I keep seeing lots of articles written by women, which state that men should get dating advice from women. As women don’t have monolithic opinions, or I so hope so to make my life easier to write this, I’ll then classify the group into subsets.
I will be adding sources for the above list, later on.
Now when it comes to pick up artists, you have to be more specific as to what the social grievance they are lamenting, is.
Now that the cultural backdrop is set, now to start making my point.
But that 1990s stuff about
That doesn’t work any more as due to smartphones, online dating and the flood of friend requests women get from strangers on Facebook, women nowadays get more attention that Marilyn Monroe got in the ways of black and white movies.
Now whether it’s the wrong sort of attention is a completely different thing altogether. But it’s just that those 1990s style “hard to get” and guarded, nonchalant and aloof nature, it just wouldn’t work today.
I can explain this in two sentences
It doesn’t matter how many men you add to the situation, the game isn’t going to start any quicker, unless you have a woman (the banker) join who is already receptive to it.
So no, stop blaming men for hookup culture and relationships apparently causing the debasing and decline of serious relationships and marriage. The casual relationships which you speak of, along with hookup culture, can only happen if women want it to happen, as it’s women who are holding the cards.
Some people even blame men for why marriage has dramatically declined. No, stop blaming men for that, blame the women, as on the macro scale (not micro), the relationship of any type, it can only happen if the women wants it to happen.
So no, blaming men for the debasing and decline of serious relationships and marriage, it doesn’t make any sense.
Here’s why men should never ask women for dating advice.
Because masculinity is earnt and feminity is a birthright
What does a man have to do to be considered a masculine man?
Be funny/intelligent/educated/have their own place/have a car/have a wide social circle/have funny quips and anecdotes/etc
What does a woman have to do to be considered a feminine woman?
Nothing. All she has to do is walk into the room.
So when it comes to any social environment where a newbie is expected to make friends where there is any level of social hierarchy, reputational scoring, cliques or social proof, then as women are more passive and are socialised not to initiate, they’ll be approached without having to initiate with anyone. But nobody will approach the man.
The burden of committing the social performance, to be funny/interesting/good at reading people/good foresight/diplomatic/harmonising people’s differences/accomodative towards people’s insecurities ….etc….etc
That burden falls on the man.
So when a man asks a woman for dating advice, the woman will over-estimate the amount of social performance that she’s done in her entire life, while under-estimating the amount of social performance that a man has done in his entire life.
So that’s why women ALWAYS give men bad dating advice. And that’s where female solipsism comes from.
Those people on r/womendatingstrategy are ignorant, idealistic, and loopy. Loopy logic, it’s not just patchy but also contradictory, circular reasoning and imbalanced weighting of supposed comparative transgressions. Well they’ve now moved to their own website due to too many men making false flag attacks on their subreddit.
fill this in later
Preposition being presumably a pre-emptive occurence
1) Social proof or preselection works really well with women, in a way that doing the exact same thing makes you more desirable, just because you have social proof. In this instance, a woman is more likely to fancy a man if she knows that another woman (within the same vicinity) fancies him too.
Women are more likely to do it than men because women tend to have lower self esteem compared to men and because women tend to judge people in a more relative manner whilst men tend to be more objective.
Women are constantly adjusting their baseline standard, as according to what is around them, so their baseline will be constantly fluctuating up and down, to make the most common occurence become the baseline metric, like when you are baking a cake and weighing flour on the scales and you press “zero” to subtract the weight of the bowl from the total weight.
2) Women are constantly adjusting their baseline, for their standards, as according to their current environment. If every man in the world was magically made 6 inches taller, then women would then newly consider a 6″0 man as short. If you are in an environment that is mostly women and relatively low men, then women will LOWER their standards, for as long as they are in that environment. In this instance, it’s easier to chat up women at a mediation class than a (mostly male) Lego Mindstorms Robot club or an environmentalism club.
3a) Women always claim they want a certain type of man, then they’ll go for someone who is the COMPLETE opposite. Don’t watch what women say, watch what women do. Women don’t know what they want.
3b) Women complain about men not communicating directly with their words, dodging questions they’re asked, or using pretentious psychopomous language, while they complain about a stoic and bravado gender role induced, “romance gap”, while at the same time, if men spoke to women as if they were foreign english speakers, whose first language wasn’t english, so they’d have to dumb down and simplify their language for them into plain english. those very same women, would lose attraction to those men and be repulsed by it.
To summarise about 3b) If men who are native english speakers, spoke to women, the same way they spoke to foreign english speakers, relationships between men and women would not be formed and pair bonding would be severely hindered. More about this later on (see the constructing a joke for humour part).
3c) Women like men who have a bit of mystery about them, the visage of mystique has to be kept alive. No matter how much you give a woman, she will always want more. So for that reason, it is better to give a woman 90% every day then 100% some of the days, than to give her 100% every day for her to then get bored and complacently rehashed to death.
I think that it’s better for a man to give 90% to a woman every day then 100% occasionally than for a man to give a woman 100% every day. Because no matter how much you give a woman, they will always want more, so it’s best hold back a tiny bit, so she’ll never think you have no more left to offer and then get bored of you.
Women like people with a bit of mystery about them, if you give everything away too soon or too regularly, they’ll soon get bored.
If a man is asking out every woman in the room/class or is asking out too many women too soon, predictably so, the man will be rejected by most of the women. But the man has inadvertently made himself less desirable to women, as women view a man who is rejected often, to be compoundingly low value in addition to their previous opinion of him. So for a man to increase his chances of attracting women, the best strategy is to refuse asking out every woman and stop taking risky bets, as because women value pre-selection (point 1), the reverse is also true, that they are disgusted by men who they know rumours of them being rejected all the time, as women over-estimate the amount of alpha males and how often beta males get rejected (even with a mating dance called “the chase” beforehand).
The best example, is if a 10/10 woman is dating a 4/10 man. If the man buys her a Ferrari, she’ll be more likely to leave him, than if he brought her a BMW, as her logic will counter-intuitively think “If this low value man can give me so much when he has a lot of faults and shortcomings, just imagine how much I could get from a man who is a 8/9/10 out of 10?”
If the woman is a 4/10 or 6/10, she’ll be more likely to think that way but even more extreme, as she’ll think her value was previously too low to be afforded such luxuries, so if she can be given the Red Carpet Treatment like some person in an ivory tower eating gold plated sushi, as a 4-6 out of 10, then just imagine what she could get somewhere else if she got a boyfriend who was more than her lousy boyfriend, as she’ll think that someone of her newfound immense worth, that she’s selling herself short.
Witholding things is part of challenging them, is it not?
Like basically along the lines of “make her work to get it”
The answer for that question, would vary depending on whether you live in Britain or America. According to Americans who visit the UK, the british don’t really have a dating culture, as in America it’s like a Starbucks stamp book where for every nine coffees you get, you get the tenth for free, where you date really soon and quickly without much hesitation – whereas in Britain it’s all about the chase. Some people call “the chase”, “hard to get” but the latter seems more cunning, whereas the chase doesn’t have such a socially prescribed role of heteronormative hierarchies from gender roles, to the same extent. It’s long to explain.
There’s a PUA theory that got created after men started watching YouTube videos where men surprised their partners by buying their woman an expensive car then uploading her reaction to YouTube.
They noticed that the man buying the VERY expensive car, had ruined their relationship, as the woman began to think ”If I can get a car this expensive for a man who isn’t very attractive and doesn’t have a very high social skills or very appealing personality, then just imagine what I can get somewhere else, if a man of such RELATIVELY low quality, can give me all of this?”
Then even if the woman remains committed and doesn’t have an affair, she’ll start doing low level behaviour like flirting with other men, going out partying or spending less time with her man.
For a lot of women, receiving male validation is worth MUCH more to them, then the act of actually having an affair.
I’ve spent enough hours writing this article as it is.
Maybe just maybe, gender is not as much of a social construct, as you think it is.
You know say!
In more ways than one!
I’ll then expand this even further, if you want to accuse me of calling women hypergamous (attracted by status). Well about the alpha male and beta male dichotomy, it’s not just a binary option, as the beta male would then be split into four (or maybe five) different strata.
As women are both unaware of their own hypergamy, that they constantly adjust their baseline within the same exact week and that they over-estimate how many times as a woman they’ve done a social performance when outside – they inevitably will under-estimate the amount of beta males and will over-estimate the amount of ease that a seemingly attractive man could get laid. No feminists (who want to provide a better role model for teenage boys than Andrew Tate), it’s not just alpha male and beta male, it’s alpha male and five different strata of beta males.
Try factoring that into the advice you give them, as I expect it’s the first time they’ve ever heard such a thing in their life. Something like “just get off the internet and meet women in the real world where they aren’t flooded with hundreds of messages”, that is an excessive reductionism of the predicament men face, as the beta male is put into one strata, much unlike the strata for alpha males which is just one, a monolithic one.
This goes without saying! But I notice that there are similarities within
Could a person with british or american nationality, whose first and only language is english, as a heterosexual man, seduce a woman from the same country, in the same way they could someone who’s a foreign english speaker from Brazil, whose first language is spanish or portugese?
That’s all you need to know!
Press articles about the Romance Gap, sparked and coined by Bumble
And elsewhere
This article is long enough as it is, so I’ll be posting my partial refutal in some other articles. I just see one glaring flaw of the lamenting type, not the empowering type. Although increased equality and an end of gender roles, is a good thing, by eliminating those social pressures and prescribed behaviour, I do see some repercussions which seem overlooked, which to me, are worth bringing up.
I have nothing against such two campaigns per se (latin for its own seperate entity) but Whitney fails to consider two things, for no fault of her own.
‘Date Honestly’ Campaign
3b) Women complain about men not communicating directly with their words, dodging questions they’re asked, or using pretentious psychopomous language, while they complain about a stoic and bravado gender role induced, “romance gap”, while at the same time, if men spoke to women as if they were foreign english speakers, whose first language wasn’t english, so they’d have to dumb down and simplify their language for them into plain english. those very same women, would lose attraction to those men and be repulsed by it.
To summarise about 3b)
If men who are native English speakers, spoke to women, the same way they spoke to foreign English speakers, relationships between men and women would not be formed and pair bonding would be severely hindered.
But…but…but….men and women’s behaviour and desires within dating and pally friendship interaction, it isn’t that much different than is for men, that you’re making it out to be.
I disagree. Read this article to see why.
If you think that they are, try getting a second opinion from someone else, preferably someone who is a beta male, you know, someone who hasn’t got a revolving door of women who can just easily enter a new relationship within 2-6 months after their previous relationship ends.
It’s easy to have your blinkers on, about the things you don’t have to worry about. The guardrails aren’t there for everyone if you trip up.
]]>There is much articles about this, ranging from five different scales.
Some feminists go even further and claim that what a conservative (like me) would call male brovado, that they call a combination of toxic masculinity and lad culture (frat culture in america), that violence, aggression and hostile dominance, is socially constructed from men committing performative masculinity, the same masculinity that makes them stoic. Man, I need to add some sources about this stuff later.
But when you have men in the crowd of concerts by pop singers where the man jumps out on stage which ends up with the woman being assaulted, intentionally or not, like Ava Max and Bebe Rexha, the socially constructionists as liberals do, claim something about male aggression being caused by gender roles.
Maybe I should write an article one day, about how some people (more likely women), avoid making prescriptive decisions. Maybe one day! I think for the purpose of this article, as there’s a lot of plagiarism on the internet, especially for the PUA, social skills and self-help books, I’ll have to be more specific with my terminology. Every pseudo-writer, grifter and charlatan who commits plagarism, makes it harder for people like me to explain things. People want to know why women prefer to date bad boys and avoid nice guys. I prefer to use the term dark triad male and the supplicating doormat male.
My answer is hard to explain.
Imagine you have a flute with a very small crack in it. It’s very tiny but when you play the E note, everyone else doesn’t notice any difference but you notice the difference as you are the one holding it and you know what the E not sounds like, while everyone else doesn’t know what the notes on the flute or keyboard sound like, they just can tell if a melody is out of tune or out of key.
Imagine that you fill the flute with smarties, well you wouldn’t be able to play it any more. However while the huge holes for the notes are blocked, the small crack will remain intact.
To an audience, they’d say “I can’t hear any notes” but to you, you can hear the note from the small crack.
Now imagine that all the smarties of the hole are removed, and the person gets some smarties, crushes them with their hand and rolls it into a paste in the shape of a ball, then uses it to fill the small crack. Now the flute actually works because the small crack is filled, at least until a mechanic can get it fixed for £20, so now you can’t hear any off-key nature, it’s not out of tune any more.
