Artists vs. "Old Navy Exec"

So-called artists are resorting to twitter to express their disdain for a couple of Old Navy toddler shirts encouraging the tiny ones to become astronauts, the next President or some other occupation besides an artist. The horror. Personally, I don't find it offensive and I consider myself artistically inclined. Here's the items that are causing butt-hurt all over the hearts of "artists":

Here's a comeback from an "artist" -

It's a silly comeback because it's clearly a backlash towards "the suits" and it shows the pathetic caricature that "artists" have when thinking about "the suits." Also, I was expecting a more interesting font since this was a response by a professional artist. It's awfully plain looking.

"I'm an artist. I don't cheat people out of money and I know what it mean to be 'human'!"

The shirts were deemed offensive and disrespectful. The anger become so great that Old Navy hase decided to discontinue them.

A similar incident, a day after Memorial Day, when PacSun displayed a shirt with an upside down American flag. Now this I fully understand the outrage for - it's highly idiotic to not display the flag in its correct manner aka not upside down, especially during a week devoted to remembering deceased military men/women. It's like putting the a crucifix upside down after Christmas. I understand hanging the American flag incorrectly, with the stars to the left instead of the right, as an honest mistake but an upside down flag? Yea, I bet an "artist" though it would be a cool/edgy thing to do.

The outrage that these shirts inspired makes me recall the outrage displayed on Yale's campus over an email response saying that students should be deemed responsible for their own costume awareness. Let's just say people had a meltdown and it was embarrassing to those that aren't psychologically and emotionally infantile.

Even better, the outrage is very much the "cousin" of the irritation showed when Marco Rubio said that the USA needed more welders and less philosophers. Again, I am more inclined towards the arts and I studied philosophy during my undergraduate years. I was not offended and I perfectly understood what Rubio was trying to convey. Apparently other degree holders of the liberal arts did not interpret what I interpreted as they delved into self-importance, which isn't too surprising given the modern health of the disciplines that make up the humanities and social sciences.

What I want to know if an Old Navy executive approved of this t-shirt. I want to know because if it wasn't an MBA executive, it's just a blind attack on corporate by mushy brained "artists." An "artist" probably made this print so in a way it could be self-deprecating. Many artists will probably say, "Why would one of ours do such a thing?" Why  not? What replaced the word artist were occupations that are looked upon as highly impressive in today's society. An astronaut. A country's president. Even becoming a company's executive is impressive since it takes years to reach that level.

Yes, the world needs artists. The world also needs astronauts and presidents. The world needs welders as well as philosophers.

As stated before, I'm not offended by these t-shirts and if I were an Old Navy executive deciding whether or not to pull these shirts, I wouldn't. I'd say, "These weren't meant to be offensive. Deal with it. Your occupation isn't sacred and no one's taking your occupation away from you. We're trying to inspire, so stop being a toddler."

Banned from Red State.

According to the writer I was being an ass (hence the motivation of my last post.) I tried to post this on a separate article which earned my ban and got this message.

The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."

I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.

So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.

A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.

It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.

Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.

From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.

Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.

Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.

The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.

I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that  explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.

Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:

I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.

I sorta don't care.

I sorta don't care if you think I'm being an ass if we talk politics. I know I'm right. So, in the end, even if the policy swings to your side of history - you can't debase what I propose and say. And you know deep down I'm right even if I lose the decision.

One's Status According to Modernity.

I've always enjoyed The Art of Manliness website, mainly managed by Brett McKay. Today I came upon a fine article about how to build status (not necessarily monetary or celebrity-wise) within one's community. Ya know, for the Average Joe who isn't in the entertainment business, a state senator, or making bennies in i-banking.

Here's a snippet -

For the last few months, we’ve been discussing the complex nature of status — an individual’s position within a group of people and how much approbation, respect, recognition, and attention he or she receives from others.

