When hipsters and so called "rule breakers" create their own (clothing) brand + company.

Do they think the invented the concept of 'business' or are they just absurdly arrogant and pretentious? I think all three. 

So I'm "into" fashion. Ever since I upgraded my jeans - since the ones I replaced I had no interest in wearing anymore and I wanted to update the material used and the fit; in other words, to purchase a modern looking pair of jeans - I slowly eased my way into becoming a more discerning consumer when it comes to buying articles of clothing. I pay attention to fit and drape. I pay attention to what the article of clothing is made out of.

I also noticed the attitude that came with this niche interest (at least for men). If the clothing line that's made in the USA and has a site, I tend to visit it for a peek. That peeking then becomes perusing through almost every tab. I educate myself about what the company "is all about."

Take the clothing company Everlane.  It believes in being transparent so that the customers know why the price of their article of clothing is priced the way it is. I think that's quite a good business philosophy. Jump over to their "Jobs" section, though. 

Here's what bugs me:

Always Ask Why

We constantly challenge the status quo. Nothing is worse than complacency, and as a brand our culture is to dissect every single decision we make at every level of the company.
We know our customers are also rule breakers and questioners, so we hope this philosophy is palpable in the products and choices we make. And by all means, challenge us too.

Okay, what status quo? In the business world in general? In the fashion world? There are many status quos (I bet there are status quos within Everlane ... ). As for complacency -- well, they sure seem smug about themselves in general. Keep reading so find out why I think this way about them.

Rule breakers? Questioners? That's like proclaiming you're a "free thinker" or some rebel without a cause (but with a cause). 

And this is my 'favorite':

They say you should start a business that you wish already existed, so we quit our day jobs.

Now this isn't so much advocating for entrepreneurship as it's quietly jabbing so called "day jobs"  and all the (many, many, many ... ) people who work (and are fine with working) "day jobs." You could even say those who work at Everland, the non-owners are working their own "day jobs." Unless they work at night in order to avoid such a label. This I doubt.

Then there's this:

 Dear rule breakers, questioners, straight-A students who skipped class: We want you.

 "Too cool for school" type of brilliance. Gotcha. What's next, "Dear swimmers who breath under water without choking. We want you."? So no "goodie two-shoes" need apply - you just don't fit the image and the atmosphere. No people who respect the rules, even those who may question them from time to time, yet, for the most part, understand why they're there in the first place.  

Enter PacSun. I was in one of their outlet stores getting some of colorful/fun socks and I noticed a banner hanging. It was a nice banner. Simple in design. It also had this written on it:

Is PacSun, and those in the fashion industry in California, claiming that this mindset is strictly their own, and that only in Ca. that such an ideal reality exists? I know it's for marketing, to get the young adults or whoever to buy their stuff and to buy into such an mindset. It's similar to the Empire State of Mind (see: Jay-Z and Alicia Key's song to learn all about it, or just talk to any transplant to the island of Manhattan or some trendy Brooklyn neighborhood). I haven't come across any clothing company located in the Midwest or South that holds this type of obnoxious mindset.

Now let me break this "Golden State of Mind" down a bit.

First, diversity. I have a feeling they mean ethnic diversity (maybe whoever was in charge of this banner just threw in the word 'diversity' simply because it sounds good and fits the narrative); but here's the thing: all the major metros and cities of Ca. are majorly segregated into ethnic enclaves. The east side of LA isn't the west side, for sure. Bloods and Crips still exist in LA and the last time I heard they weren't recruiting white or Latino kids. Most of the uber wealthy actors live in affluent neighborhoods away from the middle class suburbs, which (these affluent neighborhoods) are gated communities. I know there's a big population of Asians, but, at least in San Francisco, most the middle class Asians tend to live near each other. I mean, Daley City is approximately 50% Asian. And that's a stone throw away from the city of San Francisco.

Second, creativity. Okay, there's the Bay Area where tech is dominant; LA where entertainment (mainly movies) is the "theme." Add in the surf & skate clothing culture as well. There's Napa Valley in the NoCal which ads to the agricultural power to the state. I'm not sure if you count that as creativity, though. There's more weight in the creativity aspect of this #gsom.

