Reddit's r/conservative is just a group of "I was born yesterday", socially libertarian at best and current issues (that bore people, like taxes).

It's September 11 today. The day when Al-Qaeda committed murder on American soil in NYC and DC.

On the subreddit that is r/conservative, when Queen Elizabeth died a thread with 700+ comments paid their condolences and even paid homage to the monarchy as they adulated the old British Empire.

Today, the amount of comments remembering 9/11 didn't even reach 100 as I write this. 

Hate-Following By Non-Republicans on Social Media: Tumblr, Media and Academia Made Millennials and Gen Z Hate The Privileged (And Republicans)

Because backwards politics on sex and sexuality, gender, race and whatever.

And something about privilege and them being (usually) white. 

Lately I've did some lazy binge watching on YouTube, just clicking on whatever pops up on my recommendation feed. A couple of channels were from wealthy young women who focused on what is called "lifestyle" - so everyday stuff, usually about travel and fashion. In general, to accumulate a following if you aren't doing anything that makes you stand out you most likely have to be pretty in order to get attention; this is no secret. A likable personality works in your favor too (fair enough). For example, if your channel is a mishmash of cooking and lifestyle (or food/fashion challenges) - all topics which have been done, but you aren't really good at either of them, then that's where looks and personality comes. Editing is godsend since that's like a college counselor making your otherwise bereft resume look like you're some all-star when you're really not. Anyways. 

If you're wealthy you do get more attention, but this attention is more of the envious kind. And this is where it gets interesting. This where "hate-following" comes in.

There were two young women that I quickly watched, one where after a few videos of quick skimming just didn't catch my interest enough to even care what she had to say; real quickly I did notice that she was privileged in the "travel and not really have a 'real' job'" sorta privilege way - living in NYC after college and was a model after high school. Modeling isn't really a longtime career for many who enter - usually it's a two or three years - and then sometimes they're attached to a similar industry for their annual income (whether acting or marketing or working at an agency). I wondered if anyone noticed the same thing, so naturally I googled this person with "reddit" attached to the search and found that, yes, other people had an opinion on her. And some of it was the usual SJW/Woke rhetoric.

"She's privileged."

"Most of her friends are not white."

"She tries to 'pass as white' despite only a quarter of her is Iranian!"

"Isn't it funny she's dating a Republican?" (I guess because she's part Iranian.)

"She keeps reminding people she was born in Paris. She's a missionary baby!"

Her parents apparently were Christian missionaries where she was born overseas, but if you were born overseas in that situation then it's less cool supposedly and "authentic" unlike, I dunno, being born to parents who are naturalized citizens of X or Y Western European country, where your mother was a ballet dancer and your father was socialist activist, and  you moved around every five or so years - some upbringing that some leftie artist or professor flexes about in their biography. 

On r/blogsnark, a reddit subreddit dedicated gossip about online personalities, a woman named Carly apparently did some collaboration with the Bush daughters (daughters of George W. Bush). This isn't cool in the predominately female, leftie leaning and thickheaded gossip followers that hang out in r/blogsnark. After this comment literally stupidness emerged and the can of worms of politics entered the chat. Some were defending the Bush sisters and their mother, saying they seem like reasonable people who acknowledge their "evil" father. Others were just plain delirious on the topic. One person recognized the insanity of it - where the insanity almost blamed them for their familial connection to GWB - and simply asked what in their mind they should do to appease them. As usual, like the college campus BLM demands, when asked what they want usually the demand is quite tame. In this the response was -

"They should at least distance themselves from their father."

Rather absurd. If you don't publicly denounce GWB then you're compliant in the questionable policies he has passed. 

You see, the histrionics of SJW/Leftie retards on the internet is quite impressive. They have a gift to ramble by compiling a novel of talking point after talking point, but, in reality, they don't hav much substance. They yell and throw a fit but once you ask a direct question like "well what do you want to happen?" they'll reply with a quiet "well you see if they just apologized and did this and that then that would be a start ... "

A mouse who acts like a lion.

These screen caps tell the story -

So I guess Democrats are cool parents where their kids get off scotch free. I mean, let's face it, Malia Obamas didn't get into Harvard purely on her academic and extracurricular brilliance. She got in because of who her parents were. Wouldn't be surprise if University of Michigan's acceptance for Sasha was in the bag too. But Obama was so cool and rad, despite doing drone strikes. Besides literally re-starting the racial tension we see today that made Democrat blacks in the Trump Era fragile. Ever read Michelle Obama's senior thesis while at Princeton? It was shit. 