When the dark triad gives a woman some male validation, regard and appreciation, it’s more like using the smarties paste to fill the small crack. But when the supplicating doormat tries to appeal to emotion towards a woman, it’s more like filling the entire flute with whole smarties. Or even better, it’s like those free samples you get on the street, where they have a mini stall and a corporate uniform as a thin jacket and a company branded lanyard.
When the supplicating doormat compliments a woman, it’s like the Coca Cola staff giving someone a free sample on the street. While at face value, it seems positive, it doesn’t quite get to the root of the issue. As women tend to base their self esteem, stature and judgement of themselves and others, on a more relative scale instead of an objective scale, merely giving them a compliment doesn’t really get to the root of the issue, which hypothetically is the tiny crack in the flute that the audience doesn’t notice when a song is played.
Or like someone handing you a promotional flyer on the street. But they give lots of other people that same flyer, right?
It’s hard to explain.
Emphasis on women comparing and judging people’s stature value, on a more relative level instead of an objective level. Women do not judge people on their own merits, they only judge them in relation to someone else. It’s like when some musician makes an album and people compare it to all their old albums, even if they’re changing their genre or style, when really people should judge it on their own merits, not be comparing it to all their old albums.
The other reason why women prefer dark triad men instead of the supplicating doormat, is also linked to the same reason why women tend to be more likely to be submissive or suggestible
Imagine the game kids play where someone throws a stick then everyone else has to run to be the first one to catch it. At first glance, someone has to throw the stick then someone else catch it. But at second glance, the first person has to (1) find a stick (2) throw the stick……..and the second person has to (3) fetch the stick and (4) return the stick but I’ll add a fifth requirement (5) the person who returns the stick is given regard for fetching it and making an active and heartfelt effort, to work at the best of their ability instead of running or walking in a lazy way
In the context of socialising, although women have higher social skills, men are more daring, so on the grand scheme of things, men manage to do more with less on a consistent level, while women only do more with more on a sporadic and intermittent level
Most of the time, women will be too lazy and won’t bother to use any of their attained social skills, as they’re not really put into a situation where they’ll have to, as much as men are. Probably because they are approached more and looped into the existing conversation if they are a loner or looking out of place.
I’ll be honest enough to admit that Latebit’s viral article helped to inspire some of my answer, ahem, rationale here.
Now in the context of socialising, to do (1 and 2) that requires some sort of intelligence to be able to
Women will refrain from doing those sorts of things, as it requires some sort of intelligence, so as men are more daring than women, men will be more likely to do it.
Now about the dark triad thing, there are various instances when a woman is exhibiting that she feels insecure, low self esteem, or that she’s refraining from showing her honest thoughts and feelings, because she feels inadequate around the people in the room (or yourself), so she’ll refrain from exhibiting any verbal behaviour, that would have her give the impression, that she feels inadequate or uncompetititve towards you
For example
Now think about how both the supplicating doormat and the dark triad would handle the situation.
In the first example, the supplicating doormat, would stereotypically have low social intelligence, so they wouldn’t be able to realise that the woman is only giving a half-agreement due to her feeling insecure. They would ruin the chemistry by trying to prove her wrong over and over again or putting her on a spot by asking her a simple question to elaborate something that she clearly doesn’t know what she’s talking about, to then have her look more confused and mistaken.
Or if they had high social intelligence, the supplicating beta would try to be diplomatic like some breakfast tv interview or disney tv interview, where everything is squeaky clean, by trying to make her feel better, by pointing out all the points she made, that he agreed with and all the things that she’s right about and that he feels concern about.
Trying to “butter the woman up” with constant “appeal to emotion”, “superfluous language” and you are so right about X/Y/Z and I feel such empathy and emotional concern about X/Y/Z would not help here, as the man had already proven the woman wrong for the ENTIRE debate, as it later was apparent that she didn’t know what she was talking about, because she was either confused or mistaken, probably because she didn’t know what a certain terminology meant and that the dictionary and wikipedia wasn’t helpful, so she was mistaken as to what the terminology actually meant.
People are more likely to remember the things that they feel offended, disgusted, uneasy or disenfranchised by.
Being a bad boy doesn’t mean to be verbally or psychologically abusive, no matter how low level.
For example, do not make….
This is a fact. The alpha male’s personality meets her free-spirited needs and the beta male’s personality meets her voice of sensibility needs. If that person happens to be religious and devoted and they would prefer to date someone of the same religion and sect, the chances are, that they’re getting some other emotional needs from their male friend in a platonic fashion, to fill the void present from their current partner’s shortfall.
I was reading an article in The Independent, where Laura Bates, who runs the Everyday Sexism Project, she said that around 10 years ago, she would have a strategy of refusing to name some of the manosphere websites and figureheads, as she didn’t want to give them free publicity whereas nowadays that strategy no longer works, as the message has spread so prevalently, far and wide, so now she feels she has to mention them, as when she does workshops at schools for RSE class (Relationships & Sex Education), the same talking points come up over and over again from the children that they heard from such manosphere websites, often quoted word-for-word in its entirety.
Just remember that, if you never got the message said earlier above!
Who knows? Let’s wait and see!
]]>Things like….
So liberals and feminists, share a lot of the same beliefs.
Here’s some more notes I wrote up that I’ll probably type up into a blog article
There’s another ideology that is connected to cultural marxism. It’s something that isn’t widely acknowledged and if you claim it does exist, then you can experience accusations of anti-semitism.
What cultural marxism is, an ideology designed to turn the pyramid structure hierarchy of how privileged someone is on the oppression scale, the higher up they are the more privileged they are, to the inverse the pyramid by turning it on its head, flipping it 180 degrees, for the sake of certain demographics gaining prominence in the media and cultural institutions.
Whereas marxism split the privileged oppressor and the underprivileged victim, in a dichotomy of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists) who owned the means of production and the proletariat (or employees) who worked for the employer by exchanging their labour for money, Cultural Marxism instead looks at the types of people who proliferates the media and the legal institutions and cultural institutions, to see that they are heterosexual white men, to then claim that they are the privileged oppressor, as if somehow they are harbouring their privileges by actively and routinely trying to prevent other groups from acquire those benefits so they can also benefit from it.
The problem that someone who is conservative, would find with Cultural Marxism, is typically two things
1) Under Cultural Marxism, the victim class ALSO is the protected class, as they are given a monopoly over virtue. In order to invert the pyramid structure of the oppression hierarchy, they will allow the victim class to benefit from double standards and remain exempt from criticism. They are given the agency to do something, that the other demographic isn’t given the benefit to be allowed to do with impunity.
2) Being associated with (moral authoritarain stuff)
In a sentence, liberals believe in equality of outcome whereas conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. However cultural marxists do not care about making the outcome be equal for all groups, as they have to implement an inverted pyramid in order to rectify the historical wrongs of the past. Once this is achieved, in theory, the required preliminary steps needed for true equality, will be an arm’s length away within the upcoming week.
I’ll explain what that is later. Now for some examples.
1) Using newspeak and political correctness to prevent CERTAIN demographic, knowledge and interest based groups from banding together
2) The double standards that’s being applied by Big Tech, mainstream media and FinTech
3) Turning a blind eye to crimes committed en masse (latin for huge collective numbers) when they are committed by a minority demographic
4) The way that society has double standards towards behaviour that is both legal and socially acceptable, yet embarassing and unsavoury to publicly admit (maybe on live tv), as if you’re admitting to being a frequent coupon user
5) Eligibility criteria, course material and pass thresholds for tests, all being arbritarily and selectively lowered to be dumbed down, in order to boost the pass rate of minority groups
Moral authoritarianism is an extension of the nanny state, except that it’s being applied by the citizens instead of the government.
The nanny state is when the government tries to dictate what consensual and victimless actions, you are not allowed to do because they feel that they know better about what is good for you, than you do, even if your actions do no affect any third parties. For example
1) sugar tax, they made the fizzy drinks more expensive based on how much sugar is in them, to tackle obesity
2) In the UK they’ve actually banned children from buying energy drinks, you need to show ID to buy them
3) Banning junk food (and fast food) adverts on tv
4) Australia wants to ban cartoon characters on cereal boxes, to prevent unhealthy food from being marketed at children
5) Putting mandatory internet filters on all public wifi networks, that cannot be turned off
Now the moral authoritarian would apply the same type of logic except it’s done by the citizens
1) Cultural appropriation, like when liberals say that Miley Cyrus, Avril Lavinge or that singer pop from that Little Mix pop band, should not be using black culture in their music or wearing black hairstyles like dreadlocks, or using japanese culture in music videos
2) When an employer changes a Code Of Conduct into a Speech Code, so instead of preventing certain speech, they now mandate certain speech, to then force you to adopt a sociopolitical belief in a public manner (eg. inserting a sociopolitical belief onto your name badge and employers ID card) otherwise you’re fired (eg. Halifax Bank)
3) When you pitch a book to a book publisher to then have their (liberal) “sensitivity readers” do their copyediting of it, then they tell you that they won’t publish the book, until you make the edits they want, which is to dilute and debase your sociopolitical opinion, to make it more in line with their sociopolitical opinion, so then you have to follow “the party line” where you can never disagree with what the political party, ahem, sociological ideology, says.
The way these cultural marxists think, would be like this
The more higher up the person is on the oppression scale, the more agency they are given, as because they are given the monopoly of virtue, the victim class can also in conjunction simultaneously benefit from being the protected class, to then be able to get away with things that the “privileged oppressor” class then cannot do.
Mike WiLL Made-It – 23 ft. Miley Cyrus, Wiz Khalifa, Juicy J (Official Music Video)
Miley Cyrus – My Darlin’ (feat. Future)
Avril Lavinge – Hello Kitty (Official Video)
https://youtu.be/LiaYDPRedWQ
These liberals, ahem, cultural marxists, they complained about these white people using black (or japanese) culture in their apperance or music videos. There’s Miley Cyrus, straight after quitting Disney’s record label to work with trap producer Mike Will Made It, to sound more urban, while twerking on stage at the VMAs and wearing sportswear in music videos
The REAL why they get offended is nothing to do with what the article says, that’s just a pretext or false pretenses.
It’s because, in their opinion, if a white person was to do something that is stereotypically black, like what Miley Cyrus did, then she would derive benefits from that behaviour while still maintaining the privilege of being white.
But if a black person was to do stereotypically white things, she wouldn’t derive any additional benefits like the white person would, whilst still keeping the underprivileges of being black.
Kelis – Bless The Telephone
Kelis – Change
Kelis – Get Along With You
Kelis – Caught Out There
They see that Miley Cyrus benefits from the best of both world by changing the racial demographic stereotype of her music as a white woman but when Kelis does it as a black woman, she doesn’t get to experience the best of both worlds, like Miley did
The fact that Pharrell had songwritten and produced the 100% of her first 3 albums, is irrelevant. Pharrell’s talent being extremely high and world class, is irrelevant.
Their solution is to then claim it’s cultural appropriation, so that they’re not allowed to do that.
This is where the OVERLAP between liberalism and cultural marxism begins to break down.
If it was so concerned about equality of OUTCOME, then they would be happy for white people to do these things.
But under cultural marxism, the victim class is also the protected class, which then results in higher agency.
So they will assign black people the ability to do something, that they forbid white people to do, because they have given the victim class, the MONOPOLY over virtue.
It’s only virtuous if they do it, not of the other side does it.
If they have to assign the victim class slash protected class, HIGHER agency, in order so they can proliferate the media and the cultural institutions in a more equal share split, then that’s what they will do.
The ends justifies the means.
It’s for the greater good.
These social networks, Reddit and Youtube, they have a double standard that is pro-female and anti-male. Their community guidelines are applied in an inconsistent and arbritary way.
Reddit has a rule that allows hate speech against majority groups whilst forbidding it against minority groups.
If I was (or Jordan Peterson) to post on twitter “kill all women” “women are trash” I would get banned but if I changed it to men, it would be allowed. Famous feminist Clementine Ford says “men are trash” on twitter and nothing happens. She KNOWS there’s a double standard while pretending not to know, to EXPLOIT it to her advantage, being disingenous.
What she does is say hateful things about men while insulting the men in her mentions and replies, in order to bearbait them into getting angry and giving insulting comebacks. Once they do, she’ll then screenshot them, then go to the media then the media will publish articles about how she’s a victim of sexist and misogynistic trolling and cyberbullying. This media publicity will ensure that she starts harbouring sympathy and keep the media narrative alive that we live in a patriarchy and how it’s not safe for women on the internet.
