I Banish You!

On a sartorial site, which I frequent, called Dappered I was banned for a comment that, I think, was a bit too confrontational for the site's owner.

It was on this article.  Before I pressed "submit" I re-read the combox guidelines:

"Because accepting college or high school as your peak is pathetic."

 - Joe, from dappered.com

Joe, people like are what I like to call douchebags, cowards and pussies. Yea, I know you lift but you're still all said things.

I knew what I was about to submit wasn't the type the owner was accustomed in dealing with, but I took the "Write only what you'd say to a person's face," seriously because I would have said what I wrote if he, the site owner - Joe, said what he wrote with the tone he wrote it in. I guess Joe didn't really appreciate my candor. After all, he is the site owner - the man - the boss - the umpire - god - so he automatically has the upper hand, having the last word. If he responded back I know that others would've backed him up.

I understand the the gist of what he was saying, but I disagreed with it (now I'm not sure what "alternative" I could have proposed since it wasn't about articles of clothing, shoes or watches). I basically said that he sounded bitter and, from my experience, that many who did fit the "bro" archetype or the ones that seemed to really like college are doing okay career wise. (My comment was deleted so I have no proof of what I exactly type up.)

But I'm a bit perplexed because the archetype of the "too dumb to even cook eggs and never amounted to anything" is the high school football star (see Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite), not this guy:

                                 

Before it was "You'll get 'em in college" to the nerds in high school. Now it's "you'll get 'em after college" to people like Joe. What's next, "You'll get 'em in retirement"? It seems the Joes of the world got tired of "You'll get 'em in college" and needed another scapegoat to tell the world "Suckers! I showed you!" Enter "College. Meh."

It has evolved from "You'll be working for me," to "You'll be an office drone while I'm not." From being a superior to another, it's being your own superior. In other words: I am my own god.

As for the "bros", one "bro" (probably the  most stereotypical "bro" I know who was also President of his fraternity, and was also my high school's valedictorian) was a medical student at Case Western and is now interning; another was hired by PWC; two entered law school -- one at Case Western and one at Florida; one decided to be involved in the Greek Life administration so he enrolled in Florida State for his masters; a "bro" I was in in high school band with attended Illinois for law. There have been other career success stories from my own fraternity -- alumni achieving impressive things in their chosen career path.

If I take into yearly salaries as "winning" then I bet, once the budding lawyers finish school & are hired by a firm, all those I mentioned above will be earning much more than Joe when he reaches his mid 30s. Or I could take into intellectual rigor. But I won't, at least when it comes to yearly salary, when measuring "success" because I don't see salary as a sound way of gauging "You showed 'em!"

I don't know what Joe's, or the those that favored the article, experiences were in college (honestly, this all sounds like people complaining about high school, but it's not ... It's about college) but I have a feeling he's the one constantly comparing himself to those who may be more sartorial than he is; he just seems the type to look up to/admire "cool guys" that managed to rake in uber amounts of money in very niche (cool) fields, like fashion or the movie industry. Some of his posts - that aren't necessarily related to fashion - just come across trying way too hard to be "casual cool."

Others who did enjoy their college years (I think they did), but weren't involved in the Greek system, seem to be doing okay as well. All are gainfully employed - one's an accountant; one works as an engineering consultant; a couple as music teachers; my own sibling is a financial consultant and many were recently married. One has two kids already and she's in her late twenties; she decided to become a homemaker even though she's a college graduate. Some of these people went to schools that are known for massive school spirit such as Notre Dame. The accountant attended NIU, which is known as a party school. I'd be surprised if she said "meh" when asked about her uni years; she seemed to like the party culture & the school itself. They were all career oriented.

I have heard the "best years of your life" in reference to college, which I thought was a bit shallow, but I took it as "this four short years, make the most of it, and don't screw up." Don't screw up. Yea, the pressure is on. Many of my peers- okay, upon thinking about it, almost all - that attended college looked at it as a major step to having a livelihood. It was seen as the gateway to the working world that their parents didn't have (most of the kids I went to grade school and high school with came from blue collar working families whose parents didn't hold college degrees). 

Now, compare this to Joe. It's just too perfect of a situation; he just falls into the hands of my past posts. It's comical, really.

The owner, Joe, worked a 9-5 job, quit and opened his own site known as Dappered (as linked above). I read an interview of Joe and his tone was the usual "I'm my own boss" self-masturbation. Good for you, Joe, really. But not good for you because, when confronted about questionable opinion pieces, you have demonstrated that you are not open to (generally constructive) criticism. You either ban or let your lap dogs finish the job.

Maybe that's why so many of these "ditch the white collar job and open your own blog and/or youtube channel" seem like insecure bitches on a personal level with egos at least a foot taller than their actual height. It's not that they were too good for the "white collar job", it's just that the job wasn't paying them enough attention to their own (perceived) specialness.  

Late last year, around the last quarter, I was at my godmother's place. My mother and her were talking about jobs; they said "A job is a job (in reference to doing a job that isn't your 'dream' job)" and that one should be thankful for it, after all, one could be unemployed or working as a prostitute (my words, not theirs). Hockey player Andrew Shaw wears a black bracelet dedicated to the iron workers, some are his childhood friends, of the Canadian town he grew up in.

If the new frontier for modernism is smugness filled with contempt for all the "office drones" and "normal jobs", and one pats himself on the back because "he escaped", then what a lousy new frontier.

"That's it?!" I'd say.