Double standard. Paranoia. The typical douchebaggery from non-Republicans. 

I'm not a Republican, but this type of behavior isn't new. It's just amplified on the internet. In real life I know a few people who despise the fact that anyone they know is a Republican. One said she'd never date a Republican. This same person also came across as a person who knew every non-progressive NGO as if to keep on eye on them. Normal functioning humans, but their psychology is sorta kinda messed up when it comes to their own politics and anything that runs the opposite direction of it. It's a weird mix of a secular religion and tribalism. 

Bottomline: If you're anything remotely privileged in terms of wealth and upbringing where you travel, have nice clothes and have anything remotely conservative affiliated to your name (or in the case of Carly, associate with yourself with anything politically right-of-center), or you yourself are conservative as well you're going to be the target of many jealous and hateful young women. These same people will probably fawn over rich actors though who most likely have a career because of whom their parents are but hey, rich, white YouTube influences are just source of our problems in todays world, right? 

Hop on facebook and ye shall see the juvenile sophistication of liberals.

If you're on facebook, I suggest to subscribe to pages like NPR, National Review and TedTalks. National Review is a neocon site but it seems to be a prime target for liberals to voice their thoughts in the comment section, sort of like how FOX News is the prime target for every crazed liberal out there to shit on (not that I'm a fan of FOX News).

By doing this you'll get a very, very fine sample of the average liberal in the US of A. They say conservatives are nasty? Ha! That's what I say as an ex-liberal. 

Listen to Glenn because he's a CPA.

I spotted the following on my facebook feed this morning as I quickly scanned through the "facebook junk" (one of my friends lamented about Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement; it was a shallow lament, and the responses that followed were equally shallow) before starting my day. This was the original post that was posted by my peer regarding minimum wage:

Many pointed out it was flawed. It most likely is since it's a meme. But it wasn't the OP that stood out, it was the this response by a man named Glen:

Did you read what Kira wrote? I hope you did. Did you let it sink in? She talked about "basic economics" - sorta like common sense but not really, at least in her mind. I'm not sure what "American economic system" she was taught or read about because apparently, in her mind, the "American economic system" needs an unemployed class in order to function and at the same time the evils that are alive also don't want social programs that help these poor workers. Wait, I've seen this concept before. I find this rather ironic given what Glen said about memes. Kira implies that the American economic system relies on a poor working class as opposed to a more egalitarian economic system like, I don't know, Sweden maybe (I just threw in Sweden because that's the favorite country of many who use the vernacular and tone that Kira does). Let's move onto Glenn's post, a more involved post.

Glen states he has "facts" and by looking at his post he seems he has facts (just look at all those numbers!) but he doesn't. He has a hypothetical situation. Though Glen does most of the math correct he doesn't factor in how a higher minimum wage affects business owners, big and small. He just concentrates on how much milk a poor working class person can buy. This is ironic given the fact he stated he majored in business economics (do you really need a degree in business economics and be a CPA to do figure out the math? No). The biggest irony here is that he is irritated with original poster for posting a meme that supports her worldview (not supporting a higher minimum wage technically isn't a worldview ... but it is to Glen), saying it's a fallacy, all the while pulling the fallacy of authority. Now you should listen to me because I'm a CPA who majored in business economics. Okay, I'm listening. My question, Glenn, have you ever owned a business, and if so are you currently paying your employees the $15 minimum wage?

Of course, Glen's post started off with smugness and ended with arrogance. I got the facts and I have the credentials. Somewhere in between the "facts", which any person with a decent amount of arithmetic skills can perform, there probably is a strong argument for the positive affects of raising the minimum wage. How he goes about doing the math reminds of this scene in *Dave -

 

But the naive aren't aware that it isn't that simple. It truly isn't. It works on an individual level, yes, but federally this type of simplistic approach is juvenile.

If only we listened to CPA's, the "American economic system" would be something oh so much better than it currently is.

The original poster actually blushed when she read his post, admitting that he was an educated man but at least defended herself by stating about the effects of inflation. I'm sure Glen will have a follow up. The effect Glen wanted was achieved: he wanted to feel superior to the meme and her. He built intimidation and shame by flashing his credentials - it wasn't so much about the "facts," since if it were he'd leave out his formal education and address his argument as a counter. If he were a truly educated man he'd address the totality of the argument. But he doesn't. He just does arithmetic.

*Financial literally is extremely important. I advise everyone to learn how to balance their own budget, make necessary adjustments to live within their budget, and restrain from expenses that aren't vital or necessary to their lives.

New link added.