Third, optimism. If you mean #YOLO and stupidly naive, then yes, there is plenty of that in LA and San Fran.

Fourth, do whatever you want wherever. That's a bit ironic because most of the time those that buy into this type of mentality - this whole "Golden State of Mind" - if they aren't already living in LA, NYC or SF they want in on those cities. So this 'anywhere' is mainly (self) restricted to said cities (I've touched upon this city 'thing' on a past post). 

Though not a clothing, a rum brand: Sailor Jerry. Oh Dear L_rd make it stop. Maaakkke iiittt stttoooppp! (Not the making of the rum, but the marketing.) I wasn't even aware of this marketing mentality until a couple of weeks ago.

Right away the narcissism is pouring out of the page, literally. What do you mean? Here:

People who are true to themselves may have scars, enemies and unpaid bills but they don't have regrets.

The people we respect and admire have one thing in common. At some point in their lives, they turned away from the crowd and followed their own path. They ignore what's considered normal and instead live in pursuit of what makes them feel most alive.

Here's to life outside the lines.

First paragraph is undeniable vacuous and screams "asshole." It's practically romanticizing and advocating for this narcissistic and arrogant "Fuck You" mentality. This type of attitude only survives in certain subcultures such as the tattoo world and movie world, and other worlds that commonly intersect with said subcultures. I don't think anyone who has unpaid bills would be all "I have no regrets in life and my life is MY life! Take me or leave me!" They'd probably be trying to pay that bill before it gets any bigger. If they had "enemies" they probably did something rude enough to make them into an asshole. I know by "scars" they  mean it metaphorically; that is "I've been hurt personally but now I'm better, and I'm the winner" sort of way. Hate to break it to ya, Sailor Jerry, I think almost anyone can claim this in one way or another. 

Second paragraph is hugely ironic. Now, there are personal portraits (vids/interviews no longer than one minute) of various people:

Mikey B's is bar owner and his vid description says: "He's a crusader who ditched the white collar bull to start his own bar where the only music you'll hear comes from his personal collection. A born prankster, he lives life on his own terms. "If I dream it up, I have to prove that I can do it. The biggest motivator is when someone tells me no."'

Jenny Parry's vid description notes "is a model and actress, embodies the free-spirited lifestyle we champion .... she also has the phrase "Keep Me Wild" inked on her forefinger."

Imogen is a silversmith living in LA. She owns her own jewelry shop. Probably the least obnoxious story amongst those taped.

Last, Daniel Mar. Mar is, like Mikey B., a bar owner, and fixes cars in his spare time.

Two bartenders with tattoos. A model & actress. A (female) silversmith and jewelry maker. In a way, "their own bosses." No 'white collar BS' as Mikey B.'s description confidently claims.

Now, if you put them all in a dusty saloon drinking Sailor Jerry they probably wouldn't stand out since they most likely have similar outlooks on life and in politics. They even dress alike as well. If you think Yuppies were victims of conformity then this group, well, excluding Imogen, would be the at the other end of the plague of conformity.  I remember in my sociology theory class (Ahem! Everlane, I went to class), a couple of the students and the professor were talking about non-conformity, and that being a 'non-conformist' one tends to enter a subculture that has its own status quos and "party line" thinking. I guess the marketing department of Sailor Jerry either did not have this discussion or maybe it did not personally dawn on them.

"Here's to life outside the lines." Most of the of people "outside the lines" either don't have health insurance and want it, so they seek out jobs that give them such access. The last time I heard any reference to "life outside the lines" were people living as crack whores, gang members and making means in highly questionable  ways. This slogan wasn't romanticized as well; it was to put seriousness into the issue.

Then there's the "ethos" part.

As soon as you push for people to stay inside the lines, there will always be people bold enough, stubborn enough, brave enough to live outside them.

We support all manner of creative individuals. And that's not restricted to musicians and tattoo artists. The creative life is one where you follow what's inside you rather than what's pushed on you from society, your family, the media and all the other things in the world that try to tell us who we're supposed to be and what we're supposed to do.