It's not like such people escaped from a concentration camp (but bet your bottom dollar they'd make their story into something grand). 

It's still domesticated in a way, if you aren't a travel blogger, since fashion/fitness/beauty bloggers work at home. It's ironic.

"Doing what you love" (as your main job) is insanely overrated. I suppose this is what modernism has wrought, but "doing what you love" is just the start of this self-entitled mentality that is so pervasive and potent amongst those under 35.

UPDATE (4/13/15): Since the site owner of dappered.com re-posted his "It Gets Better" piece  (he re-posts
articles that he thinks have 'good' insights) I can't help but compare it to the actual "It Gets Better" campaign that was directed at the LGBT community but then later added anti-bullying as a way to kinda-not-really save face when confronted about "How about all the kids are bullied that don't fall under the LGBT alphabet soup?" In the modernists mind they want to show up the perceived injustice they have face - directly or indirectly - they want revenge. If it ain't high school then it's college. But wait, college is like high school to them so they turn to life after college -- but guess what, they usually make a living in niche industries like entertainment or fashion with other equally insecure and indignant people. It's like, wait for it, high school!

Modernity & art. And an atheist & ex-Republican named Mike.

Rated PG-13 for crude language.

In one of Roger Kimaball's articles he mentions George Orwell commenting on artists (his thoughts were written in the 1940s according to Kimaball) -

I think they still hold today.

I'll just concentrate on the "Just pronounce the magic world 'Art,' and everything is O.K. Over on Breitbart.com this enthralling (I'm being facetious) exchange of words took place a few days ago -

Poster GreenLantern has many good (and true) points. If one is remotely familiar with how producing a movie works, Mr. Lantern isn't typing away just to type away. Mike's "It's called art," is a good example of vacuous emotive bullshit.

How come Mike's appeal to "art" sounds so much like every other modern day appeal to the arts? It's like 100 years from now books (maybe turned into e-books) will be non-existent or museums holding exhibitions will be gone in Mike's mind.

It's not like I'm a anti-art (if you knew about my interests you'd think "Da f-ck? How are you a traditionalist?") or think black & white films are boring, or think "real" films (the ones that show up at Cannes, Sundance, TIFF, Venice etc.) are a waste of time.

But Mike wasn't done.

and

and

and

According to his posts, supposedly Mike was a Marine AND a Republican back in the day. How convenient. I guess that makes his comments even more "legit."

Now I'm aware that there are atheists who serve in our military, so I'm not ignorant of such a demographic being present in a branch that might otherwise seem full of Christians - whatever sect. I never served in the military (though I wish I had) so I don't know if the all the "You're going to hell" talk is present to any atheist who broadcasts his thoughts on religion; I don't know what is talked about in the barracks. Now was the man a Republican? I am not sure if that is true. The thing that seems true is that he's an atheist (Gnu), a non-believer.

 I don't have anything personal against atheists -- I'm just highlighting what clearly shows an atheist going out of his way (starting an off-topic post) to be an an out right ass on an article that has nothing to with religion, let alone Christianity. It would be like me going on a HuffPo article about educational protests in Colorado, posting how people who think abortion is a "right" are evil sons-of-a-bitches. I don't believe such a thing nor would I do such a thing, let alone troll such a website.

I take the "ex-Republican" with a grain of salt because of this comment -

Mike also has some race issue (not that race issue) -

I don't know how old Mike is, but I figure most of his military superiors were white during the time of his service.

The man goes on, in other posts, talking about how the Indians (Native Americans) got screwed over with their land, how tough it is to be a black person (I think Mike is white, at least that's what he wrote before) and that America only protects white males. Then is another post he voices how America is a hypocritical country saying - I dunno, can't really remember - that the country will only live up to its true potential by adopting some egalitarian mindset. This is coming from a person who said he served in the Marines, served as a cop for 20+ yrs and was Republican at some point in his life.

Mike, you could've had me fooled for something else.

Here's something that I've noticed amongst lefties -

They [lefties], when the timing is right, tend to say something along the same lines -- that the world is tired of conservatives supposed close mindedness, its bigotry and hatred, its "baggage" causing progress in society to halt or retard etc. That they [conservatives] are that type of person that no one wants to talk to at a party because of supposedly antiquated views of [insert political issue or social topic].

In other words its the "no one likes you" school yard card. It's pure intimidation used to make the receiver into take an (unfair) guilt trip.

"My gosh, we are mean and backwards, and everything the media and trolls (like Mike) say we are. We are so sorry. Please forgive us."

Kinda like how race baiters want America, somehow - don't know how, to pay for its own "original sin" -- slavery. And whatever racism, sexism, gender-injustice, oil seeking injustice that exists America has got to pay for it. I don't know how, but somehow the country has to set things "right."

If the world can't stand you, then I guess the world is right, right? If foreign media portrays conservatives and the GOP as some wacko right-wing fanatic group then it's true, right?

(I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an independent voter, though back in the day I considered myself a Democrat. I am fully aware that Mike's supposed past history is symmetric to mine, but I know I'm telling the truth about my past. As for Mike ... I don't know.)

I'll say this: Someone who is a traditionalist is very bizarre to most of the (Western) world, especially Europe. An American libertarian is, as I learned, quite a rare bird in world politics. I'll break this oddness rareness down.

From the PBS site, as the late Ronald Reagan said -

January 11, 1989 -- farewell address to the nation

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life…. And how stands the city on this winter night? … After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home." 