This one's called 1PeterFive. It's a site dedicated to issues about traditionalism and its eroding and shrinking presence against the "modern" Church of Nice (not the city).

Aesthetically it's a nice looking site. I do like the masthead; the logo of the site looks like an equation though.

Topics that I liked that were discussed were sacred music, communion on the tongue while kneeling and vocations towards the religious life. The writers appear to be intelligent and thoughtful, engaging not so much in navel-gazing, like how contributors at Social Matter can be, but in a more less self-important way of calling out for attention towards a certain issue, all while talking about religion and its many aspects.

Apparently the alt-right scares the living sh*t outa The Left.

 This is not something new I've realized.

I belong to a facebook group for the INTJ personality. Today one member posted a question (in a rather confrontational manner) wanting "members" of the alt-right to explain how the ethnostate vaunted by the alt-right will come to fruition without violence. The member who asked this was a black  man.

My reply? I asked if he knew what the alt-right was and that some statements - like calling Trump's administration a "regime" - was embarrassing. The poster replied back saying I was "cucky" to which I said he wasn't eve using "cuck" correctly.

I don't believe I'll be responding any further due to the fact that A) I barely, if ever (until now) ever post anything political on facebook, and doing just seems strange; and B) ever since I re-engaged in facebook two months ago after a five year absence, I have already grown irritated and tired of all the leftist political bullshit (mainly coming from a single leftist).

I also want to note that anti-Trump is the new anti-Bush/Palin syndrome. The member who posted the question has a background picture that shows a Trojan horse with Trump's head, unleashing Russian soldiers within America (Statue of Liberty is in the background). All of a sudden The Left is gravely concerned about America's liberties. How, um, cute.

Religion, secularism & marriage

I've observed that many of my friends that majored in physics tend to quote Carl Sagan. I've also observed that many that I throughout high school, given their particular personality and physical makeup (a bit dorkish and tall and lanky) are non-believers.

Another thing that's worth noting is that my brother's group of friends whose only a few years older than I treat religion with a bit more respect than those who, say, are a year or two younger than me. It's not all a huge age difference, but the contrast is a little striking. From getting married in a courthouse (why anyone would do this is beyond me, well, besides them being non-religious and/or can't afford the church fees) to nature weddings (ceremonies outside that are nowhere near a church) or the marriage conducted by a non-religious officiate (I just recently learned a friend is an officiate - as I saw a picture of him presiding a marriage).

Now the first and third -- why even bother attending. It's really just a bunch of 20/30 somethings playing dress-up like Halloween, but instead of getting candy it's putting rings on each others ring finger and declaring "For life!" Instead of a ring pop, Joe and Jane, now holding jobs/careers that afford them to rent out the facilities exchange relatively expensive rings. Instead of dressing up in a werewolf costume the groom dresses in a tux and the Pink Power Ranger puts on heels and a white dress. There is no real meaning to it. If you can get a divorce in a snap (no-fault divorce) and hold up that state wedding license with smiles why the celebration? Maybe it's a failure of their upbringing. Maybe it's a failure of their lack of understanding of what marriage is as a whole, not what marriage is to the individuals getting married.

I was just at a ceremony that was held at a botanical garden and the officiate, as I learned later, is a homosexual. I knew something was "off" because during the officiates speech about the two people getting married, there was no mention of faith, God or anything transcendental besides love and commitment. The only things that were repeated was love and commitment; the speech sounded like an atheist omitting the "under God" when saying the Pledge of Alliance. Alongside the bride's brother reciting a poem about, you guessed, love. It was somewhat weird. And the entire ceremony lasted no more than 15 minutes.

There's something lacking in courthouse/secular/outdoor-weddings. These weddings really are just a proclamation of "We really, really like each other! We've decided on forever!" Okay, where's the priest? Where's the steeple? There are non. I'll skip the ceremony and show up to the reception. At least they have alcohol to make my brain accommodate the nothingness that pervades the room.

If non-religious ceremonies are this uneventful, completely void of being transcendental and bizarre between two people of the opposite sex, then I can only imagine what a ceremony would be like between two people of the same sex.

These are a few quotes that showed up on my friends facebook page. Two, I presume are atheists and the other agnostic at best.

"time will pass, nothing will last" 

"God is an alien" (when listing his religious views) 

"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan (this was one of three quotes on a three tier wedding cake)

EDIT: I just learned that one of college acquaintances, she and her boyfriend, just went to the courthouse and signed the marriage license. This was on facebook. The two dressed in casual clothes - like they were running errands - and the caption read something like this, "Well consider this my proclamation. I'm off the market! We've decided to not have a ceremony and felt it was time to finally time to sign a piece of paper." Finally time to sign a piece of paper. Why even offer a congrats in that? (Granted there were many by in-laws, immediate family members and close friends.) Why "make it official" with that line of thought? 