In our humble opinion, it's a better, more interesting world when everyone pursues whatever the hell they wish to pursue.

First paragraph: Whoa! We got a badass over here. What I got from the vids was pure youthful naivety and, again, narcissism. Not of them mentioned helping the poor by volunteering in a soup kitchen, teaching disadvantage kids about cars or seeking out other "bold, stubborn" souls to learn the trade of bartending. It was "Me. Me and Me. And don't you think I'm totally rebellious?"

Second paragraph (probably the most arrogant of them all): So Sailor Jerry would support even the not so good manners of these so called "creative" individuals? I also love the "that's not restricted to ... " Gotta get in those musicians and tattoo artists (Sailor Jerry, of course).  Supposedly the creative life is following "what's inside you rather ..... " The contempt for society is strong here. The contempt is for those who "live inside the lines", the squares and office drones. The non-creatives. Now, it wasn't actually said, but, if one followed the theme it's strongly implied. They're basically confessing that it's all about emotions -- nothing alluding to responsibility or duty. Nothing remotely adult.

What's weird is that this ethos truly believes that they (the company & the people taped) are going one way, while the world - society, their family, the media - is going another.

The media - entertainment in general - more or less, is on the same page as Sailor Jerry's ethos. It's not just in the Top 40 singles (if you listen to the lyrics), but also in the more sophisticated levels such as indie movies that may appear at prestigious film fests (see: Cannes, Sundance) and fashion houses. The people at Sailor Jerry seem ignorant of this. That's really suprsing to me. The influence of the media, at least recently to my knowledge, has changed society because of the naive buying into this #YOLO and extreme individualism cult. leading the young to reject their own family upbringing (if they see it as "too squared or conservative"). The world, at least the USA, is slowly following this Sailor Jerry ethos. Wouldn't that make the people who are seen as Sailor Jerry types (Mikey B. Jenny Parry) not as "bold, stubborn and brave"? It would make them rather square. They would be conforming to the new status quo of "pursue whatever the hell they wish to pursue." Ironic.

Third paragraph: Humble opinion? After all that was said and what came after? I kindly disagree. It wouldn't make the world interesting (the good type of interesting), but instead it would make it into one depraved, (immensely more) narcissistic world. I mean, look to the group of individuals that were rounded up as Sailor Jerry ambassadors - hardly what I'd call interesting save for Imogen. 

If you haven't noticed, all of these companies had some sort of California connection. It must be that "Golden State of Mind" that makes it all so obnoxious and unbearable.

Every attitude (which are similar to one another) that these brands exhibit all sound mightily juvenile. It just doesn't inspire me to be like them; it just makes me step back and reflect on why I see them as tools.

After all that was said, would I still purchase from Everlane? Yes. How about PacSun? Sure. How about Sailor Jerry? Of course - it's my favorite rum.

"I like your product(s). I do not like your people. They are so unlike your product(s)."

Interesting, very interesting ...

Rated PG-13 for crude languag.

I'm new to the mano-sphere blogs.

What's interesting is that there seems to an overlap, some thin connection, between Christian blogs run by men, blogs that I think are run by Christians who are run politically conservative and write up on the modern dating world, and straight up mano-sphere blogs that attract "just bang the girl, as long you f_ck her brains out, and you're both satisfied then all is well, no other viewpoints shouldn't matter," types. They also tend to have an interest in science fiction writings as well. Maybe that's the binder - the science fiction part.

Several questions I have.

(1) If I'm correct with any of the above, how did such blogs attract these posters that seem to be infatuated with "Game"?
(2) Do Christian "Game" types notice the dissonance between modern "fuck her/him till she taps out" with their faith?
(3) If these "Game" types are secular, why visit Christian blogs that talk about dating woes and "Game"?

Consider my mind blown (no pun).

                                                I know, right, Jackie?

The Online Community. Oh dear.

Go to:

reddit (the atheist section, mainly)
IMDb (the forums - mainly the Awards forum and any actor who is popular)
youtube (the comment section)
tumblr (for the Social Justice Warriors & "Progressives")

Sites chock full of modernity. Relativism galore. Subjectivity around every corner. Amorality flowing like black gold.