• America is seen as the last shining light to the world. I agree. If America tanks the world is screwed.
• American politics is seen as more conservative, as a whole, when compared to Western Europe. Go ask comedian/actor Russell Brand. The 2nd amendment about guns? The Brits think we're nuts.
• Social conservatives are seen as *weird mother fuckers to most of the world. What, no Two Girls One Cup? (No link, you sick bastard.) Why you be hatin'? They ain't hurtin' anyone.
• Middle America is more (socially) conservative than, say, Western Europe & the coasts. It's a place seen filled with weird mother fuckers.
• "The rest of the world can't stand you." The you refers to conservatives (with all the compliments that Mike attributed).
• An American conservative is rare bird in the world.

Snuff that light out. Mike would like that. In fact, Mike admits that the country's potential is in some egalitarian Utopia. A "new" light is made because the "old" light just doesn't cut it, but the details are quite vague. Just don't demand a detailed answer from Mike.

And here's another thing I've noticed: There are far more leftie trolls on conservative sites than conservative trolls on non-conservative sites. Actually, I can't really recall a conservative acting like a troll on sites dominated by the liberal view. I wish I did, I wished I experienced something like Mike, but a conservative one, because then I can say "well this one time a self-proclaimed conservative on Jezebel .... "

What I can say is that posters like Mike, are often times condescending. Wait, that should be Condescending. Bold. Capitalized. Bitter as well - oh the bitterness. It's like they're confessing their deepest angst and the posters reading should be saint like in receiving the slanders and jabs, thought the patience shown by some posters is more than impressive.

Then this long rant (the article was about a law supporting building rooms specifically for beast feeding in airports - apparently some of the posters didn't like the idea, so Mike had his say) -

So what we have here is a Marine turned cop, for 20 years, who is an ex-Republican, yet he talks like a modern day Kool-Aid drinking leftie. Seriously, how on earth did he survive his 4 years in the Marines let alone become a cop all the while thinking and believing the things he does?

A part of me wants to believe his what he types, the other just wants to call BS. I did come across a person, claiming that they were an urban Republican that worked in politics, that came across as some conservative poser. When I asked him about his tone (it was clear he didn't like the NASCAR type of people or those in small towns, basically most of America), he proclaimed that didn't like middle American and the South because of the "twang" accents ("If that makes me elitist, then so be it," he said), and that while watching the news overseas that such people were an embarrassment when interviewed.

Rubes aren't liked by the "sophisticated" urban Republican nor the Marine turned cop/ex-Republican who now holds right wing America in immense contempt.

I did have the idiocy to respond to some of his posts, so I'll see how our own discussion goes if he replies back. And I'm an ex-(modern) liberal, otherwise known as a leftie ...

* I don't think middle American is filled with weird mother fuckers due to it being socially conservative.

Civil Disobedience is Patriotism

Or it's just stupid bitches whose emotions got the best of them. They're probably the same people who say "My hormones got the best of me and that's why we had sex." Heart & Feelings. What a combo. I can see unicorns and rainbows in the distant, with a pot of gold and a leprechaun at the end dancing.

Anyways.

In Colorado students from numerous suburban high schools protest ... not because their schools are being closed down, in defense of a favorite teacher caught in some legal battle or for seemingly unfair wages given to public teachers, but because a "conservative" school board wants to foster patriotism and implement materials in the curriculum.

According to the article -

 A new conservative school board majority here in the Denver suburbs recently proposed a curriculum-review committee to promote patriotism, respect for authority and free enterprise and to guard against educational materials that “encourage or condone civil disorder.” In response, hundreds of students, teachers and parents gave the board their own lesson in civil disobedience.

Now Colorado is a state that spearheaded the legalization of marijuana, so I"m not too surprised of the state's young adults getting all riled up for this, but I cannot help give a

                                              I see you Greta Gerwig. I see you.

This is some funny shit. Really.

I'll take a guess and say that by "civil disorder" the board meant riots, like Detroit race riots and the Ferguson riots. I'd be less of an ass if the protests were critical the anti-civil disobedience part, but they went full retard and attacked the entire proposal. My understanding is that the board never implied to censor the shadows of America.

But apparently this one student did jump to such a conclusion -

It’s gotten bad,” said Griffin Guttormsson, a junior at Arvada High School who wants to become a teacher and spent the school day soliciting honks from passing cars. “The school board is insane. You can’t erase our history. It’s not patriotic. It’s stupid.”

And this -

Leighanne Grey, a senior at Arvada High School, said that after second period, a student ran through the halls yelling, “The protest is still on!” and she and scores of her classmates got up and left.

She said that learning about history, strife and all, had given her a clearer understanding of the country.

“As we grow up, you always hear that America’s the greatest, the land of the free and the home of the brave,” she said. “For all the good things we’ve done, we’ve done some terrible things. It’s important to learn about those things, or we’re doomed to repeat the past.”

Always? Not really. I was once one of these "Gah, America ... such a horrid country!" but that was when I considered myself a liberal. I then reflected and realized that the chant of "America is the best" isn't as ubiquitous as my naive mind, and Ms. Grey's, seem to believe. But this all very common when it comes to America's youth; what is quoted in the NYT isn't anything revealing. In fact, the "America is a horrid country" was far more common, in my circles at the time, than any swells of patriotism.

As for repeating the past: What incidents? Iraq War? Cold War? Civil War? Is gay the new black (it isn't)? Can't go back to the oppressive 1950s (though no accounts of how horrid it was ever surfaced in my experience)? Seriously, what past? What specific time and what specific attitude?