In contrast, another college acquaintance of mine was married at, I think, in a Catholic church. The pictures of the groomsmen and women were really lovely. The pictures of the family and the married couple in front of the alter were more lovely. I am not sure if it means anything, but if she felt the need to list "Catholic" under religious views on facebook then I suppose that there is some sort of spiritual fire in her. I am not sure about  her husband. At least their effort to respect the institution of marriage is more hopeful than the story just above.

Social media and "connecting."

I suppose it depends on the industry you work in on how social media plays into your "connecting" consumption.

Let me make comments on the platforms that are mostly used, as of today.

Facebook
Okay, I can absolutely see the purpose of this. I remember when it first came out in 2004 - my brother was the first "class" to integrate this type of media into his life and I still remember how clean the layout was. White. Easy to navigate once you became familiar with the interface. The lack of adverts adding to the the overall cleanliness. There were immensely less "lines" and categories to share your personal information. Back then (that felt weird typing that) users had to have a college email account in order gain access to the site. If you were in high school you were SOL and myspace was your stomping ground.

I do use this. My goal with facebook is to keep in touch with friends, old and new, family members and even professional contacts. It's been an indispensable tool to communicate with when setting up get-togethers or reunions.

A downside of this platform is the feed. Dear Allah. When it started it tolerable, now it's a foghorn of "updates." I suppose the upside to the feed is that, when anyone posts something political (say, something about same-sex "marriage," immigration, reproductive "rights" etc.) there are discussions revealing the thoughts of friends about the given issue. This can be depressing since you learn that many of your friends are political idiots. They're "good" people, but they're political idiots. I remember one online conversation between a high school friend and a grade school friend (they never met) when I posted an article about handwriting & education. At the time both of these people were earning a degree in education, so it was no surprise that they commented. One disagreed with the other and so-on and so-on. At the end, one came across as a the typical union "progressive" teacher while the other, who held more conservative views, held his ground and didn't let emotions take over.

Another downside is, as I noted above, the interface has become cluttered. Since the expansion and popularity of the site has become worldwide, every time you comment on another site needing an account you have the option to either log-in your facebook or create a profile specifically for that site. Now, if you log-in on your facebook that site asks if it can take information from your facebook in order to track your user habits. In many ways this ties into social demographics. The site you want to comment on wants to track down the sex, age and geographic area their visitors/commenters come from. This is understandable. But, in the end, I don't see the true point of it nor do I see the benefits besides more infographs about info I really do not care about. In the end, it's an invasion of privacy. If you do not allow the site to gain access to your facebook info then you can't use it to comment. In this way, everyone is "connected." I find this chilling and an insidious byproduct of the obsession of social media.

This is more of an annoyance, but I find the masthead that's located on every profile to be utterly sophomoric. What is the purpose of this? There's the avatar - the original profile picture - then there's this huge, obnoxious masthead filled with whatever picture the user decides to put up. If you don't have a masthead then the area on which the masthead is located is just an ugly grey. You either deal with that grey or put up a picture like covering a hole in the wall with a poster.

Now, I don't have the interest to scroll down my feed to learn what's happening in the lives of my facebook "friends" - if I need to send a message or update my profile my cursor and eyes will immediately find the tabs that allow me to do such things,and my eyes consciously ignore (read: my eyes do not even skim the feed) whatever comes up as updates. I have my profile setup where notifications like engagements are sent to my mobile and that's it. If I choose to offer my congratulations or "like" the update, I will do so. At least I know that so-and-so are engaged. 

Twitter
In terms of news, I say this: national/international break-out stories are just that - break-out stories. The feeling or rush one gets from immediately knowing a story (that hasn't been fully developed), especially on issues many of us do not have a clue about like foreign affairs, is fleeting. A supervisor once said to me regarding the immediacy of twitter feed, "The person who knows about a certain story will not be anymore knowledgeable than they person who doesn't know about it when it breaks out, and follows it - like those who do follow a given issue - through the following weeks, months and years." Sooner or later, if the WOM is strong enough, you'll hear about a given story.

I have a twitter account which is under an alias. I barely retweet or tweet anyone or anything. It's usually just stuff about politics.

The line of work I do twitter isn't necessary unless you're updating for PR reasons, and that's usually an assigned job.