Once she’s got this sympathy, she’ll then be given book publishing deals, public speech deals, government grants and other connections, media appearances, publishing, performance and revenue streams. While she’ll be upset and maybe crying the short term, in the long term by the men falling into her trap, they’ve just helped her earn more money, fame, views, connections and sales.
It’s just like when Anita Sarkeesian faked a death threat on twitter, cried to the media and that gave her the publicity to earn $100,000 on her crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter, then she scammed all the donators by only deliving 5 of the 80 videos, across an entire year.
Just like how they allow the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas to have a Twitter account as a TERRORIST organisation while banning white writers who talk about the white race and mass immigration despite not engaging in any political activism (other than signing a petition and sharing a blog/news article)
While they shadowban….
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It doesn’t matter how diametrically opposed a Christian and Muslim are, if the former is a cultural Marxist, they will WORK TOGETHER towards a COMMON goal
Look at the TIMING of when they published that on their twitter account
The Liverpool Women’s Hospital terrorist attack was on the 14th of November
They have to be VERY careful and selective about what they say because they don’t want to be arrested by the hate speech laws, so they have to IMPLY things.
The obvious refute I would receive is
Are you saying that ALL muslims are extremist?
That is irrelevant and not the point.
The point is, that they want to compartmentalise the criminal’s religion and the criminal’s behaviour, on an INDIVIDUAL case-by-case basis.
They are underplaying the individual’s religion, irrespective of whether it’s representative of the collective or not. The collective is irrelevant.
This is a newspaper that is excusing, trivialising and ignoring islamic terrorism, by applying a double standard to favour them, that would not be afforded to the white nationalist brexiteer who assassinated Labour MP Jo Cox for voting to remain in the EU and allegedly trying to obstruct the brexit process in parliament whist obstructing the democratic referendum mandate.
The difference between these newspapers, is that when Jo Cox died, ALL the newspapers fully acknowledged the person’s race, religion and political ideology. They never downplayed it on an individual basis.
But these liberal newspapers which are infected with cultural marxism, they DID downplay the islamic terrorist’s religious background on an individual case-by-case basis.
Modern slavery accusations resurface among textile workers in Leicester (Sky News)
‘Conspiracy of silence’ around slave-like conditions in Leicester (Sky News)
On a surface level, the police and council ignored the modern slavery, grooming gangs and terrorism because the cities they are happening are tend to be Labour controlled cities with a Labour council, so as they use mass immigration for cheap and easy votes, if they do something to tackle it, then they’ll lose their core voter base, as those minority groups, mostly muslims, will stop voting for them.
On a surface level, that’s true.
But on a deeper level, there are a lot of these cultural marxists, as The Guardian newspaper shows, who will trivalise, excuse and ignore, grooming gangs, terrorism and modern slavery, by downplaying it, in order to ENABLE minority groups to get a 50/50 split in the cultural institutions like the media, or regulatory agencies or school teaching boards.
Imagine working for £3.15 an hour making clothes as an illegal immigrant. Minimum wage is something like £9 now
I think there’s probably some corrupt public sector worker on the inside who managed to make them slip past their automated computer checks
Another example
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 1
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 2
Also for this article.
Comic Relief stand by Stacey Dooley over ‘white saviour’ backlash: ‘We’re really grateful to her’
The premise behind the argument in the article, it’s implied but not stated, is that she as a white woman born in the 1990s, she should be held responsible for what her ancestors did hundreds of years ago and that the british government should use taxpayers money to give money to black people.
muh reperations!
guilt by association
Jack Monroe to sue MP after he says ‘she makes fortune from the poor’
I have to make up my own word for this one. I don’t think there’s a word to describe it in the english language
Couponistic
Imagine something that is treat with the same stigma or scorn as coupons.
Everyone likes getting coupons so they can get free stuff.
You’ve got people on tv talking about how they’ve helped thousands of people by running Free Coupon websites
People enjoy being given a coupon
But you wouldn’t want to be seen in the supermarket paying for your entire food shopping with coupons
You wouldn’t say on live tv that you are a serial coupon user who keeps a huge stack of coupons
So there is a shame or stigma there. It’s encouraged but shameful to admit.
Imagine those situations in those links above
Doing a prank call on live radio to say that you had sex with someone’s daughter
A white person going abroad to film a segment for a charity tv show, whilst volunteering abroad and encouraging people to donate to charity to help poor people, by leverging their celebrity status to induce donations
A millionaire being shamed for campaigning to make school meals healthier for poor children whose parents can’t afford healthier food, to ensure that schools can still deliver healthy food on a low budget.
From an ethical standpoint in the context of what behaviours society deems as socially acceptable or not, those actions would not be considered wrong. However there is something that is tasteless, untoward and off-colour about that behaviour, given the context of the situation, even if the behaviour per se (latin for its own seperate entity) is allowed.
Taylor Swift is notorious for making Top 10 songs about her exes without their consent in a bitchy and one-sided manner but nobody criticises her as she didn’t deliver it within the context of a prank call.
When it comes to these grey areas where the line between black or white or right and wrong is a bit blurred, like the coupon-esque value, in my opinion, a HUGE amount of the criticism, condescending nature and condemnation is ROOTED in cultural marxism.
People want to use Jamie Oliver’s money against him, as if he’s some type of neo-colonialist or imperialist. The irony is that Jack Monroe is published by one of the Big 4 book publishers after getting a tv show, while her book is selling NATIONWIDE in the high street book shops. So she’s obviously making a LOT of money from her books while she cries and feigns poverty to help her brand, whilst claiming to want to sue an MP who claimed that she profited from capitalising on sympathy held for the poor.
What Taylor Swift did is worse than what Russell Brand and Johnathon Ross did.
Given the potential for a libel lawsuit, The Guardian cannot claim that a person with a nationwide selling high street book, would be living in poverty because that make them subject to a lawsuit as well, as they’ve went against common sense to wade in on a serious crime, due to the Contempt of Court laws and Perversion of Justice laws.
Given that they print newspapers and books and even sell books, I’m sure the newspaper would KNOW that she’s not poor. Whether she was born poor was poor in the past, that’s irrelevant, as the double standard STILL exists.
If those radio presenters were female, if Jamie Oliver was female, if Stacey Dooley was black, indian or pakistani, the mainstream media and others in the population who think like them, they would have treated the situation differently.
My final example
What they do is downgrade the pass criteria and dumb down lessons, in order to ensure a higher pass rate for minority groups
People want to talk about why according to government statistics, that white people are the least likely to go to university.
I can explain why that is!
Because if a white person goes to a school that has a lot of ethnic minorities, the school will dumb down the teaching and course material of the lessons along with the theory behind the methodical approach, in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, all because during an in-class exam, white people tend to get the highest grades than every other race within the school.
So by dumbing down the lessons, at the end of the school year when the School League Tables are published in the local newspapers, so the teachers can see how good the grades for the schools are, this’ll what’ll happen
Because they’ve dumbed down the lessons, the pass rate will increase
However the average grade will decrease.
So instead of it being an A or a B, it’s now a C
So they’ve compressed the difference between the high achieving and the low achieving, to disadvantage the moderate and high achieving kids whilst the low achieving kids don’t really derive much benefits.
All they think about is how to boost the pass rate
Boosting it overall and by race
The fact that by dumbing it down, that the average grade fell, that’s irrelevant to them
Here’s another example from the 1990s
Here’s the british phoneme chart and it’s actually accurate as I remember it from school and speech therapy as a child. I remember having to memorise that and recall it all on cue. Luckily I could remember it all in perfect order as a child. Some foreign english speakers in some foreign countries use IPA English that has the IPA phonics, which us british people don’t use that. I don’t know what IPA English is.
A phoneme is a combination of 2 phonics, and a phonic is the linguistic sound that a letter make
For example for phonics
All the way from A-Z
The point of the phoneme chart is so children know how to pronounce words which look similar to each other.
freight / fright / thought /
quick / quaint / quote / quintessential / question
To combine both phonics together, it would make a phoneme
For a child to pronoune the words correctly, they’d have to think of the letter pairs in the phonemes instead of sounding out each letter individually
Especially for words like
kaleidoscope
kal- ei -doscope
The ei part is pronounced in a certain way
Here’s the problem of how they dumbed down the lessons (while counter-intuitively making it harder) when I was a child in the 1990s
What they would do is give children aged 4-6 years old, sentences that were spelt WRONG to then have the children figure out how to pronounce them correctly, by INFERRING such information, not from the individual letters itself or the correct phonemes but instead by calculating how the letter on the left, interacted with the wrong on the right.
So instead of a sentence like
Once upon a time there lived a
To instead give children sentences like this
Wunce appon er tyme thar lyvd any
The reason why they did that, was beforehand they found that even though girls had better language skills than boys, the exception was that boys were better at spelling words, which could potentially give them an extra advantage when learning how to read.
So what they did, is make the lessons for kids aged 4-6 to become even HARDER, so they could disadvantage boys and advantage girls, as girls were better at the harder lessons, than boys were.
Even though the lessons were nonsensical in their approach and that by doing this, it STUNTED BOTH men and women’s language skills by 5-7 years.
They wouldn’t teach kids phonics at school, and this wasn’t an isolated incident, it was NATIONWIDE, every school. When did that get abolished? It took until 2005. That ridiculous scheme, it was called look-say.
They didn’t care that look-say was stunting both boys and girls language skills by 5-7 years which also affected them in their adult life.
All they cared about, is that it disadvantaged boys and advantaged girls, to give girls higher english grades than boys.
That’s my opinion on it.
There is no point in debating these types of people firstly because they lack objective morality.
Their morality continually changes on a whim, flip flopping, based on which demographic the aggressor and the victim is in the situation, along with which demographic is the majority demographic or minority demographic in the situation
Secondly there’s no point because will fudge the statistics to justify the decision to implement whatever they feel. If they can use a skewed sample size, selective quoting, fuzzy descriptors or badly weighted comparatives, in order to fake the outcome they want, from fudged statistics, then they can and will.
There is none. Or maybe I’ll add it in later.
There are 26 letters in the alphabet and 35 phonics, that make up the sounds within every word.
This is what foreign english learners use (ESL) (english as a second language) for IPA English.
I was talking to some guy on discord who claims he’s a liberal or a centrist but he claims that what I claim a liberal is, isn’t really that, that they hijacked it, that they’re a progressive and that he’s a true liberal. I asked him to define what he believes in and he couldn’t so I asked him who says things that he agrees with. I saw the 2 commentator youtubers he gave, who claim they are CENTRIST
I then got my opinion after a few videos.
I just find the diplomat type people annoying. They’re always playing devil’s advocate in conversations. They never want to “take sides” in any argument or dispute with anyone else. They always have to sugarcoat their words beyond belief, like some PR speak, that goes beyond how most people would speak, like it’s some kids tv show where everything is sugarcoated and mollycoddled
They believe in the Big Tent theory, that if you exclude all the extremists, that you can get everyone under a Big Tent They believe in the Horseshoe Theory, that both sides are more similar than they are different, and if they had discussions, they’d realise that they’re more similar than they realised.
They always try to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides, as its their diplomatic imperative to never do or say anything that would make them lose an ally, to turn an ally into an adversial or even a distant deserter.
I just find the diplomatic people so annoying, and they always try to middle groudn things.
I can just copy and paste what I said to the guy LOL
It’s like a country that tries to keep diplomatic ties with 2 opposing countries, who thinks that it’s better to keep both countries at allies, than to have 1 remaining ally after losing 1, as the lost 1 will just change to switch to becoming an adversary.
Imagine that someone is offended by something, either by something someone said, did, their attitude, something they displayed or just a general overall attitude that they find annoying.
They then express their hurt to being the recipient of such an action, towards the agent (or actor) who committed the action towards them or the current room.
The conversation, at its most base level, as a matter of the principle of it, would pretty much go like this.
Chastised agent: If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about it?
Offended recipient If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about me caring about it?
Chastised agent: If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about it?
Offended recipient If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about me caring about it?
The agent will then try a different approach
Chastised agent: Didn’t you hear what I said 2 hours ago or have you forgotten? Think about what I said again.
Offended recipient: But it doesn’t really affect you, does it? But it affects me. Don’t you see how hurt I am by this?
Chastised agent: You don’t get it, do you? I can’t believe I have to explain things properly, after you didn’t understand my short and snappy answer, the 3/4/5th time earlier today and a few weeks ago and a few weeks before that. I’ll explain blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Then someone else, sees that there’s a quarrel going on, to then walk over to the two people, to then act as the mediator. to try to diffuse the situation.