I'll guess, again. I'll guess that Ms. Grey wants no wars. That "human rights" means abortion on demand & "Miss Independent" as opposed to the 1950s (apparently that decade was horrible decade for women), same sex "marriages" (gay "is" the new black), that there would be no (negative) judgments ("Don't you judge me for my poor life decisions and my sleeping around!), that America, as a whole, would be much more like Europe socially as opposed to its current boring and conservative self (ask comedian Russell Brand who think s MSNBC is conservative.)

It's the same BS emotive talk that modernists use ever single time an "injustice" happens.  

It would've been interesting if any of the students or parents said that implementing patriotic materials would be propaganda. I think that would be an interesting discussion. They'd have a far more solid case for the bitching and "power to the people" if they came at it from that angle.

This also brings up what should be taught in schools -- I read (somewhere, too lazy to track and link the sources) that the state of Massachusetts started to promote homosexuality as a normal thing to kids in elementary schools. I know that the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) pushed for sex education starting at preschool, or at least some sort of sexual "education." Because, ya know, when I was in preschool I wanted to penetrate little Susie and we'd hold each other after a heated role in the sack behind the sandbox as she smoked weed in her afterglow. (I'm kidding.) 

 These are the times where I'm thankful I did not attend a public school.

Here's a new tactic to gain SS"M" supporters ...

Just say you're a homosexual or bisexual (even if you're neither one) to your family members and friends, and BOOM, a handful of converts to the cause of "equality." It works even better if you're a Catholic because then the LGBT activists will say "See! Even Catholics stand against the Church on this teaching!"

It worked with an Ohio state senator when his son came out to him.

The inspiration of this post comes from this thread. I generally like Catholic Answers Forum (CAF); there's some very knowledgeable posters. but sometimes it's eye roll worth inducing.

Some gems (just from the first two pages) from the thread:

 The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it's not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs' teaching on this. At least I know that I'm far from alone in this struggle!

and

They [gays] can only be married in the Church by denying who they are and marrying someone of the opposite sex. Life is too short to go down this road.

the funny one (I thought so)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I bet there's more.

I'm aware that practicing Catholics will disagree on several of teachings - that is to be expected - but what gets me is that some of the posters within the thread who do support SS"M" really never proposed an argument on why such an extreme view of marriage (to traditionalists) is a sound & "right" way view of marriage. Why letting two people of the same sex is considered a "right"? Why they [supporters], besides emotive reasons, shrug their shoulders in a "What's the big deal?" way when they can't wrap their heads around the RCC position on marriage?

One of the main things that distinguishes the RCC from, say, progressive Protestant sects is that it never budges on its stances. If the RCC said "Okay, we were wrong on marriage being between one man & one woman. Letting two consenting adults, regardless of sex, wed each other is totally fine and the world will continue to spin and one day we'll just laugh at this silliness," then it wouldn't really  be the RCC.

Same sex "marriage" would be the bullet hole in a plane. The plane would lose its cabin pressure, lose altitude and crash. I'm astounded by modern day/liberal Catholics who support same-sex "marriage" and say "But we're still Catholic!" Sure you are, but you're helping make an otherwise stigmatized religion into a stigmatized religion that's eating itself from the inside. *slow clap*

Please, return your BA & MA degrees. Your education has failed you.

*I use to be a same-sex "marriage" advocate, so it's not like I'm coming at this from a "homophobic, bigoted and ignorant" stance. I've been there, I've done that (that being a has-been advocate).

Follow Your Dreams...Eh, Not So Fast.

I'm not sure if "follow your dreams" is a new slogan. What I'm sure about is that it, and other slogans like it like #YOLO, "do what makes you happy", have been the cry for a certain set of people. They're either one of the following:

a. A person who blogs full time and "is his own boss" - mostly blogs about fashion, food, travel or movies

b. a person wanting to have a career in the entertainment world - be it an actor, singer or dancer

or

c. a person who gains money from making YouTube videos - mostly reviewing beauty products, electronics or clothes (e.g. sneakers)

And there's the fitness YouTube people (whom I'd put in a.) who probably opened up their own gym, and now are giving advice on the biomechanics of doing a skull crusher.

What do all three have in common? All are unconventional jobs and all intersect at the "Me!"

It's without fail. Go on a YouTube vid about some celebrity giving a commencement speach and the combox is filled with this sh*t. Usually the (celebrity) speaker is going on about "Haterz gonna hate" or "You're gonna change the world!"

I was watching one channel were the guy went on a tangent how he was self-sufficient at the age of 13, that no one gave him any money and that he was homeless once. What was his "job"? Reviewing sneakers. He was a "sneaker head." And this was a video about "How to find cheap sneakers." 

Look, I'm genuinely glad that he survived his homeless period and is now financially stable. 

Another channel was a weight lifting channel. The host seems sorta intelligent, but ALWAYS goes on a tangent that he tries to make philosophical even though he fails every time. It is clear he is reading too many New Age BS books or some humanistic philosophers.

The people who bake & cook: I don't have much to say about them because they really just stick to their channel's theme without any modern day self-masturbation. They just want to make awesome cookies filled with sugar and dinners filled with carbs. I like them for this. It's like a consolation prize for not making it on the Food Network. Good for them.