Instagram
Unless you're a photographer or the Most Interesting Man in the World a good majority of what you post will be just like every other idiotic millennial and celebrity.The "community" that has been expressed by a number of others on instragram is false community. It isn't real. Your feels do not make such a community real.

I can see if you have a soft spot for a celebrity and you follow them, but why even, at that?

Twitter & instagram are practically cousins. Instead of 140 characters there's a picture. Twitter is really facebook's feed gone solo and instagram is the photo section of facebook. Neither do I care to view unless under special circumstances.

Pinterest
I have no clue how pinterest caught on. Instead of going into bookmarks you just log-in into your pinterest account. Convenient, but overall the convenience makes it uninteresting.

Google +
I never used it; the fact that I'm scared that something might show up on it that I don't want too makes me even more cautious on what I write & post. I don't know anyone in my social circles that uses it in a serious fashion.

LinkedIn
The most legit, and in my eyes respectable, professional networking site. If you have a personal site and link your linkedin profile to it, then I don't see how you'll lose in the networking game. 

Conclusion
If you're marketing something (like yourself if you're a politician or if you belong to a *sorority), say a movie, an event, or if you're business trying to reach out to the public then I can see the strong point of creating an account on twitter & instagram. It's brand identity and effective communication. But as individuals, excluding the politican? Yea, you and your life aren't as interesting as you think. Celebrities are as uninteresting and lack creativity (even if they're in the creative field) as the wannabe filmmaker.

A healthy percent of my friends and family members do not use instagram or twitter -- both on a personal level and a professional level. Then again many live in the Midwest, working in industries that have not put social media in its everyday fabric. There is no pressure to join either platform. Working teachers in elementary school truly don't have a use for twitter. They also don't see the need to broadcast their politics in such a way. Even for those who work in industries that do, say my cousin who works in tech in Palo Alto, he doesn't have one. His brother does, but he barely tweets and when he does it's something random. The only people that I know who tweet is a person in government/non-profit and another who was getting his doctorate in education.

No employer worth its salt, unless it's National Geographic, or if you're applying as a photographer,  will give two shits if you have an instagram or twitter  (save that you don't post anything un-PC). There are employers who view their potential hire before making an offer if their facebook is "clean." If they suspect anything that might look bad upon the company in your profile (e.g. questionable pictures) then that can decrease your chances of being hired. The gift of common sense says, "No, dear. Don't put that up. Untag yourself from that picture. Don't do stupid crap during the weekend."

How to eliminate your "internet trail"? Post under an alias. Choose not to have a twitter account or instagram, and if you do choose just post stuff related to your field of work.

Truly, I don't have the motivation and urge to be on my mobile tweeting or taking pictures to constantly share on instagram. You'd think that at least 50% of those on these platforms are making serious money from posting pictures and tweeting. That sunset and whatever pathetic #YOLO pic will be the same as the other account whose owner lives in Brazil.

I'll stick to blogging, my tumblr (beats instagram & twitter) and facebook. In fact, a personal website seems like a more creative outlet than both twitter/instagram combined. Then again many who use twitter don't know how to build a website from the ground up. The irony. Technically savvy yet almost useless when it comes down to it.

*Sororities (almost every chapter in every state) are turning to tumblr as a gallery alternative. It's a marvelous decision.

New links.

New links added.

Reddit's sub-forum TumblrInAction.

Showing the stupidity of SJWs, feminazis, leftists (modern day liberals) and the tears of fragile psyches.

A big "Thanks!" to Michelle Malkin, who describes herself as "little brown woman with a big mouth," on her twitter profile for Twitchy.

Twitchy stops the "he-said-she-said" telephone game when it comes to all things politics, and aids any wannabe journalist (and real ones) for the actually proof of "He really said this. Here's the proof." It captures tweets and twitter conversations before they are deleted for quality control, and it exposes the bias and contempt of non-conservatives. Free speech is amazing. The late-Andrew Breitbart would be proud.

Actors and instagram.

1. Apparently many like to smoke, or at least like being taken a portrait with a smoke to look cool.
2. Many like to throw some hand signs when taking a picture with a fellow cast member, preferably the bird.
3. Many like to take pics in "gangster" poses.
4. As with many instragram pics taken by non-actors, there is a high fetish with filtering every other pic.
5. Many seem really into themselves and arrogant.
6. Not surprisingly at least one of their parents is in the industry, be it an actor or a director/writer.

Because Tumblr says so!

I typed in "tumblr" in google in order access my page so I could update it for Memorial Day, and the headline link for the site was this. Now all the twits will probably use this in their Phd dissertation concerning sexism.

