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? 

Restricting or Banishing the TLM Doesn't Make Those Take TC To A Whole New Level Look Good.

The TLM is a minority in the States and therefore in every diocese. This is the simple reason why I don't take seriously the "trads are doing all sorts of mean things to undermine the Pope and the Catholic community!" Most likely the average Catholic attends an NO parish and has never been to a Latin mass let alone heard of it, especially if they're under the age of 50. This is why I'm skeptical of those who magically appear on the internet saying "Well I came across a trads who said X and Y and did Z that turned me off." Sure, I bet you did. Or you never did - at all. Stuff that never happened. You'd have to actively seek out a TLM and a more conservative Catholic group if you really wanna come across and weird stuff. 

The banning of TLM in the Diocese of Savannah is literally stupid. Literally. So, if true, that Cardinal Cupich is kicking out ICKSP whose headquarters is located in Chicago, out of the Diocese of Chicago, then that's even more stupid. This is after he allowed St. John Cantius to conintue their offering of the TLM.

Name, Image & Likeliness (NIL) Isn't A "Getting What's Finally Mine" Card And The Hypocrisy of Armchair Economists (There Is Irony To This Post)

 It never was. Why? Because the university in which the athletes are playing for don't pay them. NIL simply allows outside sponsors - which includes boosters - to pay a specific student-athlete a certain amount of money annually. 

There's some talk saying NCAA DI sports was never an amateur league. To a degree I agree, but it wasn't an amateur league you'd be hard pressed to convince it was a professional league because simply put: the student's never got paid. 

People will say DI athletics were "free labor." That's just the prevalent talking point bandied by people who haven't though it thorough. Instead of a paycheck being processed into their bank account, the student-athletes, in exchange of their labor, had their university tuition and fees paid for. It wasn't "free" - someone's paying their tuitions and fees, it's just that the expenses aren't coming out of their own pocket.

It's like saying American waitresses are working "for free" because they aren't on salary but instead rely on tips for a living. This is simply not true; tips are just a different economic system to get paid. They aren't working "for free" because if they did they would just show up and, well, work for free without any tips. But they don't. They know they're going to get paid - not by the restaurant - but by the customers. 

NCAA DI was an amateur league - not entirely, but the players were. The coaches were professional because they did get paid and they were in charge of essentially running a business within a business (team within a department within a university). Then NIL came along and amateur economists tried to convince other that the NCAA DI was never an amateur league, and that the student-athletes are "finally" getting what they deserve - a share of the millions of dollars brought in by their labor. But that's relatively bizarre way to put it. It's straight up straw man when framing the realties of a DI student-athlete. Students aren't employed by the university in the way a coach is - they're "employed" differently.

The millions of dollars brought in by the student-athletes labor was never theirs to begin with because it was never contracted. It never said "if sports program brings in X amount of money you get Y percent of profit." Nope. Never existed. What was promised was a no tuition and fee enforced education in exchange for being a DI athlete. That was the promise. Add in academic tutors, separate living quarters for athletes, separate workout quarters for you, healthcare, and transportation to and from for away games. These are the "benefits." 

I will admit a DI student-athlete is an "in-between" type of existence between an amateur and a professional, but it's more amateur than professional. You can't be an unofficial professional though. With that logic, graduate students are unofficial professionals/professors. People who play in recreation sports leagues are unofficial professionals because there's no one who promised to pay them $10 for an hour for their time after work to play dodgeball in the city's park league. 

So when I'm on a sports forum seeing posts confidently saying that the student-athletes are "just getting what they're worth" (totally subjective) and, minutes later, discovering that they liked a video posted by another commentator about being pro-union, I know I'm dealing with people who are just surface thinkers. These are the same people who have no issue with students saying DI athletes are slaves because they "work for free." I say this because extolling the nature of free markets and being pro-union is contradictory; it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. Reality says you can't do that. These are the same people that try to display their own integrity by "facing the grittiness of reality" but they want to tear down controversial statues. They want to erase mascots because they're politically incorrect. 

Unpopular Opinion: I Enjoy Experiencing Other Cultures. I Don't Like the Traveling Involved.

Especially if it's more than a five hour flight and I'm adjusting to more than five hours of time zone difference. 

Here's my stance: I enjoy experiencing other cultures - not so much the travel that's usually intertwined to it. 

An 8 hour flight to a Western European country? Nope, not fun at all. Experiencing cities such as Galway and Edinburgh and Seville? That's cool and fun. 

How about a 10+ hour plane ride to Southeast Asia, say to Japan or the Philippines? Put me in deep sleep and wake me up when we get there please. 

New Zealand? Kenya? Syria? Can I teleport? 

Jet lag also sucks.

I'm sort of a rule follower so though I will rue the idea of customs I'll bite my tongue and deal with an hour or two waiting and dealing with custom officers. I still wish I can transport 20 ounces of jam from some Central European country to the States but rules say no. 

When people write down in their bios, or when asked about their interests, passions or hobbies, often times "travel" is listed, at least in the past two decades or so. I will probably never put "travel" down. Instead, maybe be "experiencing other cultures" or something similar to that. But "travel"? Yuck. 