The mediator’s logic, will pretty much, if you break it down, it’ll work something like this.
In short, to make it some pithy maxim….
They’re not asking for the earth and they’re not asking for your shoelaces on a rainy day
Hence, the person who is offended, will end up getting what they want, within the quarrel style dispute, that’s friendly and below the severity level of an argument. Therefore the chastised recipient will of appeased the offended recipient, whether by genuine intentions, a goodwill gesture or from feeling obligated to do so by any third parties (typically friends or peer pressure).
If you look at what the person with the modus operandi of being the diplomatic person, would actually do in the REAL world, they would not take a neutral position (like those 2 commentary youtubers claim) but they’ll INSTEAD shift it further and further left.
The diplomatic standpoint will be to say
“They’re not asking for the earth and they’re not asking for your shoelaces on a rainy day“
Hence, the liberal gets what they want.
This is why being the middle ground person and the diplomatic person is an oxymoron.
You can’t have both at the same time. You have to pick a side.
It’s either one or the other.
And voila!
This is why you cannot be the middle ground and the diplomat at the same time. Because the diplomat will gradually and inadvertently shift things, further and further left.
You can’t have both at the same time. You have to pick a side. It’s either one or the other.
I can give you some examples of oxymorons
How could I possibly have a conversation with them? What would I talk about? We would run out of things to talk about. There would be no common ground and I don’t mean topics. I mean like a shared understanding like sharing the same sense of humour.
The type of person I am, my sort of personality and the type of things that I talk about, how could I be friends with a diplomatic type person, if we’d run out of things to talk about?
Prime example of center-left diplomatic channels, always expressing opinions as meekly and harmoniously as possible, as if they’re skinny dipping in the water
I don’t like them
Those 2 channels try to claim the middle ground while also trying to be diplomatic. Their imperative is to always be diplomatic at all costs. Everything has to be worded and proposed in a way, to keep diplomatic ties with 2 different parties, at all costs, 2 different parties which disagree with each other, at all costs.
If there is any opinion or proposal which will cause offence, uncomfortableness, outrage or dissent by any one party, the diplomatic person (those 2 channels) will never express it and never propose it.
It’s like a country that tries to keep diplomatic ties with 2 opposing countries, who thinks that it’s better to keep both countries at allies, than to have 1 remaining ally after losing 1, as the lost 1 will just change to switch to becoming an adversary. In my opinion, those 2 channels being the middle ground and the diplomat, is wrong and dangerous and is creeping in liberalism (that you say isn’t real liberalism) by the backdoor.
So to get to the end of my point.
If you watch those 2 commentary youtube channels that the guy on discord showed me, ShortFatOtaku and AdamAndSitch, people would be under the impression that the person who is both the middle ground and the diplomatic standpoint of an ideologue, that they would either….
1) Take the neutral position
2) Allow a healthy debate of both sides of the argument (pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages)
3) Come to a compromise by picking the best of both worlds
However that is not what’s going to happen.
The mediator who takes both the middle ground standpoint and the diplomatic standpoint, will INSTEAD say
I'm not here to take sides.
I'm not here to hear any debates about who is right and who is wrong.
I'm not here to hear all the philosophical arguments about preaching and postulating like some Oxford University Debate Society on youtube
That reminds me of being a child and how adults solve arguments between children in the school playground, after some child alerts the teacher to solve it.
Good memories, fun times LOL
I'm not here to take sides
I'm not here to take sides
I'm not here to take sides
The diplomat is NOT going to do any of those 3 things.
So yeah, I just see it as an oxymoron, you can’t be the middle ground and the diplomat at the same time, either one or the other, as the diplomat slowly moves in one direction, to creep things in through the backdoor.
I just think in my opinion.
Being the middle ground person and the diplomatic person, at the same time is an oxymoron.
The diplomatic person will ALWAYS shift things, further and further left, even in the absence of any authority role or leadership role (eg. police, teachers, managers)
You can’t have both at the same time. You have to pick a side.
It’s either one or the other.
There’s no two ways about it, no inbetween.
My classic memes prevail again!
Americans love to gloat about how they have a constitution whereas us british people don’t. Anyone who remembers Obama being in power, would know that the constitution is just a piece of paper, a worthless piece of paper that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Even so, we don’t really need a constitution as we have Case Law which evolved from Common Law. But we could also be petty and arrogant like them, by claiming that the british have civil liberties and the americans don’t.
I’m not really sure what the Magna Carter is, as it was thousands of years ago and I’m not really a law person. Maybe I should fill this header in another day.
Britain has Case Law and America doesn’t. The term “legal precedent” has a completely different meaning, in Britain as it does in America. Here’s an article to explain it.
Yes, that again. Here’s an article to explain that as well.
Sometimes it can be a long moral quandary to be mulling over, full of malaise of a crestfallen and nostalgic nature. You know that things have changed, in a big way, something to do with something that underpins everything but you do not know why or even what. It surely has to be something! Now what could it be? That was then but this is now. The ethical principles of how laws and regulations are being made, if you was to go more meta to avoid the specific issues or demographics at question, there is certainly a colossal shift at play.
In britain we split law into two, civil law and criminal law. Criminal law is supposed to be for crimes which affect people on the macro scale if left unkept, like theft, criminal damage and assault. Civil law is supposed for the micro level to regulate the private (and sometimes public) interactions between two people, such as parking offences, vandalism, discrimination, hate speech, flytipping. Strangely enough, defamation is classed as a civil issue, not a criminal issue.
“I’d like to report a crime.”
True story! rinse and repeat!
“What crime?”
“X”
“Can you explain more about what happened?”
“Sorry it’s a civil matter!”
Back when I was a child, well in the 90s and early 00’s, adverts were regulated by the advertising regulator, based on taste and decency. When the ASA implies that adverts are still being regulated on this ethical principle (their slogan now is honest, decent, fair), they are lying by omission. Now the ASA is regulated based on vice and virtue. But what is the difference? I’ll explain.
Under british terminology, well especially in british law, it refers to this.
As you can see, one is more universal as in macro and one is more context sensitive, as in micro. But how about the vice and virtue part?
The ASA has gone beyond its remit to start social engineering in the real world. In the past, the ASA always prided itself on not being there to promote a sociopolitical agenda but not any more, it doesn’t.
Further Reading
Sorry to use the language of liberals (and feminists) but as it’s so pervasive from a multitude of incremental things, so it’s hard for me to think of (much) examples. It’s one of those things that we walk past yet hardly notice, like frost on the grass or the relatively unclean air in the city compared to the countryside.
Of course other countries are modelling their laws based on the british way, as
Simply see these adverts then this meme, to see for yourself.
The advert only becomes funny if you know that the watershed exists.
The backstory behind the advert, is that we have the watershed on tv which means that all the adult programmes come on after 9pm so children don’t end up watching violent things by accident, including swears The tv show illustrated in the advert, was fined by the ITC, now Ofcom, for showing a tv show that had swearing it before the watershed. For their PSA advert, they did satrical compliance by overdubbing the audio over the real script, to make the new version without swears look more stupid and out of place.
The End!
]]>Articles that LGBT people read.
It’s coming from fundamentalist christians, fundamentalists for short. Politicians like Desantis of Florida will hijack the conservative label, to give him cheap and easy votes in the election but a conservative is truly not what he is.
Fundamentalists = collectivist + puritanical + catholic + victorian attitudes + scripture literalist
If you happen to be LGBT, and you live in America, then I think that fundamentalists like Desantis in Florida who has a war on disney, is a MUCH worse issue than Trump, as when you compare the ideology, I would NOT class Trump as a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists = People who believe the world is 6000 years old and that evolution is a myth
Andrew Torba who runs Gab. claims that Desantis will remove freedom of speech rights, under the guise and pretext of hate speech laws to protect jews from antisemitism.
About the catholic vs prostetant dichotomy, to compare 2 different sects, catholics are more into collectivist puriticanlism.
Under collectivism, you have to sacrifice your own individual aspirations and goals, for the betterment of the greater tribe/group. This is where the catholic attitudes of being against abortion, against homosexuality and against sex before marriage comes from, as they are more collectivist, the person (or woman), has to sacrifice her own individual aspirations and goals, for the betterment of the close-knit tribe.
Tiger parenting where parents want their child to be a prodigy with a super talent like acrobatics, piano playing, is also collectivist.
Here’s an interesting fact! People who are against abortion, tend to also believe in capital punishment, as they are more collectivist. People who believe in abortion, tend to believe in banning capital punishment. So much for the sanctity of life, hey!
Why? Because collectivist catholics believe in retribution justice and individualist prostetants believe in reconciliation justice.
One believes in punishment being highly extreme to be an eternal pariah and leper after leaving prison and one believes in punishment being sparing to allow ex-offenders to be rehabiliated into society.
When comparing two countries, America is more retribution justice whereas Britain is more reconciliation justice.
Here’s another interesting fact! If you go onto the school uniform shopping websites in the UK, where you can “add to basket”, the ones for catholic schools tend to ban skirts and have mandatory blazers whereas the prostetant ones tend to ban mandatory blazers and have them optional, while also allowing girls to wear skirts. There are NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!!
The prostetant sect of christianity, was created when King Henry V wanted to divorce his wife and the catholic church denied him that process. So King Henry V decided to create a new sect of christianity, called a prostetant. The word protestant is also called anglican. It’s a synonym, you know!
It should be of no surprise, why Ireland is more homophobic and had abortion illegal in 2020, whereas in Northern Ireland and the UK, it is less homophobic and abortion was legal for over 100 years.
In Ireland, it is common for people who enter inter-sect inter-faith marriages, between a catholic and a protestant (despite both being christian), to get death threats and go into hiding by leaving the country. And now Ireland’s government wants to implement censorship laws under the guise/premise and false premise of additional hate speech laws. Why am I not surprised?
For all you americans, try reading the following.
Newspapers
Political commentary, weekly roundup
Do you see anyone in the UK trying to pass any “don’t say gay” style laws or be banning LGBT books? I don’t think so!
Imagine if Pepsi asked the government for protection because Coca Cola is more popular, or if Sony Walkman asked the government for protection as the Apple iPod was more popular. Now imagine if it was the other way round. That would be absurd right? You don’t see the dominant brand trying to get the government to obstruct their competitors, as they don’t need to, as they’re in the Number One position.
Back in the victorian times and even before that, sex before marriage was taboo, having an extra-marital affair was taboo and promiscuity was taboo, both enforced very strongly socially by religion and the law. It’s not a taboo now and it’s not even stigma now. But the fact that the catholic church and the government historically did so, proves that polyamory is better, as if it wasn’t they wouldn’t of had to ban the competing alternative, as they can’t compete against their competition, as the competitor is superior.
Only inferior products in a losing market position, ask the government for protectionist policies which obstruct or diktat their superior competitors.
Have you ever noticed that the thing you liked in principle, that you never cared to read or hear about, had changed? However that happened, I do not fully know? But what I do know that even if my linguistic and media exposure to such material was starkly s mall, if ever I had a natural disposition towards something, based on my worldview or life experiences, well when an ideology that your opinions would align with – despite not reading any material from such ideologues – it’s now reached a point where I would disavow the whole thing including its ringleaders and pioneers, as the whole thing is just hijacked now.
People who are against abortion claim that they do not condemn the individual women who have abortions, in the same way that they wouldn’t condemn a person who does shoplifting due to living in poverty. But even so, as the action is wrong on a macro scale rather than the micro, as they would put it, for the sake of argument, I won’t be condemning any individual MRA’s in this article, other than to illustrate that their beliefs are nowadays representative of the ringleaders and pioneers of the movement, hence the majority at the rate things are going. That way, by focusing less on the people, it won’t detract away from the flaws and pitfalls of the ideology.
If there is any repercussions, provided that I can give a concise, comprehensive and all-encompassing overview of a rapidly evolving and superceding ideology, then you can’t say I didn’t warn you. But just who’s opinion is the authorative, definitive and standardised one?
MRA’s as a movement, failed for the second time because they got hijacked by tradcucks. Even worse, Paul Elam and Warren Farrell from A Voice For Men, have started parroting and preaching tradcuck opinions, issues and soundbites.
A tradcuck is someone who will use pro-male sound bites to be signalling to others that they are a male ally whilst appearing laudable to their peers by distancing themselves from the more derisive, divisive and unsavoury parts of feminism that those extreme radical feminists preach morality and complain about.
All while at the same time, when analysing men’s issues, they are inconspicuously counter-productive for men due to their weighted agency causing their flawed logic to result in them giving glaringly wrong and short-sighted reasonings and justifications for any social patterns, attitudes, opinions, interests or any other phenomenon.