We’ve talked about the fact that status encompasses way more than wealth, and can constitute anything and everything that offers others some kind of value. It can be linked to our physical appearance, skills, fitness, intelligence, insights, creativity, personality traits, social connections, and even the ability to find and share information. Status gains and losses are thus not only felt in the size of one’s bank account, but whether or not people laugh at your jokes, compliment your appearance, like your social media posts, respond to your texts, invite you to a party, envy your cool vacation or job, admire your integrity or resilience, seek your advice, think you’ve got great taste in music or books — and in a thousand other ways.

We’ve shown that because the traits and behaviors that different groups value can vary, status is relative and context specific; you can have high status in one group, but low status in another.
We’ve demonstrated that men are more sensitive to status losses and gains than women, and that the status drive is hardly a mere cultural construct, but rather is deeply rooted in our very physiology. Status defeats and wins in fact affect nearly every system of the body, and intensely activate our neurocircuitry.

The series, linked above, is sobering for those that have been pompous and insufferable due to status success and  a wake-up call to anyone who has been slacking.

Chreasters

I can tell whether or not someone's a Chreaster.

They can have an apathetic look on their face,  if not a "why the fuck am I here?" face. They wear a beanie inside when locks of their hair are poking out underneath. They seem a bit confused on when to sit, kneel and stand. And the Big Kahuna: They have little clue on how to receive the host.

At my parish the guys are standing awkwardly,  a little uneased,  as if they know they're in an environment that's foreign to them. Usually they're there with the girlfriend to make her happy and not embarrass her in front of her parents who are Sunday church goers. Awkward.

This isn't judgmental of me. It's strict observational practice. And I find it always amusing.

Lyrics: Hide Away

Daya, an American pop singer, released a single in August 2015 called "Hide Away."

What's striking about this song is the lyrics which calls for "decent" boys and sexual restraint, at least on the first couple of dates. Nowadays that's a rarity. Here are the words.

Boys seem to like the girls who laugh at anything
The ones who get undressed before the second date
Girls seem to like the boys who don't appreciate
all the money and the time that it takes
to be fly as a mother
Got my both eyes out for Mr Right
Yeah, see I just don't know where to find them
but I hope they all come out tonight

Where do the good boys go to hide away, hide away
I'm a good, good girl who needs a little company
Looking high and low, someone hardly know
Where do the good boys go to hide away, hide away

Boys seem to like the girls who like to kiss and tell;
Talking them up about things that do so well
I want to find a boy who is down for the chase
putting in the time that it takes
To be fly as a mother
To supply all of my hearts amends
Suit and tie 'cause undercover
He's gonna save a life like superman

In the music video the dads are portrayed as overprotective, but in a funny and lovable way.

The "Where do the good boys to hide away, hide away," part can mean two different things. The first, the audience can reason that the boys are driven away from the dads who chase away boys they deem unworthy - or just any boy in general in order to shield their baby girl. The second interpretation, without the visuals, is literally. Daya is upset that modern dating has devolved into a give-and-take where if you want to "get it," you can "get it," that it's just a matter of finding someone willing to shed their clothes, open their legs and open their mouth for the member. I'd even say that this critical look at dating has a sense yearning for "the good old days" where women, though 'chased' after, found men who courted their possible life partner. Their 'invisible chastity' belt was their dignity and self-respect, all with the aid of social norms.

I'll also commend the music video for being quite uneventful. There wasn't any make-out scenes with tongues intertwined. No implied sex or nudity. It just featured a girl going out on the date (hopefully not ruined by the overprotective dads) and enjoying herself. Food. Bowling. A pool party where the swimmers keep swimsuits on, just enjoying each others company and their youth. It's the fathers that worry.

The line -

Girls seem to like the boys who don't appreciate
all the money and the time that it takes
to be fly as a mother

 reverberates with me. In the past couple few years I'm gotten into men's style. Though the lyrics tell about the effort to get ready for a date sartorially, which I think it's safe to say everyone does, I'm wondering about our everyday dress when not at work. In some circles jeans are a no-no, like the trad/ivy circle. The trad/ivy circle is seen as conservative dress to the likes of the more metrosexual GQ circles. I like what both have to offer since I don't consider myself belonging to one group for personal style. Fitting jeans that aren't baggy; wearing a button-down with the right length (wearing a dress shirt as a casual shirt, untuck, is sloppy; wearing sneakers on certain occasions and opting for brogues instead etc. are just some of the things I've "upgraded" to since I graduated from college where my style was an eyesore (a dear miss kindly said she was glad I ditched my pre-distressed baggy jeans after we met up a year after graduation).

