walking in the rain and taunting God to strike you with lightening sounds cliche until you’re driven to do it.
Guys please ask me random questions or tell me about yourselves ok?
Do not be afraid to tell me about yourselves, either. One of the most enjoyable things I’ve done with this blog is learned trivial information about followers I would have otherwise never interacted with.
I really need to just escape or socialize right now, ok?
People will often cry gross over-intellectualisation when popular culture is critically addressed, as if it is somehow exempt from serious consideration because it is itself ‘non-serious’, just a bit of fun that doesn’t require or deserve dissection. I disagree; every expression of art is a product of its environment and as such will reflect the concerns, preoccupations and neuroses of the time. Mainstream entertainment particularly, by its very nature, has to reflect the dominant modes of thinking in order to qualify as mainstream, and in that respect, mass entertainment is even more fun to pick apart.
“
| — |
Simon Pegg, ‘Nerd do well’ (via ninestories) LET ME LOVE YOU SIMON PEGG!! (via barefootwarriorqueen) Simon Pegg is now my Patronus. (via domesticterrorism) |
Forgive me if someone else has said this, but I was thinking earlier about how the whole “nice guy” and “friend-zone” thing are pretty much nothing more than an example of social relationships having degenerated into nothing more than economic deals in which one person expects certain goods or services in exchange for their goods or services. It turns what should be sincere, honest connection and empathy into nothing more than an investment. Butthurt “nice guys” in the “friend zone” are the result of what they deem to be a poor return for their investment.
More than completely bastardizing true, honest friendship, it is dehumanizing to the women involved; it turns them into nothing more than resource capital, rather than a human being who deserves friendship without strings attached.
Tl:dr - capitalism? Ohaider misogyny! Oh, you’ve met before?
The Hunger Games: Reflections
Given that I am supposed to be some sort of English-teacher-in-training in addition to being a leftist blogger, and given the series’ recent surge in popularity, it would be irresponsible of me to not give my take on The Hunger Games – especially with the multitude of idiotic attempts at interpreting its messages and themes on behalf of various reactionary ideas. This is my interpretation. I see the story of an authoritarian system with parallels to our own; I see a commentary on how a repressive system affects individuals and communities, and I see a commentary on the nature of dissent and revolution. Warning: I give no summaries of the books, and this will not make sense if you have not read at least the first one. Also: spoilers galore.
Israel said the airstrikes are a response to more than 90 rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israeli communities that injured at least four people.[…]
The forces remain on high alert, with aircraft patrolling the region and targeting suspected militants. The IDF said it “will respond with strength and determination against any attempt to execute terrorist attacks.”
Palestinians roundly condemned the Israeli actions, which also left at least 22 people wounded.
15 dead and 22 wounded =/= 4 wounded, Israel. Learn to maths if you’re going to be a dick. What’s funny is that the top headlines about this on Google News focused on the rockets and mentioned the airstrikes as an afterthought.
“Individualist misanthropy” and the “Morpheus complex”
Individualist misanthropy (something I think I made up but is based on a lot of observation) is the coinciding of an individualist, “looking out for number one,” worldview and a general contempt for other human beings. Behavior that can be called “individualist misanthropy” usually involves one seeing the people around them, or the general human race save for a few exceptional individuals, as being unintelligent, ignorant, immoral, deluded, irrational, superstitious, or greedy. In this phenomenon, one - either individualism or misanthropy - is usually the rationalization for the other. For instance, one might feel personally entitled to live without regard for the well being of others because one sees others as inferior. On the other hand, one might see others as inferior beings because others do subscribe to a more “collectivist” or moralistic set of values, and see those around them as unenlightened “sheeple.”
Individualist misanthropy is likely most common in right-wing communities, in which such crass-individualism is to be expected. The individualist-misanthropist worldview best rationalizes unfettered capitalism and its consequences, as well as geopolitical hegemony, and even subtle forms of feudalism/monarchy - and the general contempt for democratic governance that goes along with all of these things. Contributing to this is the idea that those who subscribe to a more democratic and/or collectivist ideology are simply ignorant of scientific economic laws. One is tempted to call their attitude a “Morpheus complex” because of their obsession with “waking people up.”
It can also be found, however, among many “leftists” who see themselves as superior to others for being aware of things that others are not. Although not subscribing directly to an “individualist” ideology, they nonetheless direct their frustration toward the general population, targeting the habits of ordinary people as responsible for what’s wrong with the world. Leftists who fall to individualist misanthropy are most likely to value activism through lifestyle choices over direct action or consciousness-raising. They are also most likely to guilt or deride others for their choices or ignorance. Misanthropic-individualist leftists are also guilty of having a “Morpheus Complex.”
Atheists, particularly New Atheists, have a tendency to adopt an attitude of individualist misanthropy for much the same reasons as others.
For the record, by no means is an individualist ideology inherently accompanied by misanthropy - there’s just a strong as fuck correlation.
Frank Knight, one of the founders of Chicago School economics, thought professors should “inculcate” in their students the belief that each economic theory is “a sacred feature of the system,” not a debatable hypothesis. The core of such sacred Chicago teachings was that the economic forces of supply, demand, inflation and unemployment were like the forces of nature
“
| — |
Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism That this was a feature of Chicago school teachings reinforces my frequent gripe that “free market” mouthpieces treat one schools analyses of one form of economic system as though they were concrete natural laws. So much for scientific objectivity, eh? (via domesticterrorism) |