Subjectivity IS Annoying

IMDb is a special place, amongst other sites I visit and participate in. One thing reigns supreme in its message boards: Subjectivity.

One of my favorite discussions I've read went something like this -

"I don't think that's what the screenwriter and director meant it to be. By the way the director was talking about the themes within the movie it sounds like it was going in another direction that what was intended."

(The movie's theme wasn't really clear, so there was talk about its  - unintentional - vagueness and character ambiguity.)

"That's just your opinion. There isn't necessarily one correct interpretation."

If the screenwriter & director (two separate people here) weren't on the same page on what the story was exactly about, then the burden of confusion is on their shoulders. Still, whatever they intended the movie to be about and the audience members come up with a different interpretation, then yes, there exists a "wrong" interpretation even though the creative dissonance between the writer and director led the audience to different interpretations.

Sometimes a blue chair is just a blue chair and there isn't any deeper hidden motif behind the color, or the placement of the chair, or the shading of the light in which the chair baths in. If I say to an author "The blue chair in chapter seven, that meant [blah blah blah]." And the author then responds "Well, no. It's just a chair and the reason it's blue is because I had a similar blue chair in my childhood which I sat on countless times," then I'm wrong.

It is probably why so many people who otherwise could not survive in a non-creative industry flock to the arts. It's where subjectivity acts as a barrier to any criticism or any standard besides "My standard." And feelings. A lot of feelings and "complexity" and "nuances" about "life."

Wearing fake glasses

So here's a defense for wearing fake glasses:

…Here is the thing about your non-prescription glasses. They are something you like to wear, just like I love wearing converse sneakers and skinny jeans.  There is no rule anywhere that says you have to be squinty and near-sighted in order to perch plastic frames atop your nose.  If someone comes up to you and says, “God, you are such a stupid with those fake glasses,” just choose one of the following retorts:
a) “Yeah, you’re right…” {take them off, punch yourself dramatically in the eye, squint off into the distance, place glasses back atop your nose}
b) “It’s so funny you say that, because I was just thinking about how important your shirt collar is in helping you function in society.”
c) “Dannielle wears fake glasses and Kristin thinks it’s totally fine and Kristin knows everything.”
d) “I actually create miniature sculptures using cedar wood and a jigsaw, and these protect my eyes from the wood chippings.”
Any way you slice it, you have every right to love glasses and you have every right to wear whatever the hell you want.  Go get those glasses and rock ‘em out.

 It was written over two years ago, but the defense is nothing new from what I've come across when I researched this trend of fake eye glasses in the name of personal fashion, self-esteem and the ultimate: expression (which ties into personal fashion). 

To step away from the defensive tone of the quote, I'd like to say it comes to little surprise that such a pathetic defense is also coupled with the reality that the writer, Kristen, is also the author of book called Everyone Is Gay. I just find this, well, amusing, given my past posts on the subject of homosexuality.

Then there's Dannielle:

Wear whatever you want, and do whatever you need to in order to feel cool and comfortable. We all wanna feel cool… you know?

 Feelings.

Here as well:

 And also, I just cannot imagine someone who needs real glasses getting upset about someone wearing “fake” ones cause glasses can be and often are a fashion statement”

With the hashtag #ThisOurBook a strong sense of entitlement and insecurity resides deep within these two women. I guess the root of the responses offered by both these women are rooted in feelings. Mah Feelings. The book is written in order to help others feel better. Wearing fake glasses is worn in order to make one feel better. Dear God my generation is narcissistic and emotionally fragile as heck.

Oh boy. I should watch myself - I'm becoming insensitive.

Nah. I'd rather be a prick in this situation.  

Now on to Kristin's defense and my response to them:

a) Punching yourself in the eye, therefore causing your eyesight to become blurry won't be fixed with fake glasses. Why? Because they're fake and you never needed them in the first place. You'd need an ice pack to help the swelling go down. Common Sense, dear Kristin. 
b) Comparing a shirt collar to a eye glasses is a faulty comparison. For the most part there isn't a trend where people are wearing "fake" collars to look good or to make them feel better. A collar is practically PART of a shirt.
c) I doubt it.
d) Wear a protective glasses that actual wood sculptures wear. You know, the real thing. It's like me trying to reenact a Bonobos winter photo shoot wearing a $300 sweater while I cut down a tree for the fireplace -- it makes me look like a f_ckin tool. (Please excuse my French.)