Don't get me started on how antithetical the people who are into the whole "bike/walk/public transportation ew cars and highways" love traveling given the amount of queuing and time wasted up in the air can take. Just don't. Just don't get me started. If I take the car to the groceries it's because it's a necessity. If I take the car to accomplish some errands it's because it's a necessity. If I take the plane to travel it's because travel (where "travel" is used technically for leisure) it's a choice; one can live without travel for a couple of years. 

Does this make me a neanderthal? Maybe. Uncultured? Who cares. 

Traveling is tiring. It often sucks and it isn't glamorous. Jet setting sucks for 99% of the people who aren't put into first class or don't have the logistics planned and their tickets paid by someone else, especially transatlantic and transcontinental trips. 

Traveling is literally getting on a flying bus where I'm stuck in the air for 4+ hours with a bunch of strangers in a weirdly shaped oblong metal tube darting through the air. It's a cool concept; it works, but it's a drag. I rode the bus many times and it ain't fun. It's a necessity because I can't teleport. 

But dang, the Aran Islands are beautiful though, and a proper English pub is a great place to settle down for a pint. It's just getting there. 

Biden the so-called "Good" Catholic.

 I knew it was all just a facade to build an image.

Why expanding government services to aid newborns won't greatly reduce abortion rates.

 Ever since the overturn of Roe v Wade, many well-meaning Christians, whether Catholic or not, have immediately been turning to the talking point that if US government would just have better healthcare (they usually mean universal healthcare) and expanded on more childcare services (i.e. universal Early Childhood Education, maternity centers) that it would incentivize women to keep their baby. 

Full disclose: I am empathetic to ECE being integrated nationwide. 

One poster on Reddit said that since Roe v Wade is now gone that Catholics should now vote for Democrats because of their support for government aid and social services; these Catholics only saw the Republican Party as a one voter issue where their Pro-Life stance was the only thing that kept them from voting for the Democrats. (These probably are the ones that also suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.)

I don't buy into this argument. If we look at this map even countries that have universal healthcare have a relatively high abortion rates per capita (i.e. UK, France, Sweden, Canada). Even then, welfare in the States and Canada has incentivize that if you fall below a certain annual salary threshold you're given money for each child you have. I know this because one I work in social services and two I have a family who's a physician that, at one time, had a patient that kept on having kids because she was being paid by the Canadian government for each kid since she was on welfare. She's the typical case of being a welfare queen.

I wish Milton Friedman was alive so he would talk some sense into these "gotta vote Democrat now because of the social services" Catholics/Christians. This isn't to say that Friedman was pro-life, but he surely question the assumptions of those who trust the Big Government for an easier life. 

Many who get abortions do get it because the baby is an inconvenience. Yes, they may list down "socioeconomic instability" or whatever as a the main driver to abort but like all surveys the question is flawed and not all-encompassing. Many in the States that abort are poor, are in their twenties and already have at least one other kid according to the Guttmacher Institute. If we put to and two together this tells me that many aren't making smart decisions - to withhold sex until marriage or to have sex when one is not ovulating. 

Furthermore, women have listed the following why they decided to get an abortion -

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

The "could not afford a baby now" is a relatively vague statement since it gives no standard on what income would be acceptable to have and raise a child. It's presented as a single factor where other factors are not put into affect such as responsibility and relationship problems.

As mentioned, if other countries such as Sweden, a rather socially "progressive" country with, ironically, a more restrictive abortion policy in comparison to the States, has a relatively high abortion rate per capita with universal healthcare then the connection between robust government social services in regards to newborns and health are specious at best. 

But what drives a woman to reject abortion? Not the aid of the state if I bet my money, but conscious and values. 

Compared to What? That's the Question Thomas Sowell Asks.

 Non-Americans and Americans alike, usually they lean left, are quick to point out issues found within the States. But compared to what? They act like the issue the US is facing is solely a US issue or that it's such an issue to a degree that's unique to the US. Take for example this post on Reddit written about a year ago by a non-American when an American brought up the fact that non-American rarely ever compliment the cultural impact it has on the world in the form of authors and music; usually non-Americans comment on the geography of the place.

But compared to what? Trump? Non-Americans think anything not Obama is a freak show or some white privileged person, so I don't take a European's opinion on Trump anymore seriously; I take it as seriously when a ten year old speaks about politics. Violence, death, hate, war? So what. All those can be found in Western Europe as well. If you don't live in the States then you don't have much of a right to criticize it for the things that you dock points from it. 

Antivaxxers? Who cares. In a place like America antivaxxers are allowed to voice their opinions. White supremacists? Same thing with antivaxxers - non-Americans are stunned to think such a group exists despite them being a minority. It's called difference of opinions. Poverty? Okay, and? Awful healthcare? The people who say this are non-Americans and people who are underemployed. Sorry but if you're gainfully employed and you know how to use your healthcare network healthcare in the States serves you with relative decency. US healthcare has its issues but to say it's awful, by a European, is showcasing your own ignorance. 

As for the "US had been in the news negatively for decades" that's probably more so the anti-American/weird fasciation with America Western Europeans have with the country. I heard Germany is relatively anti-American in its media. BBC is a shit show like CNN and MSNBC. I mean, what country is shown positively that's a global superpower? Not one.