In a perfect world, people would acknowledge that women have the agency (1) to make choices (2) and by women committing this, this then dictates the future options (3) and outcomes (4) that we are given.
Tradcucks do not acknowledge this. They treat women as having kid gloves and poor impulse control who have to be mollycoddled all the time as if they’re wrapped up in cotton wool. Tradcucks do not assign as much agency to women for their actions, as they would for men.
Tradcucks just absolve women of any responsibility for their actions but in a different way, as they deny differences of interest, intention and the urgency for precautionary self-preservation measures as apparently they’re misandry against men.
Prime example: Black Pigeon Speaks
To give an extreme example, tradcuck MRA’s believe that domestic abuse isn’t a gendered crime. They disagree that domestic abuse disproportionately and mostly affects women, contrary to common sense, hence there’s no logical reason why there’s more domestic abuse shelters for women than men so it disproves male privilege and men need their own.
Verging on liberal cancel culture and HR territory, they ask why it’s morally wrong for a woman to clutch a handbag closer to herself if a black man walks past as if he’ll steal it in a flash-grab but somehow it’s magically socially acceptable if women walk to the side of the street with a lamppost after 9pm, why is one socially acceptable and the other isn’t? Or even worse, start chasing after the woman after hitches her legs a dozen steps forward as you cross paths, to then have several seconds of hurried and frightening running before calling her a racist. Yes it’s a real video!
To give a more tame activism example, why when police are called to the house to quell a domestic abuse incident, why the man is arrested or temporarily removed from the house first without first establishing the fact from a proper interview, not a rushed shoddy one? Admittedly this isn’t the best example, it’s not tame enough but you get my point.
Common sense would dictate, which evades tradcucks, that the potential threat to life, triumphs over the human rights aspect of downgrading “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable doubt” as a reason to formally arrest or informally interview, analogous to terrorism where normal rules don’t apply, as there’s been historical incidents when police just walk away then the woman is dead, assaulted or under GBH, the next day. How do you strike a balance? To a tradcuck, there is no balance, just black and white morality, the false dichotomy logical fallacy, no gray areas.
Men complaining about Ladies Night giving women free entry, half price entry, a free drink or half price drinks in nightclubs, as if somehow, for a hYpEr-ReAl issue, the nightclub will stay profitable if it’s attendees were 90% male. A woman aghastly wrote a refutal article for that one!
For you zoomers who prefer shortform content, I do NOT agree with the opinions and person who is posting below, despite me being male.
I’m sure you’ve seen those keyboard warriors before. They operate entirely and solely from their bedroom, you know!
Simply spend some time reading r/mensrights on reddit. Yes it’s full of tradcucks.
Paul Elam, its founder and his high associate Warren Farrell, has started using tradcuck opinions and arguments since the previous decade.
I don’t really know any as I don’t really go out of my way to be looking for such websites.
For the 2017 Election in the UK well on twitter
Theresa May
Jeremy Corbyn
Guess who won the election? Theresa May.
As a male (like me), just try to leave some comments in the comment section, that veers away from the tradcuck type arguments, then see how many upvotes and downvotes you get from the men and what replies you get, if any.
As I said before, Paul Elam and Warren Farrell are now acting like tradcucks and sprouting tradcuck opinions.
The most popular women’s charities in the UK are the ones which run the domestic abuse shelters which are female same sex spaces, Women’s Aid and Refuge. Imagine my surprise, that they’ve had to add a section to their FAQ for men to read, which refutes the modern MRA claim that domestic violence and stalking primarily affects men, when it doesn’t.
It’s affiliation over achievement, much like football hooliganism after a team loses. So if you put a male CEO on a charity that helped men’s mental health and domestic abuse issues, instead of it being a woman, while everything else remained intact about policies, protocols and activities, would the men feel any outrage over a male CEO doing the same things? I think not.
ss
So by definition, they must also like r/menslib and The Good Men Project, if the ideas are just packaged and presented in a different way.
Yes that’s really what these tradcucks say!
It really makes you think, doesn’t it?
For context, The Times isn’t hard-left, it’s centre-left, as far as right-wing newspapers are in the UK.
Their comments have striking similarities to the Male Privilege Checklist, except it’s only a privilege when it’s about women
Well probably a tragic divorce.
See this article to see what I mean.
The reason why the MRA movement failed, is because after the SPLC classified them as a hate group, the women that A Voice For Men had voluntarily catapulted to become the spearheads of the movement, they were concerned about being blacklisted in the media industry, for being classified as part of a hate group due to the SPLC, so all of those women, just spontaneously quit the MRA movement, which then left a huge vacumn in the movement, so that’s why it failed.
They banked their reputation on those tradthot women and when the posibility of a media blacklist happened, the MRA gamble lost and the tradthot women’s gamble won, as the women had quit at the right time early enough, for their income, connections, film funding and media career to remain intact, whilst the MRA movement lost whatever support they had.
They were warned back in 2012, to not let women become spearheads in their movement, as you can’t predict the future, and they didn’t listen.
The women’s gamble won financially as they’d quit at the perfect time.
The men’s gamble backfired spectacularly as they lost control over their prescriptive (long-term) ideological message (1), collective understanding (not sharded understanding) (2) and distribution (3).
This definitely caused a lot of men who would previously of been that way inclined to congregate around them or self-declare they are one, to no longer do so.
Further Reading
It’s just been hijacked.
I don’t know. Maybe around 2016-2018 but I don’t really go round reading their websites, forums or books so I’ve not got much idea about what they say in particular.
How many sources do you need? What happened to empirical evidence and deductive reasoning?
9 times out of 10 when someone on the internet asks you for a source to prove your opinion, they always accept a low standard of evidence to prove their assertions while demanding an exceptionally ridiculously high standard of evidence to prove your assertions.
When it comes to their assertions they will use logical fallacies like
1) synthesizing multiple sources together to support an assertion that neither of them can be used for.
2) Using the conclusion of a (psychology) study gives to prove their assertion, when it had a flawed methodology. But the person doesn’t care because it fits their media narrative to backup the premise of whatever they’re campaigning for
3) Use meta-studies which quote over 10 studies inside one article, of which the pdf file makes false and unsourced claims while mis-representing what it’s quoting
4) Deny evolutionary biology and all science which proves that certain mental traits are innate or genetic because it makes them feel good
5) Claim that because you don’t have a degree or career in that specific subject then you’re not qualified to have an opinion on it
But when it comes to YOUR sources they will do things like
1) Attacking the website the article is published in rather than the article itself, which is the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy
2) Selective quoting for your article
3) Demanding that you find a peer reviewed source because academic articles aren’t enough
4) Ab absurdum logical fallacy by blowing your point out of proportion by scaling it to higher severity and broader scope then claiming you’re wrong because the hypothetical absurd extremity isn’t true
5) Use studies which rely entirely on participants self-reporting to give whatever answers they feel like, without realising that due to the social desirability bias, participants typically LIE in their answers to choose the more politically correct option and avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes.
Read the sources. Eek!
]]>In case you’re wondering, The Telegraph best matches my sociopolitical beliefs and it just feels more me, than The Times does. Well I am not a liberal but you already knew that! Given how it’s much harder to tell the difference between marginal and factional differences between two seemingly similar sociopolitical ideologies, than it is when talking about things with more reliable statistics or biomarkers, like economics, design styles or design philosophies, I suppose that the only way I could answer that question, is to make a makeshift and foolhearted attempt of answering it myself. I’ll try to be concise, comprehensive but not purely all-encompassing here. I don’t claim to be authorative, definitive or centralised on this, even not an expert but this is my best attempt, from what I see from how I disagree with self declared conservatives, on a more meta level of what metrics they use to gauge their morality. Here goes!
It’s a very interesting fact, that despite being both classed as right-wing newspapers or conservative under the public knowledge, to have The Telegraph campaign for leaving the EU whilst The Times wanted us to stay within it.
It is also a very interesting fact, that when the british government proposed the Online Harms Act, that The Times published an editorial to show the newspaper’s official editorial line (which implies that their writers often disagree with each other about things that falls outside the editorial line), which said that The Times was against the Online Harms Bill from Day One as it would be used for censorship, political correctness and obstructing smaller technology companies from an avalanche of extra lawsuits. However The Telegraph was the right-wing newspaper that agreed with the Online Harms Bill, to then start flip flopping years later, to then claim that the Online Harms Bill must go back to its original purpose, as its focus on race, gender, transgenders, vaccines and whatever else, is a law about cyberbullying, trolling and protecting children from pro-anorexia content, to be evolving into a monster that is bad for the citizens for debasing and eroding our democratic rights (ie. free speech) and civil liberties.
Why could this be? If I wasn’t a writer and if I wasn’t moving my content away from Big Tech onto my own startups, would I of also thought the same initially in the beginning about the Online Harms Act as The Telegraph did, as a telegraphite? I’ll guess what the editor of The Telegraph hadn’t written both fiction and non-fiction books like me!
To even begin to explain that one, for why that could be, I’d have to give my analogy.
I finished school at 16 in 2008 to then start college in 2010 before attending university in 2010. Nowadays the mandatory school leaving age was increased from 16 to 18, forcing kids to either attend college (Including sixth form) or do an apprenticeship. I think that it’s a bad idea and that it won’t help children get better skills but to explain why, that’s a different topic for another time. From 12 years of mandatory public schooling to 14.
When I was at school, for every single subject, we had three different exam papers, a foundation paper, an intermediate paper and a higher paper. They all contain the same amount of questions.
You’re probably wondering, if the higher paper is worth more marks, then why doesn’t every child do the foundation paper? The reason is that for each level of exam paper, there is a minimum mark threshold that is needed in order for a child to pass and if a child doesn’t meet this minimum mark threshold, then they’ll fail the entire exam (D or below). As soon as the Conservative Party got into power in 2010, they removed the intermediate paper, to make it harder for children from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, to get into university.
As the child progresses through the exam paper, the beginning questions are worth a lowest amount of marks (1-3), gradually increasing to eventually become higher and higher, so the hardest questions are at the end of the exam paper.
Now imagine that timesian people can accurately predict the quantity of questions but are bad at predicting the weight of questions whereas telegraphites can accurately predict the weight of questions but are bad at predicting the quantity of questions.
Now it should all make sense! Using this analogy, using this logic, ahem, reasoning as I lean more towards deductive reasoning, it should start to make sense why The Times campaigned to remain in the EU whereas The Telegraph wanted to leave the EU.
The problem for the telegraphite, is if they underestimate the amount of questions on the exam, to then practically learn in the heat of the moment, on the live run, that there’s actually more questions than they’d expected there to be.
When looked at from this perspective, it starts to make sense, a key difference (or moral and problem solving lens) between The Times and The Telegraph.
Mollycoddling seems to be a british term as I’ve never seen any americans using it, as it’s more common for americans to say infantilising instead. But mollycoddling seems more specific for what I want to use it for here, along with how other british people would use it.
Mollycoddling is a rule that’s designed to regulate other people’s behaviour, whether informal or not, that tends to treat those subjected to it, as if they’re not able to make their own decisions, as if they’re children who need to be wrapped up in bubble wool, as if they could not adapt to spontaneously leave their once insulated lives.
A first example is how Health And Safety regulations often are excessive, to the point where in retail, often an Incident Report can be written on paper to report every spill, even if it is in a restricted area where customers are not permitted, even if it’s within the “back room” like the stock cupboard or the offices on the third floor.
A second example is how I know a supported housing company (designed for vulnerable people) which now has to perform weekly fire alarm checks, as when a tenant committed suicide by setting himself on fire, although luckily it was a successful attempt with no lifelong suffering in a wheelchair and that the house managed to remain intact without needing a structural repair – the CEO of the company ended up getting arrested on manslaughter charges then going to court, when it’s not really her fault if a fire alarm was found to of had the battery run out coincidentally in that week, does it? The same council in the same city, shut down a supported housing company because one of their tenants who had depression, committed suicide, as if somehow, that’s the company’s fault for not giving her enough emotional support, when suicide is a complex issue with a multitude of overlapping causes.
