After reading a lot of posts by right-wing morons about the Trayvon Martin shooting- a few things become obvious. It seems that all right-wing morons and many whites actually believe that..
1. It is not about race, but about “law and order”.
2. The police are the “good” and “fair” guys.
3. The american justice system is “fair” and “not racist”.
4. If any white person is racist, it is the n*****s fault.
5. Racism is fair and justifiable based on ‘insert reason’.
Inspite of harboring such attitudes, many whites also believe that the strong black reaction to the Trayvon Martin killing is unjustified. Do you see the problem? OK, let me explain. You see, the general attitude of whites towards blacks, throughout american history, can be summed up as- “n*****s are disposable animals with no rights, even to their own lives”. I would argue that every single facet of the american society, from medical care to the justice system, is tainted with this attitude. It just so happens that every non-brain damaged black person can see also see that to be the case. I believe that a lot of black behavior, and attitudes, towards whites are grounded in a very accurate reading of the white “mind”- if you can call it that.
The strong black reaction to the Trayvon Martin killing is, therefore, not so much about George Zimmerman’s actions as it is about the response and attitudes of the system to that event. As you might recall, the system treated Trayvon’s killing as if he was just another n***** who deserved to be dead. The system only acknowledged that ‘something unfortunate might have occurred’ after Trayvon’s parents hired well-connected lawyers.
Prior to that, the system treated George Zimmerman as if he had accidentally run over a neighbors pet dog rather than killed another human being.
Maybe the key to avoiding black rage lies in treating them like human beings. What do you think?
Yes, I know it is not summer.. yet and that song was originally done by “Bananarama” in 1983- but the Ace of Base version is better.
One of the most peculiar features of western, and indeed many other developed, countries is the continuation of behaviors to satisfy needs and wants which have become worthless or counterproductive. The desire for home ownership is one of the many behaviors which is counterproductive in our era, though it might have been rational in a previous one.
So why am I so against home ownership in developed countries today? What is my rationale for calling it counterproductive? Shouldn’t people have a stable place to live and raise kids etc?
My issues with home ownership are linked to what it has become, as opposed to what it used to be. You see, people once owned homes to live in, raise kids, grow old and ultimately die in. They stood for something that cannot be simply measured with money. While homes in previous eras were rather basic compared to what you can get today, they were part of the self of its residents in a way stucco boxes inside a gated community can never be.
Homes today are really about living aspirational lifestyles based on keeping up with the Joneses or one-upping them. They do not mean anything more to its inhabitants, nor do they feel any real connection to it. Even the very reasons for owning homes in the first place such as long-term marriages, long-term jobs, raising kids and actually enjoying being in them are no longer relevant.
Home ownership has become a means to screw people over for money. Everybody who can exploit your desire for owning a home will try to do so. Entities from your local HOA, municipality, state government, school district, utilities, federal government.. well pretty much anyone who can take advantage of your situation will do so without any consideration for the effects of their demands on you. And don’t forget those in occupations connected to building, selling and repairing houses.
Their principal leverage over you is your desire to maintain ownership of your own home. But do you really own something if you are paying a range of mafia-like entities to maintain ‘ownership’ of it?
Then, there is the question whether the reasons you bought your own home for are still relevant. How many marriages last for a lifetime? Won’t you lose the house in a divorce anyway? How many jobs and careers last for more than a couple of years? What about your long-term income prospects? Is it worth having kids anymore? Between long commutes and unpaid overtime, how much of your waking hours will you spend in your home? What about petty tyrants in your HOA stifling your desire to alter your own home?
Are any of the previous reasons for owning your home even relevant? and have they been replaced by equally good newer reasons to still do so?
So why keep on aspiring to play a rigged game that offers none of the old benefits, but comes with a bigger set of negatives? What is in it for you? Is trying to impress people who don’t care for you worth that much effort? Is conformism worth the price of entry?
AS many of you might have heard by now, a few members of the security entourage of President Obama, were caught because of their inability to understand the basic protocols involved in dealing with escorts. However a few aspects of this case are especially curious and shed light on another issue which in time will become a far bigger liability. I will draw your attention to certain parts of an article about this story in the NYT.
The disagreement over her price — he offered $30 for services she thought they had agreed were worth more than 25 times that — set off a tense early morning quarrel in the hallway of the luxury hotel involving the woman, another prostitute, Colombian police officers arguing on the women’s behalf and American federal agents who tried but failed to keep the matter from escalating.
Ya.. I know what this is about. You see, he thought that the rates per hour of service were the same as those for overnight stay. They are not! The overnight stay rates are usually the equivalent of 6-8 hours of their hourly rate. Remember that! Never hire an escort for anything over 2 hours because after 2-4 nice nuts, there is not much left to do or even talk about. Moving on..
There was a language gap between the woman, 24, who declined to give her full name, and the American man who sat beside her at the bar and eventually invited her to his room. She agreed, stopped on the way to buy condoms but told him he would have to give her a gift. He asked how much. Not knowing he worked for Mr. Obama but figuring he was a well-heeled foreigner, she said, she told him $800.
So she told him her rates rather clearly, and any person who has dabbled in this area should know that it is best to walk away if the rates are not to your liking. Bargaining for sex is what pathetic men, such as husbands and boyfriends, do. It seems that in the morning he forgot that he had promised her 800$ and tried to get rid of her with 30$. Things obviously went south after that and the escort left the room in a huff..