Yes, Kristin and those who wear fake glasses, for whatever reason, you people are posers.



I wear real glasses because I need them in order to see. If I don't I won't be able to drive, to read a book without straining my eyes and to do other everyday tasks. Others who don't need them? They wear them for ... wait for it ... wait ... for ... it ...fashion (and to increase their otherwise low self-esteem). Fashion.

Is it okay if I decide to take interest in my own sex for "emotional" reasons even though I'm not bisexual? Why not? I wonder what the reactions would be if I confessed that the reason I'm dating my own sex is because I think it's "cool" and it makes me "feel better." Hmmm.

"Cause I like them."

                         

Ex-atheists and/or liberals seem to garner "fans" / Combox #4

Not fans of say the traditional definition, but "fans" of the "You're an idiot" kind who post snark and "Man, you totally owned him" when a fellow objector decides to point out weaknesses of an argument, and they tend to show up on on select issues.

A good example of this ex-atheist turned believer is ex-lawyer turned science fiction writer John C. Wright.

In my readings and observations the science fiction community is vehemently secular; people who have interests in computer science and coding tend to overlap this community as well. It's a community that is seemingly bright, and that's a good thing. No doubt that in his conversion from staunch atheist to now practicing Catholic, Wright has hurt some hearts and made a handful of people feel betrayed. I'm talking about the atheists and the non-conservatives who liked his writings, or at least liked it enough to say "Well that didn't outright suck."

And most of the these detractor enjoy anime. Why is that? It's like the people on tumblr or reddit. The internet is truly wonderful (no, really).

Most particularly are Wright's mini-essays on sexual morality and his criticisms of modernity - or leftism - that garner these bitter souls. They mostly do not come baring a sense of sincere earnest to understand, but are filled with snark. I do not know if their minds have a worthwhile rebuttal since they do not represent it, so I am left to view their snark as nothing more than pure irritation that someone "use to be like them" but now, in their minds, "a tool."

Another ex-atheist turned believer is philosophy professor Edward Feser. In Feser's case it's usually his comments on libertarianism and Gnus aka modern atheists that garner the trolls - at least from the posts that I've come across.

Now ex-Catholics turned non-believer or ex-conservatives turned (modern day) liberal? Such people don't garner these 'special' posters. Odd, really. It's like the "backwards" people tend to deal with rejection better. I'll speak for myself: When I hear believers turn secular I feel sadness in my heart. When I learn a prominent conservative turned (modern day) liberal I do get somewhat upset, but I'm usually eager to hear their reasons why and if I do decide to respond I leave a point-by-point comment and leave it at that. I don't care so much to engage in foolery that is the combox phenomenon filled with (modern day) liberals. As someone who has "been there done that" as an ex-liberal, I'll say confidently that people who are salivating at modernity engage in circular reasoning and BS "move the goal posts" moves.

A non-conservative State of Mind - Combox #3

So the modern liberal tend to flock to urban settings:

Tier 1
Los Angeles (well, more like a giant suburb)
New York City (Manhattan and select parts of Brooklyn)
San Franscisco

These usually are the three main cities that the self-loathing small town resident moves to once college is over, or once they graduate from high school to pursue a career in the arts - performing or otherwise. Always the arts as well - must be something to do with the mentality that pervades such an industry.

Tier 2
Portland
Seattle
Chicago

These are also cities that may be on the list. These are mostly seen as back ups.  In my experience, those reside in Chicago tend to move to NYC if they are given a chance - not due to better pay but for the "It's NYC!" Chicago is mostly seen as a stepping stone type of city the creative type or the aspiring stock broker.

Tier 3
New Orleans
Nashville
Austin 

These three cities are becoming known to the hipsters, the "cool kids," the "open minded and progressive" types.

