very interesting.
The journalists stated position is no different from a construction workers. Building a house is important service! Yet the quality of construction work has gone downhill dramatically where I'm from because of immigration. On top of that now you have drastically increased crime within the industry. No journalist ever gave a crap. They just close their eyes to the problems and celebrate 'diversity', refugees and more immigration inbetween complaints about astronomically high rent and housing prices.
And that's just if we assume that the modern journalist is providing an important public service. I'd maintain that most are not. Which was the opposite of construction work. And the few that are living up to the fantasy that most journalists wrap themselves in when criticized are more likely to be ostracized from the mainstream than not. Eva Bartlett and Assange come to mind.
In the case of the actors though, you seem to be objecting to... their union trying to resist the introduction of practices which will be unfavourable to its members? That's their job?
That's not the objection at all. I object to how ugly the industry is and how blind the people who work in it and support it are to the disenfranchisement of others. It's the ugliest form of hypocrisy I know of. The rich and powerful celebrating the deteriorating conditions inflicted on the poor and powerless. They then have the gall to cry about it when a similar proposal is presented for them. As if they just have to live the super privileged life of an 'artist' in the most expensive places on earth.
Motivated reasoning is a given. But that's something we all suffer from. I just expect, at the bare minimum, people show some, dignity, respect and a modicum of self awareness. These types of people are an ugly embarrassment.
If you know a woman would not consider you attractive if you don't work at Goldman Sachs, so you seek to work at Goldman Sachs, what word would you use to describe you working at Goldman Sachs in relation to that woman and their attraction to you? I like the term 'bargaining chip'.
It might not be verbal, but that woman weighed you as 'attractive' on her scale because of that job. You needed that 'bargaining chip'.
More options
Context Copy link