A third example is when Clarks Shoes was notoriously caught for having their staff be measuring the kids shoes to be smaller than the correct size, around 0.5-2.0 sizes smaller than their feet actually was. This was back in the 90s when there was no Amazon in the UK, or at least it wasn’t very popular. Online shopping wasn’t really a big thing back then. This was done so that parents would buy 2-6 extra shoes for while their child was in primary school from aged 4 to 11. After people complained to Trading Standards for them selling products that wasn’t “fit for purpose” as they were overselling, the council did fine Clarks which helped them measure the child’s feet correctly. But a few months later after they improved their behaviour, rather than there being a council mandated sign on the wall of the shop, to warn customers against the pitfalls of having salespeople doing overselling, the customers were instead were subjected to a form made by the council, where a customer would have to tick a box then give their name and date, to show that the staff was measuring their child correctly, after the parent read the notice at the top of the page. And they didn’t think to just put an easily noticeable sign on the shop wall, the council? That’s mollycoddling if you ask me!
Seeing as it’s about specific politicians and their pledges during the election season, for time’s sake, I’ll give my opinion over here instead. Well for Rishi Sunak anyway
It’s all just hamster wheel politics that is designed to attract the “floating voter” who are either indifferent (no opinion) or ambivalent (weak opinion) amongst various political issues, just to win the election cheap and easy, to avoid going for the opposite end of the spectrum. Well as it’s hamster wheel politics, no matter how much the hamster spins whether 2 hours, 4 days, 4 months or years, it’ll be back in the same place it was when it started.
I’ve found the perfect example of a person to describe these type of centre-right people, (although the centre-left and liberals do it too). Ashton Kutcher Why? Here goes!
You’re a double reformer.
I’ll explain.
Imagine that someone says that something should be illegal then there’s a debate
Should X be illegal?
Then there’s 3 people in the debate
One person who wants it legal, as for
One person who is undecided, as on the fence
One person who wants it banned, as against
The person who is undecided makes a lot of “devil’s advocate” arguments.
The person who wants it to remain legal, claims they are pro-choice and believes in self-autonomy over their own selves
However, here is where is where the distinction is made, to make the pro-choice person different from a typical pro-choice person, to make a diversion
The pro-choice is a DOUBLE REFORMER
The pro-choice says they’re happy with it being legal, it’s just that we need to add some extra regulations, some extra barriers, extra red tape, extra eligibility checks
However unbeknownst to the self-declared pro-choice person, all the regulations they ever need to prevent and curtail the negative aspects of the X activity, ALREADY exist and are already regulated for.
So by being a DOUBLE reformer, the pro-choice person only serves to advance the agenda of the anti-choice abolishionist, by making the enclave permieter smaller than what it should be, as the relevant regulations ALREADY EXIST, of which the DOUBLE REFORMER is either ignorant of or unintentionally overlooking
Centre-right people, much like timesians, are a double reformer.
I’ll explain.
Imagine that someone says that something should be illegal then there’s a debate
Should X be illegal?
Then there’s 3 people in the debate
The person who is undecided makes a lot of “devil’s advocate” arguments.
The person who wants it to remain legal, claims they are pro-choice and believes in self-autonomy over their own selves
However, here is where is where the distinction is made, to make the pro-choice person different from a typical pro-choice person, to make a diversion
The pro-choice is a DOUBLE REFORMER
The pro-choice says they’re happy with it being legal, it’s just that we need to add some extra regulations, some extra barriers, extra red tape, extra eligibility checks
However unbeknownst to the self-declared pro-choice person, all the regulations they ever need to prevent and curtail the negative aspects of the X activity, ALREADY exist and are already regulated for.
So by being a DOUBLE reformer, the pro-choice person only serves to advance the agenda of the anti-choice abolishionist, by making the enclave permieter smaller than what it should be, as the relevant regulations ALREADY EXIST, of which the DOUBLE REFORMER is either ignorant of or unintentionally overlooking.
The double reformer is what the centre-right does, despite claiming to be right-wing (or maybe centre-left) just like Ashton Kutcher (who claims to be a liberal).
Imagine if a liberal tv channel (like the BBC, ABC, NBC, CNN or Channel 4) is having a debate about…………unrealistic beauty standards along with airbrushed or photoshopped images
But with something like porn and prostitution, you can conflate it to human trafficking and “paid rape”, something which cannot be done so easily towards something so extreme, when it comes to photoshopping models and actors.
Did you know that in France, photoshopped images of models or anyone else in adverts, has been banned?
Imagine there’s a debate on tv
The person who is for photoshopping models, would be someone like Kate Moss, Lucy Pinder or Kate Upton
The person who is AGAINST photoshopping people in adverts, would be someone like Emily Rataj, as she published an article in Cosmopolitan where she says that she hates “the male gaze” and objectification, yet how else is she to make money under capitalism other than modelling, unless she lives off the grid or is unemployed?
The person who is undecided and on the fence, would be someone like Laci Green or Marina Wanatabe, someone notorious for contradicting themselves
The person who is against, wants to copy France’s laws, where photoshopping models and actors in adverts AND magazines, is illegal
The person who is indifferent, makes lots of “devil’s advocate” arguments like “Don’t you think the eligibility requirements for a catwalk model is different than a glamour model, which would make the burden to use photoshopping, drastically higher or lower for each one?” and also “Isn’t the nature of all advertising to be selling a fantasy and idealistic lifestyle instead of the product. If you eat Green Giant peas, you become a strong giant. If you wear Loreal, you’ll be born with it. If you buy T-Mobile credit, you’re getting more from life. Wouldn’t you have to rewrite the whole modus operandi of advertising, to apply your logic?”
The person who is for, claims that they don’t want to outright ban it but just to ban it from front covers and billboard adverts where people will be subjected to it without their prior consent from walking down the street or shop, whilst also labelling it in size 18 font when used inside the magazine, while ALSO creating laws to BAN the lightening or darkening of someone’s skin complexion, on the basis that it’s racist for enforcing anglocentric beauty standards and neo-colonialist imperalism. But you can surely make someone’s eyes bigger or more symetrical, right?
However the person who is a pro-choice activist, as they are a DOUBLE REFORMER, them wanting an excessive amount of regulations for something that is either already regulated against, or easily mitigated by using personal responsibility from online derived information, by them wanting an EXCESSIVE amount of regulations, it only serves to advance the strategy and goals of the anti-choice abolishionist, by applying the “path of least resistance” to move a couple of inches closer to the abolishionist’s end goal.
But what about those micro-scale interactions between person to person?
Like how gender roles are so oppressive and repressive towards women and girls?
What shall be done about that, those small scale social interactions between two parties, that cannot be as easily regulated by merely banning something or applying more media regulations?
What about laws and policies against spoken word?
As you know, liberals hijacked the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in 2017 to ban adverts that depict a gender stereotype. These 2 adverts were the first to be banned.
So you would see the liberals who want the advert banned, as the anti-choice abolishionists, who you would distance yourself from.
The person who is undecided, would be reading lots of articles from liberal websites like LA Times High, Washington Post, Daily Dot, which argue about how HARMFUL gender roles are.
To then read a government letterhead and official policy FINAL consultation document like this one
Which the anti-choice government used as a justification to ban those adverts.
The person who is undecided, who makes lots of “devil’s advocate” arguments, would be asking questions like this, after reading the state policy PDF
As I said months ago, well last year.
Did you know that in the UK it's considered to be LEGALLY classed as sexual harasssment for a woman in an office to be made into the errand girl, by being made to make the tea and biscuits, present the powerpoint presentations for visitors and fetch the print-outs from the printer, on the basis that it's perpeptuating a gendered stereotype that women are to be subservient to men?
A woman can sue her employer in an employment tribunal for gender discrimination and the company will have to pay a MINIMUM of £50,000 in damages towards the woman, if she is made to repeatedly or excessively do errands in the office.
Crazy right?
That's how far they've expanded the definition of sexual harassment.
Someone probably class them as an anti-choice liberal bracket.
But those centre-right people being a DOUBLE REFORMER like Ashton Kutcher, you would be putting up an ERRAND ROTA in the office, to then equalise and harmonise the amount of errands that men and women do in the office workplace, despite the workload amount, deadlines and difficulity of work, being constantly changing. So you would be the TYPE of person to implement an ERRAND ROTA to HARMONISE the amount of work given to men and women. To use the carrot and stick metaphor, there will be no £50k lawsuits to beat the horse with a stick but instead a lovely carrot from a chirpy and smiley manager as a soft motivator. Maybe a pack of Ferrero Rocher thrown in.
But that would provide EXCESSIVE regulations that needn’t exist, to only further advance the goals of the anti-choice liberal, though providing the “path of least resistance”, to chip at it away gradually like coastal erosion or Michaelangelo chipping away to make stone statue art. With something as dynamic as a workplace, a STRICT rota, however softly or strongly enforced, doesn’t quite work, does it?
So there you go! The centre-right is a double reformer, just like Ashton Kutcher.
Let’s quote a blog article from Gab News, the blog of the free speech Twitter alternative.
Any time a conservative Christian proposes laws to address issues of public morality, he is always told “you can’t legislate morality.” This is a mantra that is deep in the bones of liberal, democratic society. You hear it all the time.
Want to pass laws to stop abortion? “You can’t legislate morality.”
Want to eliminate gay marriage? “You can’t legislate morality.”
Want to stop children being castrated? “You can’t legislate morality.”
Want to stop the dissemination of pornography? “You can’t legislate morality.”
But simply repeating something ad nauseam doesn’t make it true.
The reality is that law really does “legislate morality.”
The very idea that morality is separable from external society—from the norms and standards of everyone else around you—betrays a liberal individualism that is completely out of touch with reality. Human beings do not develop their moral bearings in isolation. Only the most antisocial personalities and the mentally ill are capable of bootstrapping a novel and idiosyncratic morality apart from what everyone around them believes. The overwhelming majority of people acquire their moral senses from those around them, especially those in authority over them. Parents, teachers, peers, media, and yes, even government instill moral principles upon them. The Bible commands Christian parents to do this very thing (Pr. 22:6, Eph. 6:4). Naturally, it isn’t as simple as giving a child a set of rules and downloading them into their brain. The human heart does not work this way. However, the moral training parents give their children does become internalized over time. Children really do believe what their parents tell them is right and wrong, and though some can and do rebel against it, the majority will more or less follow what they have been taught. Outward conformity to external rules usually becomes internalized over time.
* * *
The very same process played out with the acceptance of homosexuality and gay “marriage.” In the late 1990s into the early 2000s, defense of marriage acts and gay “marriage” bans were extremely popular even winning majorities in places like California in 2008. That same year the then-Senator Obama campaigned for President publicly opposing gay “marriage.” Then, all-of-a-sudden, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the United States Constitution guarantees a right for homosexual men to play act as married man and wife. Immediately all the Civil Rights Act provisions became applied to homosexuals and eventually to virtually every other conceivable sexual perversion. Concurrently, public opinion of homosexuality rapidly changed. The majority that had only years earlier opposed homosexuality now approved of it. Their moral views were legislated for them. It wasn’t as though every, single American sat down to deeply meditate upon their own moral principles, sifting through complex philosophical and ethical conundrums. They saw which way the wind was blowing and conformed. Again, while some may be insincere, human beings are pack animals. We do whatever everyone else is doing. Anyone who has ever been in a traffic jam knows this is true.
Yes, You Can Legislate Morality
by andrew isker
Now he’s not saying he’s particularly against homosexuality or gay marriage, he’s just using it as a representative example of how blunt a knife the government will play for the role of government.
Okay so if some centre-right and timesian politician like Rishi Sunak wants to regulate morality by creating laws, oh okay but what do I as a telegraphite say?
You can’t use laws to regulate a social contract, as social ties surpass law.
tynamite
Well according to centre-right timesian Rishi Sunak and David Cameron, they should be. For me, it shouldn’t.
Marriage is just a piece of paper, just like a worthless degree. Do you get lower income tax, energy rebates, extra welfare, business funding or career bootcamps for being married? ……….. NO
I bet those timesian centre-right people (never mind liberals) was one of those people who were in unison with the self declared liberals who believed in Obama listening to the Human Rights Campaign, with that viral blue and yellow equals sign logo, who WANTED AND LOVED homosexual people being given the right to marry by Obama. And for what? A worthless piece of paper? Typical liberal and centre-right logic getting all outraged about a TOKENISTIC DECORATIVE WORTHLESS paper, just like those certificates that says you own a star constellation in space?
I’ll get married if you can get the vicar or priest in church to sign their signature on my gender studies degree.
Well according to centre-right timesian Rishi Sunak and David Cameron, they should be. For me, it shouldn’t. I view it as a mollycoddling panopticon, for something that women could easily do of themselves of their own accord.