The reason I bring this up is because, as I do when I visit any site, I read, if not skim, the combox. In this particular case I've been reading articles on the Midwest and there is at least one, almost a staple on such articles, self-loathing Midwesterner or someone who wants a more "progressive city." This is why I listed the cities to what they are perceived in the eyes of the "non-conservative"  who is looking for greener pastures.

If you haven't already, city-data.com is a fantastic site; it's akin to wikipedia, but for metros and cities instead of being an online encyclopedia of anything and everything. It's a niche site. The forums of city-data offer a unique perspective on urban living from those who are very much familiar with a given city or metro.

Comments like this on Cincinnati:

The momentum is certainly building, but the old money and influence isn’t going down without a fight. The thing is that at least the fight is going on. Young people, creative people, progressive people, and diverse people are starting to take hold and make this city their own. If we can do that the foundation is there for a truly amazing city.

 and

I left because I was not happy in the Greater C’s dominant environment of baseball, football, right-wing politics, and limited horizons. For me it was an excellent decision to leave. My brother lives there still, and although he gets frustrated as hell with the negatives of Cincinnati, he has a circle of good friends to transcend them and an excellent quality of life for next to nothing. As I get closer to retirement, I’ve got an eye on nearby Columbus. Not quite as pretty, but just as cheap, plenty of “kul-cha”, and a bit more liberal-minded.

The first comment reeks of entitlement and bitterness. Key words used: progressive & diverse. These two things tend to be in the lexicon of such a mentality. No word of wanting low taxes, less business regulations, respectful encounters with strangers, the ease of public transportation. Nope. The comment is also a bit creepy. "If we can infiltrate the city and quietly position ourselves the takeover will be successful."

The second comment is similar to the first. It complains about the city being too "right wing." Interesting. Ain't NYC progressive enough? Not enough warm weather & gorgeous people strutting down an LA boulevard with organic grocery stores near by?  BUT good friends, according to the comment, 'transcend' the politics of the city. Even thought the QOL (Quality of Living) is a bang for ones buck (so I've heard) in Cincy and I don't believe the poster was verbally or physically attacked for his beliefs in real life, ever, the city isn't enough because of its "right-wing politics." Not because such politics is keeping business out or raising taxes further depleting ones wallet. No. It's "this is a conservative city ... I feel ... feel .. not welcomes here." Well, coming from someone who has conservative politics and lives in a major US city, I think I can say I'm proud not to call its quits simply because there's a "gay" flag flying 10 blocks from me, or that most of my colleagues and friends vote (D) instead of (R) or independent, or that most loathe authors I read and philosophies I support. I don't see the urge of moving to a more "conservative" city in order to feel comfortable with myself.   

 This ties into the "tiers." Mainly the non-conservative, if he is already living in a city, say Chicago or even Cincy, they may not be entirely happy. Why? Well, it's not progressive enough. The grass is greener in NYC/LA for such mindsets. It's been my experience that conservatives tend to survive in opposite political climates better than non-conservatives. If they do leave a given place, it's usually because of the taxes; if they do complain about the politics it's because they see the politics devaluing the city and making the city into a Detroit. Fair enough. I met one ex-Chicagoan who moved to Kentucky and never looked back. The reason? He noted that the city was turning into a city that was a  political wasteland filled with corruption and rats (both figuratively and literally).  Non-conservatives? "It ain't progressive enough."

Now, the great thing about the US is that one can choose, if the job offer comes (or not, just bus tables and work "survival jobs"0, to move to any city or town. You don't like a city? You can choose to move. You don't like your kids current school? Home school them or look for another school that suits your standards. You don't like your parish? Find another parish and become member. You don't like your university? Transfer. Think you want to study film instead of accounting? Switch majors.

The 'funny' ('funny' because it's somewhat juvenile) with the whole "this town's politics ain't to my liking so I gotta move" is that is kinda flies in the face of the ever popular criteria of modernists of being "open minded." Now Cincinnati is a city of  almost 300, 000 so it isn't exactly a conservative bastion. Plus, it's a city - not a town - so it's natural for "progressive" politics to have a seat at the table, front and center. Compared to major cities like NYC or LA, it's small; then again those in such cities probably don't even want to set foot in the Midwest unless they absolutely have to. Compared to a place like Charleston, Illinois, Cincy is Godsend depending on how you look at it. 

