How the fuck does someone like me (who sometimes considers himself an alien in a human suit) have a better grasp on basic human interaction than like a good 60% of this hellsite
Blue Hellsite™ is a social experiment in selection bias and Homestuck fanart sponsored by the University of Nantong. I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that yet.
“DEAF TO THE JEWS” the man shouted, holding the boombox aloft in the air, wearing an old Wehrmacht uniform.
Legions of uniformed dancers followed him through the street in formation.
Satisfied, he passed the boombox to an attendant, grasped a microphone, and began to rap.
It wasn’t the best timeline, it was true, but it certainly it wasn’t the worst, either.
I wonder, if, on some level, the opposition to “cultural appropriation” is driven by an intuitive realization that if you actually mix all the cultures, you don’t have a multicultural society anymore, just one with a dominant one again.
The Five Types of Trump Voters is good too, if only for its frankly depressing portrait of the ‘Anti-Elites’:
Anti-Elites (19 percent) This group of Trump supporters leans economically progressive, believes the economic and political systems are rigged, and takes relatively more moderate positions on immigration, race, and American identity than American Preservationists. They are also the most likely group to favor political compromise.
Anti-Elites have relatively cooler feelings toward Donald Trump than American Preservationists, and nearly half had favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. This group shifted most dramatically, however, against Clinton by November 2016. They were the least likely group to mobilize in the Republican primary, but of those who did, they disproportionately turned out for John Kasich.
Anti-Elites are middle-class voters with moderate levels of education, and they skew slightly younger than other Trump groups. They are the least likely group to own guns, go to church, and be politically informed.
Anti-Elites believe that moneyed and political elites take advantage of the system against ordinary people and they support increasing taxes on the wealthy. Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban. Democrats who moderate their positions on immigration might win over some Anti-Elite voters.
[…]
Anti-Elites constitute a large share of voters who only voted for Trump in the general election, but did not vote in the primaries. They lean economically progressive and are relatively more moderate on immigration, but are staunchly anti-elite.
The Anti-Elites are the least loyal Republicans of the Trump voters with nearly two-thirds (63 percent) who say they vote both for Democrats and Republicans in elections, a quarter who say they voted for Barack Obama in 2012, and nearly as many who say they identify as independent (42 percent) as Republican (47 percent).
They, along with the Free Marketeers, are the weakest supporters of Trump with only 26 percent having very favorable views—51 points lower than the American Preservationists. Four years ago, nearly twice this share (47 percent) had a favorable view of Clinton, but this number plummeted to a dismal 9 percent by 2016 (see Figure 11). While 78 percent have an unfavorable view of Clinton today, only 47 percent felt similarly toward Obama in 2012. Had a Democrat other than Clinton been on the ticket in 2016, Anti-Elites may have split their votes for him or her over Trump. Next to Trump, Anti-Elites were most likely to have voted for John Kasich (22 percent) in the early primaries. Thus, it comes as less of a surprise that this group split on the question of whether their vote was for Trump or against Clinton.
Today, 40 percent say they have favorable views of democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Might Sanders have peeled these voters away from Trump had he been the Democratic nominee? Possibly. Only 16 percent, however, say they would have voted for Sanders over Trump.
“Why are they not Democrats?“
Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban.
Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar.
Brand loyalty is such stupid nonsense though. Like…we know you’re not a real person, McDonald’s™; we’re not going to swear an oath of fealty to your shitty ass hamburgers.
teens in unison: today we will cast off the corporate shackles
OP may not realize what practical brand loyalty is. It isn’t about swearing fealty, but about not putting in the effort and risk to try another brand. Not a big deal for hamburgers, but, say your family had major issues with a Ford minivan and started exclusively buying all their cars from one Japanese company…
Or perhaps OP was somehow exaggerating for humourous effect. I have heard that such things are possible.
teens in unison: today we will reblog OP
Clearly unpossible.
Though I may have just been exploiting this opportunity to talk about how explore/exploit makes brand loyalty sometimes rational.