Match Group which owns match.com, Tinder, POF, OKCupid, Hinge and Meetic, are collaborating with a criminal record company, to give americans who join the dating website, criminal record checks, to be given to women
They say that they won’t include speeding tickets, smoking weed, prostitution and arrests without charge in the criminal record checks that women receive. Anyone who believes that is naive. They will include it eventually. It’s not a matter of what but when.
If Match Group can moderate for off-platform behaviour, then why can’t startups also moderate for off-platform behaviour as well, in a way that supercedes the 1990s style thinking of privacy and civil liberties?
If Match Group can do it, then why can’t Twitch ban someone for posting anti-vaxx content on their twitter account, despite their twitch account only showing video games?
As you can imagine, Twitch did do this.
I’ll follow onwards, from that logic.
In the UK because of feminists, they’ve now got the
It’s nicknamed Claire’s Law or Sarah’s Law, after some woman got murdered by their partner or ex-partner
The way I see it, why can’t the woman ask the man for his consent, to fill out a Criminal Record Check?
If an employer cannot get my criminal record unless I consent to signing the signature, then why can’t a woman ask a man to sign that paper or e-signature, as well?
It’s just treating women with kid gloves, as if they can’t be trusted to make decisions themselves, as if they’ll be dropping things if they never had the kid gloves on.
The way I see it, if a woman is too scared to ask a man to fill out a Criminal Record check after matching with him on Tinder, then MAYBE she PROBABLY shouldn’t be dating him in the first place because she ALREADY knows what the REACTION is going to be.
So maybe you shouldn’t be dating him in the first place, if you can’t get him to fill out a Criminal Record Check (CRB is now DRB in the UK), with his own signed name, date and signature, as you already know or with high probability, that he has a glaring twisted attitude problem if to use your words, you’re not asking for such a huge newly accommodation or concession from the politicians or yourself.
And no, that’s not victim blaming!
But here’s the thing!
If women are going to be treated with kid gloves, to have the snouty prefect be getting the man’s Criminal Record Check without the man’s consent or prior knowledge (ie. the police station), then if they can do something that women could easily do themselves, despite women failing to acknowledge that a man who REACTS badly PROBABLY should be disqualified from her dating him, then if the government can be excessive in their over-reach and over-punitive, then why can’t COMPANIES do it too and why can’t OTHER public sector departments, do it too?
If they can do it and you're forced to pay taxes to the government under the threat of prison, then why can't a company who you consent to pay for, do it too as well?
Do you see where I’m going with this?
This is called The Shock Doctrine and people will fall for it, hook, like and sinker.
Feminist: We need those 2 new laws in because of "think of the murder/rape victims"
Claire’s Law and Sarah’s Law is social credit through the backdoor
We are sleepwalking into a quasi-dictatorship where they’ll take away our democratic rights, our civil liberties, our rule of law, all within a LABYRINTHIAN justice system that is FULL of (1) get-out clauses (2) caveats and (3) exemptions
We have rule of law………BUT we have all these get-out clauses and caveats because of…….think of the children/rape/murder victims.
All for laws that we didn’t even need, to give the government excessive powers that were statutorily unwarranted, for something over-reaching and over-punitive, when a woman could easily ask a man from her Tinder matches, to sign it herself?
I’m sure that the government LOVES these 2 new laws, as it provides social conditioning for them to become accustomed to them taking away our human rights, slowly and gradually, it’ll be death by a million cuts, from the path of least resistance.
And I’m sure that the mainstream media at Disney/Comcast/Warner/BBC/Sky LOVES it as well, as the more the alternative media and New Media is censored and obstructed, the MORE money they make.
So there ya go!
Two laws that got added we didn’t need, that is Social Credit through the backdoor, that is symptomatic of YOUR typical THINKING PATTERNS, of where being a double reformer like Ashton Kutcher, gets you.
This one deserves its own article so we can look at the differences in the policies of Rishi Sunak, Laurence Fox and David Cameron. I could be more generalised and theoretical but only examples will do it justice. But to also focus on singular politicians, it’ll inevitably derail the topic. So you’ll have to read my article here about why I vote for Reform Party, as the Conservative Party has nothing to do with the right-wing conservative ideology that I believe in.
PS. The Conservative Party in 2023 compared to in the 1980s, it has shifted further left, so to all you foreigners, it is not as traditional in the traditional sense, as that Free Market Capitalism aka neoliberalism as sprouted by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, it’s either a thing of the past (depending on who you ask) or it’s been restrained.
Here’s the article so you can see more information about point four.
A centre-right person might seem or adopt an individualist way of thinking but that’s only when they feel they have the short end of the stick. Once they stop feeling like second class citizens (beyond underprivileged), they’ll then revert back into their collectivist ways.
So with that said, it would then make sense, that Reform Party and hard-right The Telegraph is more individualist than the centre-right Conservative Party and The Times.
Perceive the below as in what I believe in, not me saying the opinions of my alliances or detractors.
Although I’m a conservative, there are some conservative opinions that I’d disagree with, so I’d be going against the party line there!
When you are writing an essay, you have to know HOW to advance an argument.
Consider these things
1) Assertion
2) Reasoning
3) Justification
And remember to back up all of these things with
4) Evidence (and it can’t be anecdotal evidence)
Syllogism is a term from academia and a subset of mathematics called Logic and Sets, or logic.
Knowing what a syllogism is, is VERY useful when writing academic essays.
So if we have a statement like this, it’s an assertion
Which is somewhat similar to….
You can see 2 different variables in those statements, X and Y
The amount of variables you see, is binary, or better put, a duo.
To give a real life example….
Which can be simplified, axiomically as….
Which to have as non-descript entities, it follows this pattern….
You can see TWO different variables in these statements. X and Y
However for those 3 statements above, they are concrete facts, not disputed facts or subjective opinions.
It’s concrete, like saying that the sky is blue, that socks contain cotton, that the number 132 come after 131.
There no is two ways about it. There’s no public debate about it. Nobody is disputing it.
It is black and white, there are no shades of gray.
It is DEMONSTRATBLY true and REPRODUCIBLY true.
It’s not just a fact, it’s a CONCRETE fact.
It’s not a disputed fact or a subjective opinion.
It’s a 100% fact.
What about subjective opinions? How would that work, with what an assertion is?
I think that….
You can see which one is the X (the noun) and which is the claim being made against it (Y)
This is what is called an ASSERTION
An assertion is simply a binary statement that has two variables, where you claim that something (whether factual or subjective opinion), that you think it is true, in a format that follows X then Y because Y follows X
So that’s what an assertion is. My point is for now, as I haven’t finished saying everything that I planned to say, is that when writing an essay, you have to KNOW what assertions you’re going to use. And no, I haven’t explained what a syllogism is, I’ll explain that later. I’ll get to that point later today. What happens if I add a THIRD variable, Z, into the equation (or scenario)?
Then if we can SAFELY AND ASSUREDLY claim that something else is true because of such assertion, in a way that is DEMONSTRATABLY true with no room for ambiguity, then there would be an added reasoning.
The Z part is the reasoning.
Now I’ll get to the part where I explain what a….
…..is
But then there becomes a point where people add a forth factor, to add A so there’s not just X/Y/Z
However in this instance, the A has been inferred from them triangulating different pieces of information together, so it is subjective, ambiguous and highly disputed.
The X—>Y—–> Z stuff can be proven as demonstrably and undeniably true.
But the A thing is subjective and highly disputed, and the evidence for such is flimsy and weak.
For example, when a person reads academic article from Google Scholar or Research Gate, to see one prove Thing J and another one prove thing K, then they combine both articles (or sources) together, to then claim that because J and K are true, that also L must also be true.
In academia and logic, this is called synthesis, where a person uses 2 pieces of information to imply or determine a conclusion, that neither of those sources have explicitly state, just that it’s the conclusion the person made when they triangulated all the different data points together, not just from one academic research article but instead TWO different academic research articles.
For example
++ 💹⏫X is Z and Y is Z. ..... -- 📉⏬So therefore A is true because ---X and Y are both Z.
++ 💹⏫ X happens because of Y which is why Z happens ..... -- 📉⏬So therefore A is true because Z happened.
While refraining from talking about sociopolitical opinions, certain people use synthesised options all the tume. When they are talking about some social phenomenon, people on both sides of the argument, can both agree with the X/Y/Z part of the following quoteblock, whereas when one side makes a synthesised conclusion with the other side disagreeing, well it would be only one side which would be adding A to the equation.
The one side would have just magicked the A part out of thin air, by combining 2 different pieces of evidence together from 2 different places, to create the A part, when NONE of both sources explicitly (or implicitly) claim that A is true. This is called synthesizing evidence.
++ 💹⏫A is a bad thing that should be eradicated from society. X has an attribute of Y which makes it cause Z. Because Z is caused by X having the Y characteristic, -- 📉⏬if we were to reduce the amount of Y that X contains, we would therefore be reducing the amount of A in society.
++ 💹⏫ Z1 happens as a result of X1 causing Y1. And Z2 happens as a result of X2 causing Y2. ..... So therefore -- 📉⏬ A is also true as both instances resulted in the Y1 and Y2 both being caused with the same result.]
So then they (people who campaign to get stuff banned) can use the A part as a justification to put in all these laws, regulations, HR policies and social engineering. And it makes them look intelligent and academic as most people do not know how to spot flawed logic. Most people don’t even know what synthesis is, or to even think of such a concept, without knowing the word for the terminology.
They’ve just synthesised different pieces of evidence to make a conclusion about A being true or A being the cause of things. However the X/Y/Z stuff is demonstrably true. But the A stuff is highly disputed and is much harder to prove (to a high degree of certainty).
Someone could argue that they’ve just made that conclusion out of thin air, without any sufficient evidence to support it, as they’re using flawed logic whilst being emotional and exhibiting various cognitive biases.
I know what you’re thinking!
What does all of this have to do with my point above and my initial point?
So where do we go from here?
What is my point here?
When am I going to get to the point?
That’s the type of logic (syllogism logic) that certain activists use in their campaigns to get stuff banned
++ 💹⏫ X is Y because of Z -- 📉⏬ X happens because of Y which is why Z happens. A happens as a result of Y causing Z
++💹⏫ X is Z and Y is Z --📉⏬ So therefore A is true…because X and Y are both Z
++💹⏫ X happens because of Y, which is why Z happens --📉⏬ So therefore A is true because Z happened
That’s their logic
It’s called a syllogism or maybe even synthesis
I know what you’re thinking!
What is the difference between syllogism logic and synthesising evidence!
Good question! Wikipedia can help to answer that one!
Synthesizing or synthesizing evidence, refers to a person who uses two different sources which both claim two different things, to then INFER a THIRD conclusion (out of thin air), that neither sources claim themselves (either explicitly or implicitly).
Whereas a syllogism, is just a type of logical sequence, where a person starts out with two prepositions (or assertions), to then make a third assertion, based on the contents of the two assertions.
But what is really the difference between the two, as a DIFFERENTIATING factor? Because for synthesis, the assertion that is synthesized, is ALWAYS magicked out of thin air, as an invention of someone’s imagination. (Remember that you need a HIGH standard of evidence for an academic essay.)
If I say something like….
1) Birds and insects are the only type of animals, in the animal kingdom, which can fly
2) Swans and crows can fly
3) Ostriches are birds
If there was then to be a 4th assertion
4a) Ostriches can fly
4b) Ostriches cannot fly
What would be the correct assertion? Obviously that’s 4b, as ostriches cannot fly.
But let’s imagine that you didn’t know that. Let’s imagine that you’d never heard of an ostrich in your entire life. Would it then be safe to say, that an ostrich can fly? ………….The obvious answer is NO……because there is not enough information in those 3 assertions, for you to make a satisfactory conclusion, as to whether 4a or 4b should be chosen. There is insufficient information within those 3 assertions, to make a decision.
So this is where the differences of a syllogism and synthesizing, tends to appear, where the two things which appear to be similar to each other, then start to DIVERGE into their own distinct paths, to then eventually be different from each other.
So my point is, if you have an
Remember that in an academic essay, that there is a HIGH standard of evidence.
So if you are caught to be using synthesized evidence or anecdotal evidence, then you will LOSE marks, no matter how well your points are, or how good your english is.
But also consider this
If you was writing a persuasive essay about ethics or law, then it is about SUBJECTIVE opinions, not OBJECTIVE facts. Therefore you are given MORE freedom and room, to use your subjective opinions, anecdotal evidence, hypothetical scenarios and synthesized evidence, as there is a LOWER burden of evidence in an SUBJECTIVE essay, rather than an OBJECTIVE essay.