Yes, I took the bait.

You can't make this stuff up.

An extreme progressive vs "traditional" media?

When he ventures into national television by landing the 6 PM timeslot on MSNBC, Cenk’s uncensored brand of journalism is compromised as he becomes a thorn in the side of traditional news media; his unwavering dedication to speaking the truth puts him at the very nexus of the battle between new and old media.

 Not too surprising since it's coming from the Daily Beast and it is Cenk. The man think's some sort of revolutionary leader. In case he doesn't know, the "traditional" media leans left - apparently not left enough according to him. There two main non-left leaning news outlets: Fox News and Wall Street Journal. Then again the left always thinks the world is against them and they were never good with numbers, at least accurately making sense of them.

I wonder if you ask Cenk who on a fast break is outnumbered - the person defending or the players transitioning to offense. He'll probably say the later group.

According to Cenk's wiki page -

Uygur was born and raised in a Sunni Muslim family, but is now a self-described "fervent agnostic".^[2][54] In 2010, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Uygur accepted the "Emperor Has No Clothes Award" from the Freedom From Religion Foundation and later the Humanist Media Award from the American Humanist Association.^[55][56] He is now married to Wendy Lang Uygur, a marriage and family therapist. The Uygurs are the parents of one son, born in July 2010,^[57] and a daughter, born in October 2012.^[58] Cenk has stated that he grew up a fan of the Fenerbahçe soccer team.^[59]

His wiki page also states that he's an Ivy league alum, graduating from University of Pennsylvania for undergrad and then Columbia University for a master's. He admits that he wasn't always a progressive: He voted Republican before switching to the (D). It also states that he though the GOP became more extreme after GWB's tenure as president. This doesn't make sense because the GOP is slowly turning into (D) Lite. After hearing Cenk talk in a couple of videos I'm left to believe he really had not clue what he was talking about when he made that remark. It's disingenuous to paint his story as "right to left" since he really wasn't on "the right."

A self proclaimed "fervent agnostic," married (I don't understand why secularists get married since marriage is basically a very, as one modernist puts it - archaic practice), uber leftie and thinks that the MSM is "traditional." So typical. 

Way too amusing.

When I log onto blogger I use google, type in "blogger," and proceed. There's an "In the News" section that the search engine has highlighting various political stories, either having to do with the site itself or whatever political issue that the site seems noteworthy.

Regarding the subject title, today I wanted to talk about a video I saw on youtube and what was highlighted under the "In the News."

This post was originally dedicated to a video I saw on youtube regarding what girls like in a guy. One youtuber offered her "likes" but I quickly became disinterested and clicked on the posters profile to see other types of videos she's made, since the first video of hers I saw was of her singing - I was impressed. The "what girls like in a guy" was the second video that caught my eye in the side bar of "recommended." As I quickly perused her videos there was another channel linked to her musical one called "Lesbians Answers." I thought "Well that's odd." I later found out that channel was operated by her as well. It turns out she's a lesbian (or at least, according to her story, became "aware" she was a lesbian once she found a girl she was attracted to - later delving herself into all things LGBT).

As a guy, I consider this a huge turn-off. She didn't identify as a bisexual, but a lesbian as I slowly unraveled her story. Is her video "what girls like in a guy" rendered meaningless now? Since she likes girls exclusively since posting that video how does she explain her "likes"?  How about the relationships she had with boys before she identified as a lesbian and embraced the LGBT world? Obviously the idea of entering a relationships with the opposite sex didn't repulse to a degree that she made a video dedicated to helping guys in their romantic relationships.

What also makes it more sickening is that she has tumblr page where I found this:

She wasn't the original poster of it, but the fact that she reblogged it shows her "giggle giggle me gay parentals don't know it giggle giggle" mentality. The post currently has approximately 450, 00 likes. Is this phone caption real or fake? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's fake since there were times that feminists posted fake rape stories, and knowing that the LGBT community - especially those under 30 - are seek validation through the internet e.g. tumblr and reblog & like to fill that self-esteem hole. How does a feminists posting false accounts of rape on tumblr have anything to with the pic? I consider tumblr feminists and tumblr LGBT community as one: They share the same insecurities and the same d-bag mentality - basically they blame society for their "hidden" lives and for their own angst. If it's real? I don't feel sorry for the brother and sister -- I feel sorry for their parents.

Now, why "way too amusing"? Because the search for "blogger" under google's engine highlighted this issue today: Well this is awkward.