Within a society whose moral standards haven't actually progressed, but devolved, and where dress standards have also gone south, I am pleased to know this song exists. It touches on a couple of issues that have been in my mind for quite some time.

Of course I'd support it. How could I not?

Do college Democrats actual know the underlying philosophy and details of the stances of which they support and advocate? I don't think they do. If they do, it's a superficial understanding.

How about college Republicans? I have the same concern, but less so. This group tends to know why they support a certain issue and a certain candidate beyond the simple bullet points. There's a deeper understanding of the concepts of the issues they oppose.

Why is this? I think it's because college campuses are highly liberal places. Expressing thoughts that are deemed "anti-woman" and homophobic or anti-gay are quickly squashed -- not because such thoughts are thoughtfully refuted, but because the zeitgeist carries them unto victory. It's intimidation.

What are these stances that are deemed anti-woman, homophobic and anti-gay stances? Not supporting a women's "choice" is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that women are more natural caregivers is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that there are prominent physical, emotional and psychological differences between a man and a woman is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that modern day feminism is a sham is anti-woman. Thinking that a woman who engages in casual sex, and them thinking nothing of it, is unattractive is deemed anti-woman.

Let's move on to supposed homophobic or "anti-gay." If you think same-sex acts are wrong and unnatural then you're called a homophobe. If you do not support same-sex "marriage" you are chastised. If you believe that having same-sex attraction is a disorder, and that nothing about it is okay or beautiful, you are labeled a bigot. Accusations of being narrow minded, unintelligent and redneckish shall be in full force.

Never mind the philosophy behind these views. Those that disagree with you might want to hear about it, but often times they fail to fully grasp the concepts presented even when they do. Why is this? That's another issue that should be talked about thoroughly. I suppose it's due to pride, arrogance, naivety and idealism. Add in smugness and how they were raised. It truly is not enough to "raise kids who don't harm anyone"; that's the bare minimum. It's like teaching your kid to write his full name or know his home number or his address.

New link.

The John Pope Center For Higher Education Policy, otherwise known simply as The Pope Center, has been added to link column.

The site publishes articles concerning political correctness and the decline, or "evolution," of higher education compared to days where disciplines like English wasn't completely politicized and Sociology had integrity. It looks as the SJW's and their grievances, scandals of various sorts that shame higher education to ideas that move away from the traditional classroom.

It is a worthwhile site because, depending on the subject of the article, it attracts the academics who think The Pope Center is the Fox News of online higher education sources. They just don't like it. It also gets lackeys of The Left out of the wood work as well.

The Pope Center's combox is a fine example of contempt and condescension of The Left. Here are the regular douches that share their "brilliancy":

Mike
DrOfnothing
Andrew J. Perrin (UNC Sociology professor)
Guest (I have a strong feeling this just one person)

The bridge is sound. It's made by Modernism.

Go ahead. It's like when Indiana Jones took a "leap of faith" in the Last Crusade.

Okay, not really.

Exhibit A

Jim: Anal sex may be gross at first, but don't knock it until you try it. You can actually make the anus feel like the vagina if you go at it enough times, and with enough lube; it's all about conditioning the rectal canal to open up in order to accommodate the penis.

John: So how about reusing your socks twice if your feet haven't perspired and if the socks aren't covered in dirt?

Jim: That's gross. I'd never do that.

Oh great, Muslim teenagers are the new LGBT victim group.

This wasn't said directly, but that's what I get from the "after show" of the Republican debate hosted by CNN.