Brand loyalty is such stupid nonsense though. Like…we know you’re not a real person, McDonald’s™; we’re not going to swear an oath of fealty to your shitty ass hamburgers.
teens in unison: today we will cast off the corporate shackles
OP may not realize what practical brand loyalty is. It isn’t about swearing fealty, but about not putting in the effort and risk to try another brand. Not a big deal for hamburgers, but, say your family had major issues with a Ford minivan and started exclusively buying all their cars from one Japanese company…
God i wish that were me
can’t relate
God I wish that also were me
Sometimes, a prominent person P says something ambiguous and weird on TV. It can be pre-taped, but it has to be “live” like an interview or a late night talk show. The statement is possibly problematic when taken out of context, and only a small point in support of the main thesis.
For example: “If you don’t know what the candidates stand for, maybe don’t vote” or “Women’s child rearing work is important and should be valued”or “Black men have big penises”.
The talk show host asks next question. Someone tweets this sentence in isolation.
“P said racist/sexist/fascist thing”
“Other people react to thing said by P“
“What twitter users think of P’s latest gaffe“
“Former friend condemns P”
“People distancing themselves from P”
Now our protagonist clarifies that they meant what they said, but they meant it in an innocuous, literal way.
“P doubles down on racist/sexist/fascist comments”
“P still not apologising”
“Right-wing weirdos agree with P“
Now P must clarify that he really didn’t mean it like that. He does not agree with the weirdos at all and regrets any offense he may have caused. He clarifies his original statement to eliminate any confusion.
“P offers non-apology, repeats offending statement”
“We decided not to give P a platform any more”
“Has racism/sexism/fascism re-entered the mainstream? A political scientist explains, also P is terrible“
At this point, the actual statement by P is buried three clicks deep in these news articles. P thinks the original offhand statement was blown out of proportion. He tries one more time.
“P: Concerns about racism/sexism/fascism blown out of proportion“
“P goes on offensive in racism/sexism/fascism row“
Q, a friend of P, tries to give a sympathetic account of the original statement.
“Q: P was misunderstood“
“Q defends P’s racist/sexist/fascist outburst“
“Q’s defense of P proves old boys networks still at work“
“P’s employer has still not fired racist/sexist/fascist P“
After Q, nobody wants to stick their neck out for P now, and nobody wants to be seen talking to P. People who defend P mostly do so anonymously.
“People need to stop defending P“
“Stop saying racism/sexism/fascism is no big deal“
“Waffling about giving racist/sexist/fascist people a platform hurts marginalized people the most“
The media realise that there is nothing more to say, and smaller outlets/latecomers try to milk the issue one last time. Nobody wants to talk to P any more, and P is wary of any journalist who contacts him.
“The privilege of P-supporters“
“We’ve had it with pro-P trolls in our comment section“
“Why we don’t talk to P and why people like P do not deserve a right of reply“
P tries to find somebody who wants to talk to him, somebody sympathetic. He does not want to talk to anybody who previously painted him as racist/sexist/fascist.
“P sets record straight“
“P shows true colors, talks to far-right ‘newspaper’ “
This can end in either irrelevance after the third news cycle, P going on the offensive on social media - cutting any and all reporters out of the loop to say his piece unfiltered, or P going “Welp, guess I’m a Nazi now, whatever that means in this day and age”.
actually I can’t abide the thought of shaving armpits, it’s a sensitive concave surface! why would you do that!
Looking younger is attractive for women because straight men value it (most likely for biological reasons related to fertility), and women in general have features that make them look younger and softer than men. (You’ll notice women tend to have less body hair in general.) Now, while the timing of puberty and so on means that this doesn’t entirely make sense for armpit hair, it isn’t one of those preferences that has to be unified so long as other traits of sexual maturity are present.
For straight women seeking men, youth is still a benefit if it doesn’t get in the way of other matters, and there is some debate about the influence of widespread use of hormonal birth control on sexual preferences, in addition to the usual debate about social formation of preferences.
LGBT individuals, of course, have no reason to be in any particular preference grouping on this matter.