Do people in corporate say "follow your dreams"? Not that I'm aware of. They're professionals. Do people in the medical field say "follow your dreams"? Not that I'm aware of. They're too busy saving lives and telling aspiring medical students to get straight As and to not f_ck up on the MCATS. Do people who work in construction, or any "we make stuff" vocation, say "follow your dreams"? Not that I'm aware of. They're too busy actually fixing & making things, while looking out for the apprentice so he doesn't cut off his hand. How about those who enter religious life? Not that I -- Yea you get it.

People who want to make a living making YouTube videos or want to enter the entertainment world? All. The. Damn. Time.

All The Damn Time.

If you're entering the entertainment field it will be filled with personality disorders, narcissism and massive insecurities. You're going to have a self-esteem booster "when the world gets you down"; cause, ya know, it's always the world's fault. Be prepared for the "Us vs Them" card being pulled as well. 

"Man, the world doesn't get us."

"It's about what you feel and what your gut tells you."

"Thank god for us artists; the world would be such a dreary place." (Film director Steven Soderbergh said something like this in his Oscar speech)

People who are in front of a camera, or careers that are about 'expression', tend to wear this slogan on their sleeve (if the moment is right). Everyone thinks they're the next Madonna, Audrey Hepburn or whatever art icon. I don't think they want to be "that famous and so and so" -  I think they genuinely believe that they possess some sort of unique talent that all 'normal' people don't have, or some sort of courage that is absent in all the 'average' people. 

  

They don't like average or normal (which doesn't mean mediocre, contrary to popular belief) so they scoot away from it because it's "above them." This leads to bizarre contempt for middle America. 

The least obnoxious situation I can think of are the people on America's Got Talent. The current season finalists are not only entertaining, but also quite talented. Realistically, every single one of them won't have a a career in their chosen specialty, but it's a chance for them to literally shine (without doing rather degrading acts for "art"). After the show life goes on for them. 

UPDATED: A few more thoughts added on and grammatical errors corrected. 

Politicians vs Entertainers

When Mitt Romney was secretly taped for saying "the 47%" and was accused of bullying a high school classmate (who supposedly happen to be gay, how convenient) people went ape sh*t. By "people" I mean all his detractors  (those struggling financially, those who think he was a WASP, the LGBT lobby, Mexicans and blacks), the press and most of the entertainment industry. He was the most evil, most despicable man in their eyes.

When it was learned that Obama smoked weed in college he was deemed as cool. When Romney created jobs it was seen as 'boring' or not really note worthy.  

Now, compare that to entertainers. They can have affairs, they can partake in explicit scenes in film, they can twerk and stick their tongue out while wearing a hideous costume, yet the media, most likely, will A-OKAY them. These types of things are "normal." If an entertainer does find himself receiving criticism, he'll be seen as maligned and misunderstood.

I would guess many under the age of 25 look up to entertainers (I never did), so whenever their favorite entertainer gets stuck in a sticky situation they'd make excuses for them and help portray them as victims of the masses/mob. (It's not like the mob showed up at their front steps and demanded any apologies.) So if it ain't the "the greedy white CEOs" fault, or the Wall Street banker, it's the "the masses" fault.

I would take this is a way of the press, the entertainment world and its admirers admitting that all things aren't equal. What a bizarre way of admitting such a thing.

If entertainers "inspire" millions worldwide, wouldn't that indirectly hold them to a higher standard? It would be rare for a person to look up to a politician as they do an entertainer (if you're that type of person); certainly politicians are looked in a very low light, yet politicians are the ones who practically run the country (with the aided of entertainers endorsing certain social causes). 

Modernity doesn't like A) all the normal people B) rich white "square" guys.

And I'm not white.

I said quietly to myself, back in, oh I don't know, 2004-5, "Being a white, (socially) conservative guy in America must suck."This was when I was all liberal and stupid.

Victim Mentality Back in Early 2000s

In the last post I said forums were a gold mine of modernity. It's also a gold mine of bitterness.

I was reading tv host Pat Sajak's commencement speech entitled "The Disconnect Between Hollywood and America" to a graduating class at Hillsdale College in 2002. It's a good speech; I liked it. Though it was made over a decade ago I believe it still holds strong in its convictions and (accurate) accusations.

I googled it to get some responses, not fishing or snooping for any negatives, but to just get some thoughts on it. A link led to a U2 fansite forum. I quickly read some responses, but one particular user stood out:

It would come to no surprise that whatever the poster heard of Hillsdale College was blatantly negative and the usual "right wing crazy" BS that is the norm amongst more political knowledgeable non-conservatives.  

I've noticed that non-conservatives, at least those non-conservatives who seem to know about niche conservative institutions, seem to hold unusual disdain for such things. I didn't know Bob Jones University existed until a classmate of mine did a quick "info" presentation about it in one of our classes (I did the University of Chicago). Whatever conservative publication or institution or "not the usual" conservative" is receiving waves in the conservative world, modernity will find out about it, zero in, and try its best to disparage it. They did it with Thomas Sowell. They did it with Mia Long.

Honestly, knowing about Hillsdale College, unless the poster has some background with it, and speaking about it in that way is just creepy. More people know about Brown University and its overtly liberal atmosphere than Hillsdale, yet when people talk about it there's no where near the contempt for it (if any) as shown by that one poster when talking about a tiny (conservative) college in the Midwest. Its existence just angers him. 