Or better put, to split it into three, there is a lower burden of proof in a subjective opinionated essay, than in an objective factual essay. However if you are being asked to provide RELIABLE evidence to prove something that cannot be proven 100%, then although you can use subjective evidence, you have to be careful not to use anecdotal evidence.
For example
1) Do violent video games cause children to be violent?
2) Regarding nature versus nature, is gender a social construct, or is it genetic?
3) Do you believe that the government mandated food labelling on the packing of food, that it is sufficient enough for the consumer to make healthy eating choices, or does there need to be more food labelling regulations (on the packing) to be added?
Such things (in a persuasive essay), they are based on your SUBJECTIVE opinion. They are not based on facts, they’re based on opinions.
Now depending on the type of course you’re doing and the type of lesson you have, you MIGHT be allowed to use ANECDOTAL evidence, or you might be FORBIDDEN from using it.
In the UK, if a british school kid was doing an essay about their own subjective opinion, about any sociopolitical topics, then they would be FORBIDDEN from using any ANECDOTAL evidence.
Well if the essay is about someone’s worldview about life, their perspective on life, like the QUESTION TWO on your school work is, then obviously you would be ALLOWED to use ANECDOTAL evidence, as the prompt for the essay, is about the micro-scale social interactions, from the people you see and know in your day-to-day (daily) life, rather than the macro-scale social interactions.
Remember that when writing an essay, EVERY point you make has to be backed up.
If you make a point, without backing it up with evidence (or even a rationale for it, if it’s the type of thing that cannot be easily evidenced with a source), then you’ll LOSE marks on your grade, no matter how good your points are or how good your english skills are.
As it goes against the STRUCTURE of an essay to make a point without backing it up with evidence or a rationale.
Every point has to be backed up with evidence (or maybe a rationale).
So my point is, when someone else has an opinion, that disagrees with yours, while they’re trying to tell you why you’re wrong and they’re right, you would TYPICALLY accuse them of “not listening”, because they aren’t responding to you within a (logical) debating style that you’d typically expect them to.
You expect them to respond to your points with
Inverse X, Inverse Y, Inverse Z
When they’re not coming from the angle of debating X/Y/Z, they’re debating something like L/M/N, as they’re NOT using logic but reasoning instead.
So you accuse them of not listening to you, not responding to your previous points and them blatantly denying your factual X/Y/Z statistics.
When they are responding and addressing the points you’ve made. It’s just that because you’re being solipsistic, they cannot use a logical debating style with you, as using logic ONLY works with people who share a collective understanding of the axioms (or fundamental components and its key differences) of the argument.
There is no collective understanding of the axioms, only a sharded understanding, so why would they use logic, to debate someone who is being solipstic?
Who perceives the axioms to be different than what they already are or what their adjacent speaker thinks they are?
They ARE listening and they ARE responding to your points but just not in the logical manner you’d expect, as they’re using just merely reasoning to refute your arguments, as they don’t think that a logical debating style works with solipsistic people.
If you let them finish and ask them questions to better understand rather than to better disprove, it would hopefully all make sense eventually somewhat.
Conventions without concepts is kitsch
TYNAMITE
I’ll start with the artwork first, especially rhe postmodernist art. I think the famous ones are
1) Andy Warhol
2) Barbara Kruger
3) Roy Lichenstein
However Barbara Kruger couldn’t draw and made no attempt to. She was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time, when the postmodernism art style was hip and trendy, she rode the wave of the trend before the storm died out.
What I find interesting is when people make accusations that Andy Warhol and Banksy cannot draw, when they can actually draw very well, better than most illustrators.
It’s just that the most basic, simplified and lowest common denominator artwork, is ALWAYS going to be the one that’s more famous, as it’s an empty vessel and very quick to understand and not get confused over its coded meaning, so it is VERY easy for other people to insert THEMSELVES into the artwork and imagine its them and their PAST life experiences.
It doesn’t matter how talented you are at drawing or how sophisticated your artwork is, the most basic artwork will always be the most famous, as the simplified and generic stuff is the most relatable and the most easiest for the reader to super-impose themselves into it.
Compare the Andy Warhol art that got famous [21:32]
To then compare it with the art with more technical wizardry (or complexity) yet is LESS famous So yeah, Andy Warhol actually can draw. The same logic applies to Banksy. Loads of people think that Banksy can’t draw and he just uses stencils or just looks stencil-esque, when however his more complex work is less famous, as the more complex stuff is less relatable as it’s not an ambiguous empty vessel for the reader to insert themselves and their past experiences into.
stuff here
Now the obvious question is, if people have been doing minimal artwork for HUNDREDS of years, why did his artwork become famous and not anyone else’s?
We can speculate but I think its due to 2 things
1) Not being kitsch in its concept and in a way that meets the preliminary conditions and counter-social vaules needed for a subculture to be created
2) Applying the oxymoron or idiosyncratic balancing act, of being able to blend in within a sequence of the same genre to show being versatile without being a copycat, whilst also being unique enough to stand out from the crowd as refreshing without being a one trick pony
But that’s long to explain
To be specific towards the artwork, about the soup one, the lettering is hand-drawn whilst looking computerised so there’s some level of skill in that. It’s photorealistic in the not subtle but INCONSPICIOUS sense, that most people would think it was done on Photoshop or Adobe Illustrator when it’s actually hand-drawn, for something that looks seemingly so simple when JUXTAPOSED with the ironic blockish stuff of what’s around it.
About the Marilyn Monroe part, it was about getting what was supposed to be most attractive women in the world, to make her look ugly, whilst still being very true to her actual appearance at it would appear in print magazines with no exaggeration or distortion.
But more generally about what I hinted at above, it’s longer to explain.
So no, I don’t think that AI Art could portray those 2 things, said above and what I’ll explain later on.
And by inconspicuous, I mean that even if you spent TEN hours staring at it right in front of your face, you wouldn’t really notice it until someone else pointed it out to you, which is in contrast to subtle where you would notice it after enough staring or listening or enough prior questions about it for you to answer on cue.
By the way, imagine the lettering on the soup art, like something that lettering artist and secondary an illustrator, Jessica Hische would do.
The lettering Andy Warhol did with paint and NO pencil outline tracing, looks simple but is actually much harder than it looks.
Everyone copied Roy Lichenstein’s style. Also he INVENTED the halftone shading effect.
Four words: Futura Black and Supreme Fashion Feminist artist Barbrara Kruger used Futura Black in bold as she thought it was the most consumerist font.
add quote here
How kitsch caused music genres to die
This reminds me of why BBC 1Xtra stopped playing grime around 2014. DJ Cameo had a show called Pirate Sessions for it.
What happened, is that all the musicians started copying each other, copying each other’s production styles and lyrical topics, being a copycat, so eventually all the music on that show started to sound cliché.
Something that was repeated again, over and over, so many times, that it’s now become boring. If ever some new musician came out who was original or refreshing, everyone would copy them.
The general public then complained to the british telecommunications regulator Ofcom, to complain about their TV License fee money being spent on a radio show that was repetitive, full of copycats and cliche.
Ofcom agreed with the hundreds of complaints given, so BBC 1Xtra scrapped the radio show. So that’s why they stopped playing grime.
Before some smart aleck responds with
That was 2014, now it’s 2022
But…but…but…they have a radio show in 2021 for grime
That only lasts 1 hour and is once a week, while other specialist shows like drum n bass and the emo genre trio (eg, post hardcore, punk, heavy metal), they get 2 hours and appear more frequently often in the week.
So there ya go!
Imagine it’s 2008 and I’m 16 and using my iPod while walking to school. The journey time takes 1 hour. Funnily enough, the bus journey ALSO takes 1 hour due to all the traffic. Strange huh? Well just imagine that I’m walking to school for 1 hour there, 1 hour back.
That’s 2 hours of the day listening to music,
24×7 = 168
Minus sleeping = 112
So out of an entire week, that’s 10 hours of me listening to music, out of 112 hours.
That’s around 150 songs for the whole week!!!
Years later, I FINALLY found out why!
When these grime musicians make songs, they’re not doing it for artistic expression, they’re doing it to be commercial to make money. But they’re not applying pop sensibilities or conventions like the Top 40 chart, so it’s not commercial in the way you’d expect,
When they make songs, they are not making them for their own album or EP but INSTEAD to appear on a compilation CD.
20 songs on a compilation CD, 1 song by each musician, 20 in total
So obviously as they want to stand out, they’ll intentionally go for the most cookie cutter, tried and tested and cliché thing.
So when I played that unknown CD I brought where 1 musician made every song, I then REALISED years later that the reason why it sounded weird and why it was passable/mediocre/boring yet not exactly bad, is because the music is NOT designed for residential listening or travelling listening but instead for a compilation CD.
Not only did it sound like they were trying to copy songs from 5 years ago but also there was something missing, about the level of creativity, something you can sense and perceive but can’t really explain in a blanket all-encompassing manner.
The music was NOT made for the social scenery of
:SC_Cross: Residential listening at home
:SC_Cross: Travelling listening for journeys outside
It was instead made for
:CH_VerifiedTickLime: Compilation CD’s
I later spoke to a musician who appeared on one of these CD’s, with my opinion of what I just said above and he said
Exactly! That’s the whole point! To make money!
Which I responded
But look at Track 6 and 15 on the CD. That sounds like songs X and Y from 5 years ago.
How do you expect to make money from the potential customers who like [INSERT GENRE HERE] if by making music for compilation CD’s instead of albums, the quality, originality and creativity goes DOWN.
What about those who have been listening to that genre for YEARS?
To then which he replied
We’re not trying to sell music to early adopters like you. We ONLY want to sell music to late adopters.
$$$$$$$
£££££££
s
You can apply the same logic to EVERY genre that ends up getting virality, buzz, column inches and grapevine activity.
It also happened to tech house.
The trend-hoppers realised that there’s more money to be made to put ONE song on a compilation CD of 20 songs to slot theirs in amongst 19 other musicians, than it is to actually spend the time and effort to make a high quality album.
Ironically, the way to stand out within a compilation, is to copy songs from 2-5 years ago.
The music and most of its associated genre, became kitsch as it was merely conventions devoid of concept.
This is one of many reasons, why music and certain genres, sucks today, compared to so many yers ago.
I’m old enough to remember the REAL reason why The Simpsons sucks and has done for over 10 years.
When that tv show came out before I was born, it was good and remained good throughout the entire 90s and the early 00s. It became bad somewhere in the 00s.
What happened was that there was NEW demographic that got created for tv shows, completely by complete accidental chance, that NEVER existed when that tv show first started.
1) Tween minus = teenagers + 8-12 year olds
2) Tween plus = teenagers + young adults 18-21
To give some examples
Tween Plus: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, The Ghost Whisperer, Sabrina The Teenage Witch, Daria
Tween Minus: Kim Possible, That’s So Raven, Teen Titans (not go)
There probably was some other tv shows but I can’t remember.
It was those sorts of tv shows that were going viral that the kids and young adults were talking about at work and school and creating FANSITES (on geocities and angelfire) about it.
The producers and writers of The Simpsons were not happy with the success they already had, they wanted more success, so they wanted to be a tween plus or minus tv show.
However the writers were a “one trick pony” and they could only write in the one style, the one they were accustomed to for years. They could not adapt.
The writer of South Park, Trey Parker, who wrote EVERY episode 100% by himself for over 20 years, he is VERSATILE as a writer as he can adapt towards different styles.
The writers of The Simpsons could not adapt their style and were a one trick pony.
Me and my brother used to play a game when we were kids. We had a list of 3-4 tv shows and we would PREDICT which tv show the episode would be copying, to see if we were right once the tv show ended.
The Simpsons should have ended over 10 years ago. One trick pony writers shouldn’t be having shoddy genre attempts on tv.
So yeah, the tv show became kitsch.
They copied the conventions of other tv shows, like colour by numbers but they couldn’t copy the concepts.
Now I can’t give an example of what kitsch writing looks like because I don’t read books because I don’t want to influence or prejudice my own.
Now for the next PART of my point.
Here’s some good articles about kitsche.
https://www.artandpopularculture.com/The_Kitsch_Movement
http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/postmodernism/terms/kitsch.html
Also read the book Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avante Garde, Decadence, Kitsch from Page 225 onwards
https://www.artandpopularculture.com/The_Kitsch_Movement
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/introduction.html
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-postmodernism-definition/
I know what it is, when I see it. This artwork would be given the pejorative of kitsch. Not to be confused with cliché where something is repeated so many times over and over again, that it becomes boring, kitsche is then when something is trying to copy a style but is lacking the conceptual meaning and depth, so it doesn’t really embody the season of the era in any resonant or postural sense.
add stuff here
]]>