Val Jones is saying that Muslim teenagers are victims, saying they're calling suicide prevention hotlines since they feel not welcomed in America. He goes on to say that Donald Trump and the GOP are broadcasting that one can only be a particular religion to be accepted.

Dear, Allah. I can't wait till "statistics" and stories that have Muslim kids being sent to the streets because of their religion. I. Cannot. Wait. It'll be true because the feels.

Conservative and cities.

Conservatives that you see in comboxes, when talking about urban issues, aren't "the best and the brightest" that The Right has to offer. They delve into emotional drivel like The Left who do this everyday when people oppose, say, illegal immigration or amnesty, or "progressive" social issues.

Take for example conservatives commenting on Chicago. Things like calling the city "Shitcagoland" do them no favors. It's like calling Michelle Obama, "Moochella", or Barack Obama "Obummer." It's empty headed an immensely juvenile. Calling Chicago a "dump" and predicting that it's the next Detroit shows their ignorance. This is not to say that Chicago cannot be the next Detroit, but given the diverse economy Chicago has over Detroit the analogy somewhat falters.

What rubs me the wrong way is the utter contempt of urban areas that combox conservatives show with bluntness. It's the same utter contempt that "progressives" (remember such people don't like labels, but I'll call them that anyways) for the suburb and small towns -- basically the vast majority of America. Both sides seem to be immune to actually reasonable, respectful discussion without resorting to cliche name calling (e.g. yokel, redneck). This is where people live, work and call home, so the hatred and bitterness compels me to think it's more of a psychological reaction to an easy target, something like Anti-Americanism that's alive in most of Europe.

The Right has their idiots like The Left. How to get them out of the woodwork? Mention any city, like LA (or just CA in general), Chicago or NYC. Everyday conservatives are less idiotic about cultural artwork, but they do have a tendency to prove the "neanderthal" jab. How to get the idiots on The Left to come out (no pun), just mention W. Bush, Sarah Palin and anything traditional in social views and they'll have hives over their bodies.

Besides, Roger Scruton, Roger Kimball,  the folk over at New Criterion, and Ben Shapiro, conservatives lack people that can call out fellow conservatives for being "bare bone" types. Utilitarianism and pragmatism has its place, lik doing the grunt work that makes cities and municipals function. The Right's lack of care to be urbane has hurt them. In order to fight The Left, a couple of shots of sophistication is needed. You don't need to drop the wrench or the gun, you just need to be willing to learn about classical beauty - whether that be in music, art galleries or performance art. Once you do you'll be that much prepared to battle The Left.

New links added

PJ Media and Frontpage Mag.

Both focus on conservative and libertarian perspectives on the latest political discourse.

Conspiracy theories with Thinking Housewife

A quick read-through through Thinking Housewife's posts concerning national shootings and bombings tells me she's a bit paranoid.

9/11: government did it.

Paris shootings/bombing: planned but not by extreme Islamists.

Sandy Hook: There's a book she's eyeing that was then down by Amazon and InfoWars called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.

Boston Marathon bombing: white mercenaries were part of it, not the two immigrant brothers.

San Bernardino shooting: see Boston Marathon bombing.

She thinks all of the massacres that were attributed to extreme Islamists are false and that something, not the original perpetrators, were behind it.

I wonder what she thinks of college shootings like Virginia Tech and NIU, or the infamous high school shooting, Columbine. She's bound to find some conspiracy.

As much as I admire her for analysis on Pope Francis,  her orthodoxy, and her advocacy for Wester civilization she's a Truther. A hoax believer.

Angry people, The Left are.

Today I was said to be the "definition of a dumbass, right-wing fuck."

Why? I didn't support the following:

feminists
manginas
SJW's
victimhood claiming  types (which can intersect between anything like feminists and SJW's)
LGBT activists and their supporters
communism/socialism sympathizers
modern leftists and their useful tools like liberals and left-leaning libertarians

So in order to not be a "dumbass, right-wing fuck" I'd probably need to support all of the above. But I don't.

Oh well, there are worst things in life than being a "dumbass, right-wing fuck." Like being a leftist.