I remember reading on another forum when a poster wanted suggestions for political journals, or something of that matter, and  one response suggested  City Journal. City Journal has a conservative outlook. The poster that responded to that suggestion showed great anger over it. It came across as something very personal. I, too, experienced something similar. I was on a site dedicated to fashion and the topic was suggesting a magazine/newspaper subscription as an "alternative gift" idea for your husband or boyfriend. In the combox, people listed NYT and poetry magazines like Granta and Paris Review. For the most part, all decent suggestions. Then I suggested the WSJ amongst others, like Harper's. Let's just say it wasn't met with warmth. I was then later accused of being biased, when defending WSJ, and accused of "making it political."

What's amusing is that poster "melon" seems to believe that Hollywood is constantly under attack by ... I don't know who. I guess when people like Sajak accuse the entertainment world for belittling middle America it doesn't sit too well with the melon's of the world. Unless the things Sajak said about the industry were false or misconstrued to fit his narrative (which isn't the case), I see don't see Sajak's speech as "out of line."

The complaint just comes across as butthurt. What's also amusing is that the poster dismisses Sajak's speech (I'm not sure if he comprehended it fully) on grounds that the man is upset his politics are the minority in his industry (to tone I get isn't of a man upset; the gist of the speech is captured in the title alone and that's what Sajak concentrates on) and later goes on to complain about "Christian bigotry" (with no examples). This stuff irks him.

Sajak did confess on a Hoover Institute interview that he has friends of indescribable income (in the entertainment world) and "high places", and that he is constantly surrounded by liberals when he goes to work, so the the poster's suggestion for Sajak to do some "outside venturing" is not needed since his work environment is that "outside venturing."

Let's Have An Outing

I'm on a spree today. I need to get my thoughts on this written down because I've been meaning to talk about it.

"I have no right to 'out' him," is commonly used when a person's sexuality is in question - specifically if there are rumors or speculation if a person is 'dating' their own sex. It is said that it is the person's right to choose a place & time, and to whom, to "come out of the closet."

Wouldn't that, in a healthy society and in a healthy morally straight mind, be a sign that same sex attraction may not be "right" in the first place, whether you strictly go for your own sex or you're bi?

It's like feeling awkward when dancing. If you feel awkward most likely you do look awkward. Or maybe something doesn't seem "right" and, indeed, it may not be "right." I'm going with 'feelings' here because people will justify any romantic/sexual relationship based on their feelings.

The initial "I feel different" should be a sign - not a positive one. The having to "come out" should be a sign that being attracted to your own sex, exclusively or not, that it most likely isn't healthy, but deviant (not in the 'rebellious' or 'cool' way).

It's like seeing dark clouds ahead when sailing and your skipper says "It's alright. We'll be fine. We'll stay out at sea; in fact we'll go directly into the storm."

"But captain, I have a feeling th - "  

"Nah. You're wrong. All shall be fine."

Enter a white squall.

Many will say that the reason people of non straight sexual orientation need to "come out" is because they are being sexual oppressed based on society's bigoted norms. I don't believe that's entirely accurate. People say there are laws banning homosexuals from work (BSA doesn't count), but not even the media, of all the institutions, picked up on any firing because a person was a homosexual. You know what was picked up by the media? The Matthew Shepard case which was deemed false in its convictions that the young man was killed due to his sexuality. He meddled in drug and gay scene in his hometown where he eventually met his killer. How about that waitress not being tipped because she was a lesbian - the customers leaving a hurtful note as a "tip"? False. She made the story up.

The only thing, currently, that is actually discriminating against those who are attracted to their own sex, is traditional marriage. In fact, not even. If the state hasn't already allowed same-sex "marriage", the "bigoted" way of marriage has one requirement: The consent must be between a man and a woman. There is no mention on whether the two parties need to in love (they could lie about it) or to be straight. Either the man and/or woman could be bi, or both could be bi, or one of the parties be a homosexual and the other bi, or one straight and the other gay. You get it. One man & one woman. Yiou can "have fun" with the sexualities and mix and match.

Despite same-sex "marriage" being made into law, state by state, there still seems to be indignation from those who advocate for LGBT "rights." In probably the most ethnically diverse and socially liberal state, California, there still seems the need for people to "come out" of the closet. There are award banquets for LGBT "rights" advocates and those who are straight are dubbed "allies", or otherwise known as "A" in the now ever expanding LGBTAQWhatever alphabet.   

We then have "confessions" by people who say that all their gay friends are the most happiest people they know. Well isn't that convenient. Here's my confession: Most of the gays I know are either insecure about their sexuality and feel like victims (even though they were never actually bullied because of their sexuality). Right across my fraternity meeting there was a "support" group for LGBT kids. I only know two homosexuals who I'd say were comfortable with their sexuality: The president of my fraternity and one of my roommates. 

One can argue that, like poor blacks, the LGBT are the way they are (besides "being born that way") is because of oppression and, as mentioned before, bigoted societal norms.

I'll agree that the LGBT aren't anywhere near mainstream (though slowly becoming mainstream) and that, naturally, a male & female relationship is the norm. That's the way most LGBT kids & adults were raised in. How did you come into existence?

"My mom & dad had sex and then nine months later, after my mom decided to not abort me, I was born."

Ain't rocket science.

Now take this situation:

"My mom & mom (or dad & dad) decided they wanted to 'have' kids together. My biological mother is from India. It was the cheapest surrogate they could find. My 'brother' is actually from my (other) dad's previous relationship with a woman. They split time with each other." 