It's too bad, really, since I thought the girl was cute. Once I saw the "Lesbian Answer" tab my heart sunk and my brain said "You got to be fucking kidding me ... Please, no, ..." *clicked on tab, scrolls through channel* "G_D FUCKIN' DAMMIT!"

Also, what's with straight (more straight before they "came out") girls "discovering" they were either lesbians or bi liking street wear (and tattoos)? It's a broad question, but in my experiences the tomboys or non-"girly girls" that identified as non-straight/hetero tend be into that type of style.

EDIT: Feel sorry for any guy who becomes her boyfriend. I thought the video was about "what I want in a guy" not "why guys do to make me feel insecure."  

Youtube #DearMe

Self-esteem project. #GenerationPathetic

Now, before I watched it I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me predict the pearls of 'wisdom' that shall be said ... " This is what I came up with:

Be who you are.
Don't be ashamed of what you are (mostly geared towards LGBT).
Don't follow the crowd; be an individualist.
Be Crazy.
Be a Freak.
Follow your dreams.
Only you decide what is right and wrong.
Follow your heart.
Love is all you need.
Love is love.

Then I watched it. It's just a self-esteem/"YOU GO GIRL GO GET IT!" project. Not one single male.

Some were mentioned - others were decent enough advice. In the context that I'm thinking of the advice and what the youtubers put them in is completely different. 100% these are used in a modern context - to reject traditionalism and conservatism.

There was one comment that I did like, as I skimmed over the combox -

Let me clarify for all the feminist out there bitching that men are just whining because they are not the center of attention it is because we are not the center of attention it is because the internet is flooded full of these videos to help women and few to none to help men. If Google where to do something like this for mens day Google would be burned at the stake. 

 I don't think Google would be "burned at the stake" -- it's that Google would most likely would never attempt this for the men. If it were to do such a thing, there would be some sort of backlash, enough to make headlines that would more than click bait, and someone on the exec board would issue a formal apology.

Other comments that got the most votes -

Where is the guys
#Noequality  

 and "How about some older ladies with a little more perspective instead of a bunch 20 somethings who spent more time applying their make-up than they did on the video,"

and (transgender)

While I think this is a great project, I'm wondering why it has to be exclusive for women to do it? Just because it's women's day? 

I am a man, but I was born anatomically a woman. I went through the same struggles and still do because I don't pass well as a man. We should be working to inspire humans as a whole to be themselves.

 No, you're a women THINKING you're a man. If I were the person reviewing the submitted videos for #DearMe I'd automatically put you in the female videos. You got a a vagina and breasts, no matter small those breasts may be. You got tits that produce milk for babies. Men don't.

one more -

Why aren't all the men commenting in a negative way about how this is sexist make videos like this? What is stopping you from making serious content that shows that you don't have to be how society makes you feel? Just because women are giving other women advice (because believe it or not, we don't know what it's like to be a man and never will) doesn't mean anything against men, in this instance it's not about you because we can't speak on behalf of you. Stop commenting and get creating. 

Because society is just one uber patriarchy forcing women in boxes ... Sure ... Oh the horror! Oh the stifling atmosphere of non-creativity and squares! Bold:  Yes, I do see where you're going but many of these self-esteem projects are geared towards women or the "rebel with freaky hair" types. Also, be careful about the "We're different sexes so we can't give the other sex advice" -- that sort of blows up what the transgender said about "born anatomically a woman." I mean, is it based on biology now or based on #feelings? I'm confused. Italics: A very common tactic used. It, general, means: Stop voicing opinions/stop-discussion so to let the combox be devoid of anything critical.





"Deathmatch": Fifty Shades of Grey vs. Lola Jones

Lola Jones, professional hurdler turned bobsledder, took to social media and voiced her thoughts on Fifty Shades of Grey. It wasn't whether or not she liked the movie, if the movie was true to the source material, but whether or not the sexual acts depicted on screen were moral or not.

Fifty Shades of Grey, for the most part, is about a young girl who meets a handsome, smart, albeit sexually kinky, man. It turns out he's into BDSM and a reason for this is because he was sexually abused as a child. *BDSM is rather f_cked up, no matter how seductive, passionate and titillating one frames it. It's a symptom of a hedonistic and morally confused & lost world. The virgin (Jones is a virgin) has it right. Surprising? No, not really, once you think about it. As rare, and weird - to the modern world, being a virgin past 21 is there is a type of "clear thinking" that seems to permeate Jones' thoughts in her tweets. Yes, she's sexually inexperience but she isn't a fool when it comes to such matters.