Like I mentioned, it all seems a bit juvenile. It just seems non-conservatives crave the comforts of those politically like minded -- not just in their group of friends, but also the place they live in. Now besides the ex-Chicagoan moving to Kentucky, I haven't come across comments of conservatives wanting to live in a more conservative town. In my experience, all cities are innately "liberal" - it's just some are more "liberal" than others. It is non-conservatives seeking out their own kind, like they can't survive in a small college town or a city like Cincy. Conservatives seem to know there are other views out there and are aware of the context of their given situation. Non-conservatives seem to want to enforce their "better-ness" (see the first quoted comment) in a tone of bitterness. "This is OUR time. Get. The. F_ck. Outa. The. Way." Sure it is.

May I ask what type of policies you want to put into law before you hop on your one speed bike?

""Gay marriage!"

What else?

"Um, more artists and barber shops, but with barbers who have sleeve tattoos and 1950 haircuts! Not those old school bigoted Italians barbers."

Okay, what else?

"More bike lanes!"

How about better public schools? Do you want that as well?

"Of course."

How about less gang violence?

"Yea."

How about a stronger sense of civic pride?

"Sure."

Sure. 

tumblr "progressive logic"

Rated: "PG-13" for crude language.

Here's a somewhat humorous post:
Not supporting gay "marriage" is equal to being homophobic. Uh huh. Yep.

                                                    "People Are Gay. Get Over It. "

Thanks kid with red hair. You are so insightful. And some people don't support same-sex marriage, even if it becomes law. Get Over It.

Okay, okay. I'll play fair. Yes, people are homosexuals and I doubt, at least my experience, people avoid them due their sexuality.

I'm trying to refrain from using the word 'gay' since gay, originally, meant happy/joyous -- not sure what's so beautiful and happy about same sex 'pairings'  - I also refuse to call same-sex 'couples', well couples. That's reserved for heterosexual relationships. They're "Best Friends Forever" without any actually hopes of procreating with one another because an anus and a penis doesn't biologically produce a baby - it's impossible, nor does a vagina and a vagina. Why? Because a vagina does not produce semen which is needed in order to create a baby. A P and a V does (+fertility and no ABC). There is no actual union between homosexuals (male homosexuals attempt at "sexual union" is more garish than females eating carpet -- I'll admit two females "going at each other" is really "What's the point?").

I know all this is in support for same-sex marriage (anti-bullying is just a convenient smoke & mirrors for the true goal) and that when the judge accepts it as law that's where the "get over it" derives from. Same-sex "marriage" supports will gloat (I've experience first hand) when a law is struck in their favor.

I'll quote some of the responses (it's basically every scenario one think of) -

As a bisexual, it sickens me that some people WILL keep scrolling.

I always say I'm amused - simply because I am. It's rather amusing to me that some people not supporting same-sex "marriage" actually sickens people. So a bisexual is driven to sickness because, if she wants, can't get "married" so her own sex. I won't support such a law for your own "happiness." Please, Get Over It.

As the straight daughter of a gay man, it sickens me that some people will keep scrolling. 

 Okay, and? Not sure if her dad face any discrimination (besides not being able to marry his own sex)?

As a straight girl with a basic understanding of equality and love, it also sickens me that people will keep scrolling.

"A basic understand of equality and love." Oh boy. Where to begin with this one ... A basic understanding of equality is that there really isn't any true equality. Equality - when reality comes into play - is a farce. Sure the homosexual (or bi) man or woman can get married, but to a person of the opposite sex. Two brothers can't get married even if there's consent and both are over 18. In fact, if expansion of "M+F" to "M+M' and "F+F" why limit it to a two party? Why not expand it to three or four? Why not do away with prohibition towards sibling marriages and open it up to Party A, B, C, etc. regardless of sex and blood-line? Why not? I mean, if people objected to such a radical move then they're bigots acting as a road block to the involved parties' happiness - that's according to progressive logic. 