If being bisexual or homosexual is "totally normal" then there would be any need to "come out." Right? That non-straight person wouldn't feel all insecure. They'd just 'be.'  But that's not reality. How many homosexuals and bis, when they were fully aware of their attraction, thought "No big deal. I'm so asking Jimmy out tonight. He looks totally hot in his shorts. Margaret better not steal him away from me!" Probably very few.

One thing's for sure: Whether it's 2 or 5%, or 10%, or any number between, those who fall under any LGBT letter are a minority. Their attractions are deviant from the rest of the 90%. This isn't "You're in the minority with your views, GRA." That might me so, but views can be changed - be it for gay "rights" or against such a fictitious concept.

All the broken hearts in the world still beat/
Let's not make it harder than it has to be/
Ohh, it's all the same thing/
Girls chase boys chase girls/
- Ingrid Michaelson, "Girls Chase Boys"

(The music video was a bit weird and one could mistake it for pro-gay "rights" - which, if one watched it, wasn't about gay "rights.")
-

Combox #5: Youtube

James Franco is in a movie called Palo Alto. In it he plays a high school teacher who enters in a personal relationship with a student played by Emma Roberts. Within the trailer combox I found this little gem:

Why don't we add in legalizing marijuana by fiat as well (even though one of the latest mass shootings happened in SoCal where the drug is counted as "medical" marijuana) cause, ya know, if only the shooter could just relax and be all chill and enjoy the moment. 

What poster HipDubHopStep indirectly expresses is nothing but assumptions and wild generalizations (that when compared to Europe, America is less responsible) driven, I guess, by what he sees and hears through the media. Since there isn't news of shootings in Europe, the alcohol & sex attitudes must be the reason why; that American are too "hung up" and too prude, hence the shootings.

Such mass shootings can't possibly be due to peer alienation, mental disorders or poor ethnic & home culture that aids into one picking up a gun and doing the nasty. Oh no. It's the higher age of legal adults (18 in the States, so just another two-three year difference when compared to certain European countries) and the higher drinking age restriction (by just three years) that causes inner city crime and school shootings.

And this (same thread of discussion) -

Just gotta hump that tight little buttocks. That belongs to a 16 year old.

Wait, didn't professional gymnast McKayla Maroney say her nude selfies (fake? not fake?) were taken while she was underage? If only the age of legal consent was 16, the hacker would be out of the clear.  

I don't know where these posters are from. They could be American; they could be not. Whatever nationality they are they are dumb as rocks and admit to having little to no morals (yea, I know, "Shut the f_ck up you moralist!"), falling nicely into the amoral camp.

Forums are a gold mine of modernity.

Rated PG-13 for vulgar language. 

This small segment on imdb discussing actress' Jennifer Lawrence's hacked pictures:

Why would anyone take a nude selfie and save it on an iCloud? Heck, why would anyone take a nude selfie in the first place unless they're vain enough?

 which was followed by

 Many reasons why someone would take a nude selfie...for themselves, because they feel good in that moment; for their partner; to document weight loss; because they freakin want to. But...that is entirely not the issue. A person's private sex life is a person's private sex life, and they are entitled to do what they want without you casting judgment on it; especially in this case since these are photos that she did not intend to be made private.

Anyway, how would this affect her status at all? Did people really not think that a beautiful 20-something did not have a sex life? That she did not have an erotic side to her? These photos are just evidence of something that is as self-evident that she brushes her teeth, eats in the morning, etc. I really don't think these will be an issue... if anything she will be more famous.

The worst she will have to face is to be the butt of a couple of jokes for a couple months... but after Mockingjay 1 comes out and this issue is rehashed a bit nobody will give a crap.

You got to be kidding me. Nope. It's modernity speaking.  Thou Shall Not Judge Others Sex Lives. But modernity judges what car one drives (whether it's eco friendly or not), if one supports certain social issues (homosexual "marriage" or ASL Ice Bucket Challenge) or if one cares about starving kids in Africa. If you express anything less than support you're labeled a "hater."

Anything sexually related?  Off hands. Except for pedophilia and other deviant behaviors, but that's another topic all together. So, modernists want traditionalists - or those that are critical of the act - to cast no judgement and render the critics into a bag of potatoes when discussing personal sexual matters, whether they be sex acts or vanity pics like nude selfies yet they want support for thing like "equal rights" for homosexuals and bisexuals, support "pro-choice" and go "YOU GO GIRL!" when a woman flaunts her sexuality or react in a way that's akin to "This is totally normal. What's the big deal here?" Commenting on what happens in the bedroom is a no no, but traditionalists have to support whatever happens in a bedroom in the name of "equality" and the ideal state of being "non-judgmental." Neutrality is indirect support, since the liberalism feeds off neutrality if support is not directly given.

F_ck that sh*t. I'm gonna judge away. You ain't gonna stop me from being opinionated, as I can't really stop one from taking a nude selfie or engaging in other juvenile acts in disguise of "maturity."

Now it's interesting that the word used to defend such things, nude selfies, is "entitled." Like one deserves such an action to freely do, like they accomplished something and that's their reward - a nude selfie. If the person is going to take a nude seflie I can't stop them unless they're right beside me or texts me saying "Hey, GRA, I'm gonna take naked picture of myself." In fact, whether one is "entitled" to do such an act is besides the point. It's whether one should do it in the first place. Of course, like the second poster explains, there are various reasons take such a picture (all the weight loss pictures I've seen, the ones in google's "image" tab were all showing clothed people, so nude selfies to show weight loss are probably in the minority); but just because you "have a reason" - whatever that may be - doesn't mean one should do it. It's like wanting to punch someone.