She's a professional athlete who pushed herself physically and mentally to earn the title of D1 college athlete and Olympian - the kind of pushing that even practitioners of BDSM probably will never experience. The sweat and physical abuse that could've been done in the bedroom was transferred to a rubbery, lopsided oval field. The friction, hypothetically speaking, was her vs her. She was rewarded for it: amazing body and an elite athlete. Her chastity also has done her good: She isn't a moral relativist when it comes to sexual matters and doesn't fall for modern sexual norms.

Every now and then a public figure just uses God given common sense. Sometimes that public figure broadcasts them. Sometimes that public figure has a good point.

Now cue all the anti-slut shaming/proud-to-be-a-'good'-slut/'my-partner-and-I-practice-BDSM-and-our-relationship-is-stronger-than-ever'/libertine crowd that will finds its way to L. Jones' twitter account.

*Note the "helping you find yourself" subtitle. As expected.

Bridges of Madison County, The Horse Whisperer, Tales of a Humpack Whale ...

What do all of these have in common? Marital affairs. All conducted by women. What do these women have in common? They're wives who feel neglected.  

I visited IMDb to learn more about The Lovers, a French movie - part of the New Wave era, after this popped up on my dashboard on tumblr. The comment below it reads (as quoted from the film's wiki page):

The film is important in American legal history as it resulted in a court case that questioned the definition of obscenity. A showing of the film in Cleveland Heights, Ohio's Coventry Village resulted in a criminal conviction of the theatre manager for public depiction of obscene material. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction and ruled that the film was not obscene in its written opinion (Jacobellis v. Ohio). The case resulted in Justice Potter Stewart's famously subjective definition of hard-core pornography: "I know it when I see it." (Stewart did not consider the film to be such.)

When I first saw the post I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me see, an affair?" Sure enough it was. I then was curious to see what the viewers on IMDb said, and came up with this:

"Deserves 7 out of 10 because it is provocative and like all good art, subversive."

Granted the poster did say the movie was "insipid," so the narrative and characters within the film did not impress.

 Is all "good" art indeed subversive? Subversive to what? Who had the credibility to say that all "good" art is subversive? Is it a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing?  I remember reading a discussion between several people, one of them insisting, that art - as it always was - was about questioning the status quo ie traditional morals, societal norms. I question this.

Le Louvre houses many paintings from various time periods, reaching world wide in its collection, and many aren't considered "subversive," yet at the same time considered great works of art. Take for example, my favorite, Atala au tombeau (pictured below). I do not believe it was met with any serious backlash.

and a review entitled "Looking for real happiness" -

In 1959 this film was considered as something close to porno, but this is far enough from the reality. Jeanne Moreau was young, nice and attractive. She was the star of this film, which goes slowly as usual in French cinema's style. When you see this type of film you must become a psychologist to penetrate inside the brains of each hero and make some conclusions. Accordingly I concluded that life is not a straight line, suddenly something may happen in our lives that deviate completely this straight line. Formal ethics accepted by the society goes sometimes to extremes that does not enable the persons to behave and feel happy. What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one? At this point I advise you to see this old, and black and white film, which may compel you to think and to conclude something new, probably different to what I am saying here.

Whose "reality" is true? The man who filed a complaint that resulted in Jacobellis v. Ohio or the person who said it was far from a porno? Both? Does soft porn fall under the category "porno," or is only hardcore?

Let's take two people. One sees a traffic light, only seeing red and yellow, not green. He is colorblind. Is that reality the correct reality? How about the person who sees the same traffic light and sees red, yellow AND green? Is that person also correct in his reality? Does reality makes truth? Laws have established that red is stop, green is go, and yellow is "slow down." This is the language of traffic systems. If the light turns green and the person not seeing green does not move forward he'll get beeped, that is if someone is behind him. If no one is then he'll either sit there waiting for green or get frustrated and step on the gas pedal, no matter the color. He wants to go and he wants it now.

If one does not know language things can get difficult. Not knowing a language, when it is necessary, is a handicap.

"I know it when I see it."

A compelling line, "What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one?" unmasks the selfishness within. In The Lovers the bored housewife leaves her family for a young lover. She has a daughter. Was her neglecting husband abusive - verbal and/or physically? No. Though rich (due to her husband), she was not happy. Her daughter's life could not bring her enough happiness in order to stay. Within one night after the affair she chose the young man as her future.

A status quo of modernity - and modernity is the skin of today's entertainment world - is to not be judgmental, at least when it comes to sexuality (either keep silent, be indifferent or approve). Maybe, in this case, questioning the status quo should be done.

American Sniper over Selma @ BO: Tumblr, IMDb pissed.

BO: Box Office