Basic understanding of love? You mean "I have strong feelings for this other person regardless of their sex"? Here are my feelings: I have a strong feeling that the explanation of this "basic understanding of love" will be a bunch of "equality and happiness" rhetoric. I'll probably send her a message and ask. 

As a straight Christian woman, I pray that people will not scroll past this. Love, not judge.

I’m re-reblogging for that last one.

Whoa Now! Not only do we have a person who's straight, but she's also a Christian! Jackpot! Those mean and close minded Christians are so horrid that it's refreshing to see a self-proclaimed Christian preach about Love! Since a straight Christian (with some Kumbaya understanding of love and who, no, doubt, fell for the "Thou Shall Not Judge" - on anything, unless one does not supports SS"M") it's an epic "win"!

Through all this "loving" and not judging SS"M" is passed. That's the goal. That's one of the goals. Not only does the Gay Mafia (as I would like to call them - actually activists and these tumblr rank-and-file types) want society to approve of their relationship but they also want minds to be changed about sexual compatibility. It's not enough for them to get SS"M" approved in every state. Nope. They want there sexual relationships to be seen as completely normal, even though *normal "was" the dreaded state for such advocates.

Well I scrolled. I don't want some horrid social cause looking like a zit on my otherwise nice looking tumblr page. Let alone I'll look like some Millennial without a clue.

*normal: or normalcy - will be a future post.

Combox #2

So I was perusing comments on an article commenting on another article on what bigotry consists of. To no surprise at all the bio of the writer of the this commented article noted he wrote about LGBT topics. And to no (big) surprise one poster who defended homosexual acts, or at least held an indifferent attitude about it, said this:

Sometimes, it’s not very easy to engage in cool headed disagreement. For example, imagine you’re reading a blog post with which you mostly agree. But then at the end, the author calls your relationship with the person you love “nonsensical” and “obviously wrong”.

When you hear such things regularly, and that statement is yet another voice in the chorus, that can really hurt.   

I'm not sure if the poster was referencing the article being commented on (since the article was pro-homosexuality) or the thoughts being critical of the it (since the critical author is a proclaimed Christiana whose views are direct opposite of the commented article). Or maybe he was referencing another article that might have a "God is love and we all should respect each other and mind our own business and we should not judge since God is our judge. Oh and homosexual relationships are nonsensical" vibe to it.  

 Then I later discovered he admitted to being in a polyamorous relationship. And he did this:

For example, I routinely engage in rather “extreme” BDSM.

Go figure.

And this is coming from a self-proclaimed atheist.

Also why do modernists and securalists tend to incorporate their "lack of belief" in their handles? Something like TruthSeeker or TheFriendlyAtheist or Mr.Skeptic. Something along those lines.

Of course the poster wasn't married (I don't he ever was nor does he ever want to be). And a bit OT, I also would like to know what drives a person to adopt a "there is no god" worldview AND adopt such extreme sexual relationships.

A comment did spark my attention (as in: good point) :

An ethic of consent also assumes that nothing—absolutely nothing!—is wrong in itself, but only in someone not liking it.

Is that a problem?

I think so. If nothing is wrong in itself, is anything right in itself? If nothing is bad in itself, is anything good in itself?

I'm amused when modernists and secularists trivialize sex (e.g. "As long as there is consent, who cares."), yet it become a BIG deal when criticism is being directed at the trivialization and whatever acts are involved in this "trivial" topic (e.g. homosexual acts, state of homosexuality or any deviation of heterosexuality). And to include BDSM, simply because of the precedent parentheses, there was actually comments defending it on this AT article. Note the ever popular "consent" and even the "you just don't 'get it'" card pulled.

 

Yes, thank you, Arthur. It also doesn't mean it's right. Then again, what's there to "get" about deviant & perverted sexual acts?
                                              
As written before on my Combox #1 post: These types of articles tend to attract its particiapants. I mean, do they search for such articles being critical of their chosen lifestyle? It seems like it. What are the chances of such an article being popular on the day (or few days after it was published) unless someone circulated it, especially on a site that is non-progressive?