If I'm being provoked and my temper gets the best of me, and I physically harm that provoker, would I be in the right of punching him? No. Though one can understand why I punched him, that does not mean the action I took was wise or appropriate. The person assessing the situation would  be right in saying that my action was a poor judgement on my part, that I should've practiced more restraint. Here's the thing: If that's all the person says, without damning my soul to hell, then I, hopefully, would take the criticism maturely and think to myself "You're right. I shouldn't have done such a thing even though the provoker was out of like in his actions as well." Accountability is what's lacking.

Another interesting thing the defender notes: The poster, obviously a fan of the actress, admits to a common tactic that many (extreme) fanboys use. Anything controversial that puts the actor in a negative light is dealt in a very "Don't worry guys, this all will go away with time." He also spins it into a positive light, that once it's all over that she'll more famous for it because it's another "natural" thing a 20 year old would do. So in the end, she wins. And the fans win.

I find this attitude that the defender holds both pathetic and sickening. It perfectly speaks about the mentality of opportunists (the fan in this case) squeezing whatever they can get from an initially controversial topic. In a way it's making lemonade out of lemons, but this sort of lemonade I wouldn't want to drink let alone be proud of.

If you're fan of any actor and if they get caught in some questionable acts, don't worry. As long as they become more famous because of it you're A-OKAY. I wonder if O.J. Simpson admires followed the same attitude? Okay, that was an extreme comparison. But I wonder ..

Upon thinking about what the poster stated, the towards the end of the first paragraph, it also shows that today it is natural to assume that any attractive 20 year old is sexually active. An attractive virgin? That's messed up. An attractive chaste 20-something year old? Unheard of. Honey, you need to get your hips pumping & slappin' skin by midnight tonight. Author John C. Wright touched upon this.

In modern times, it is being cultivated to not assume that a stranger is straight. If I found a member of the opposite sex attractive, muster up the courage to talk them and maybe ask then out for lunch or coffee, I'd most likely be held as inconsiderate & ignorant if I thought that person was straight. The person maybe bi or a homosexual. What's totally okay to assume is if that person we are attracted to is sexually active.

So take note: Okay - assume that an attractive person is sexually active. Not Okay - assume a given person is straight.

(OT: Film actors are pretty much the most protected class of people in America right now, besides homosexuals and illegal immigrants. A 12 year old child growing up in a middle class home has more accountability than film actors.)

 It gets even more pathetic. Mary Anne Franks, from the NY Daily News, states:

The suggestion that the female celebrities whose private nude photos were hacked are somehow at fault is false; they have been deprived of dignity and equality. The law must be reformed to make invasions of sexual privacy punishable.

Is this another war on women? I'm surprised I didn't come across someone saying this.

An interesting use of words: Dignity and equality. Setting up the narrative of "girl power in the face of social injustice" I see. Too bad I'm not buying it.

And another reformed law in order to cater to such incidents? This is coming very close to reforming traditional marriage in order to accommodate same-sex pairings. 

Libertines are fiercely protective of their sex lives when it comes from outside judgement, but they are fiercely comfortable in showing their sexuality and saying "Take me as I am!"

This all looks like "blaming the victim." I won't disagree with that. I am putting responsibility on Lawrence's shoulders, but not all. I do believe that cloud systems, in which the pictures were hacked from, should be more solid in their user's privacy. I do think the hacker should be jailed & fined. I do think it's unfortunate that all these young women were exposed this way (100+ celebrities). But, like the hacker, actions have consequences, whether it's good or bad or a mixture. My sympathy is hard to get and to distribute to the parties involved.

What I can't help but laugh if this happened to 100+ politicians. They would be crucified by the media - not protected like the celebrities in painting them as complete innocents and getting the freakin' FBI involved.  It won't be just talked about in political magazines or political circles - it would be discussed in the morning news, in the evening news and comedians would be all over any Republicans (not that I'd defend them). It be like a Sarah Palin Media Frenzy.

What I like about this issue is that it branches into several topics: privacy in general. actions & consequences, perverts and fanboys. It is a topic that reflects modernity and its mentality.  

Now, do I think Miss Lawrence is a bad person? No. Do I think she's a slut? I don't know since I don't know if she sleeps around with other people. Do I think she's a good role model? She never entered such a category, in my mind, even before this incident, though I do like how she doesn't take PETA seriously (yet).

UPDATE: Some responses having the 'This wouldn't be a big deal ... " mentality suggest that if nudity wasn't seen as socially immoral then this incident - nude selfies being hacked - wouldn't garner the current media attention. Again, this reminds me of people saying "If people saw gays like 'everyone else' (as in "married", raising kids etc.) they would be in favor of marriage "equality."' It's all about stripping away the social stigmas & taboos when it comes to anything sexually related, really.

The late Lawrence Auster commented on modernity's romance with body art. I find this entry (alongside the comments talking about plastic surgery) very appropriate with the 'art' of selfies. At first, selfies were seen as vain actions. It started with the 'duck face' and now has evolved into nude selfies, with maybe the 'duck face' smacked on the face of the photographer. Now, they're seen as normal actions done by anyone under 25. The next step is releasing nudity from any stigmas so nude selfies would be met with no negative reaction and, as the imdb poster notes above, be seen in a healthy light. (But what if the girl isn't as attractive as Lawrence?)