She said she was crying and went across the hall, where another escort had spent the night with an American man from the same group. Both women began trying to get the money. They knocked on the door but got no response. She threatened to call the police, but the man’s friend, who appeared on the scene, begged her not to, saying they did not want trouble. Finally, she said, she left to go home but came across a police officer stationed in the hallway, who called in an English-speaking colleague. He accompanied her back to the room and the dispute escalated. Two other Americans from the club emerged from their rooms and stood guard in front of their friend’s locked door. The two Colombian officers tried to argue the woman’s case.
Are these ‘secret service’ people nuts? It is stupid to draw extra attention to yourself in a foreign country. Why did they not just pay the whore off?
A hotel security officer arrived. Eventually, she lowered her demand to $250, which she said was the amount she has to pay the man who helps find her customers. Eager to resolve the matter fast, the American men eventually gave her a combination of dollars and pesos worth about $225, and she left.
and this is what I find most disturbing. You would think that people in such sensitive jobs would be paid enough to have some spare change to pay for a few hookers and other unspecified expenses. I mean.. between three or more agents they had barely 250$. Could they not find an ATM or work some arrangement with the hotels management? Or did they really not have 800$ between, at least three of, them even though they were on an international trip?
In my opinion, the events can be best explained by the hypothesis that the ‘secret service agents, did not actually have that much spare cash on their hands. While I am not aware of the payscale for their jobs, it appears that the current one is a bit too low.
While the idea that people in that particular occupation might seem odd to many, it makes a lot of sense to me. Consider the payscale for people in the armed forces relative to the cost of the equipment they use. Even commercial pilots, especially those working for smaller commuter airlines, make a pittance compared to the cost of the equipment they are using. One of the more bizarre aspects of the ongoing middle-class dream collapse has been the tendency of management to cut or curtail wages of employees involved in jobs which involve real and skilled work. This has gone on at the same time those organizations have hired an increasing number people for much better paid but useless or counterproductive job functions.
What do you think? Comments?
OK, here is a question for which nobody has ever given me a satisfactory rational answer. This question also happens to be one of the examples I use in a couple of upcoming posts.
Why are parents in western countries, especially those in North America, so enthusiastic about their kids moving away from them?
I have to say that all of the conventional explanations heard by me such as “it encouraging independence”, “it builds character”, “it is good for them”, “it fosters individualism”, “it is cultural” just don’t make sense from a rational viewpoint. Human have invested far more time and resources in their kids throughout human history and prehistory- and for good reason. Unlike almost all other animals- humans are intensely social, long-lived and rather slow at reproducing themselves. High levels of parental involvement are necessary by default, whether in a nuclear-type family setting or more communal setting.
However high levels of investment also require proportional returns.
For most of human history- your kids were your injury, sickness and middle/old age plan. Even today that is by far the best case scenario. This situation does not change even if a significant minority of kids abandoned their parents as the median return would still be far better than any other alternative.
So why would people who have invested significant amount of time and money run away from their investment, especially when doing so decreases or eliminates the returns.
It simply does not compute.. on multiple levels and under multiple scenarios. However it is too widespread in western countries (especially in the last 100 years) to be an anomaly or fad. I believe that this peculiar behavior might be based on a series of assumptions which have partially held during the last 100 years of growth- but might not hold under low or negative growth scenarios.
What do you guys think? Comments?
One of the most important beliefs driving governmental support for increased immigration into western countries goes something like this.
Immigrants (and their kids) will be able to prop up the revenue collection apparatus long enough for old white people to collect their pensions and die of natural causes.
Are you wondering why I singled out the ability to prop up the revenue collection apparatus, rather than more popular reasons like jobs, growth, ideology or multiculturalism? Here is why.. As far as governments, at any level, are concerned those issues are of secondary importance. All governments, and private sector entities, are primarily concerned about the size and growth of their revenue streams. Only large revenue streams with robust growth can allow those in the system to skim enough without making them unstable and collapse onto themselves.
The need for growth is due to the fact that most activities of the government, and private sector, involve skimming ever larger amounts from the real economy into the pockets of the connected and privileged. The public sector and private sector are best seen as two sides of the same coin, rather than ideologically distinct entities. The major difference between them is that the public sector leaks its ill-gotten gains back into real economy far more readily than the private sector, and is therefore often the lesser of two evils. However both of them require a robustly growing real economy to survive for any length of time.
Which brings us back to the current situation in developed countries. The major long term problem for both governments and corporations alike can be summed up as-
Where is the growth in revenue going to come from?
As I have mentioned before- both the public and the private sector owe their very existence to the ability to skim productivity of the economy. However doing so also makes them larger, more rigid and more hungry. The ideal situation for them is one in why the body (system) grows faster than the cancer (major public and private sector beneficiaries). Modern medicine and contraception have decreased (if not eliminated) the very ability of the system to experience any significant endogenous growth.
The public and private sectors in their desperation to keep the revenue stream growing, or at least constant, have opted for ever increasing infusions of people from other countries. While there is some historical basis for this approach, I believe that it will fail to achieve the expected results this time around. Here is why..
1. Lack of adequate and speedy economic integration of new immigrants.
It is a fact that immigrants often have significantly lower incomes than their native born counterparts- even if they have an identical level of education and skills. Whether that is due to racism or anything else is a futile academic exercise. As far as the economy is concerned- lower income translates into lower revenue collection and consumption. It certainly does not help that many immigrants save, or repatriate, money and thus further reduce the potential revenue stream. To put it bluntly, for the purpose of revenue collection- immigration works only if it occurs on a large scale in a rapidly growing economy.
2. Incoming immigrants are no longer that desperate, poor or uneducated.
Another traditional way to exploit immigrants was based on the fact that they used to be desperate, poor and uneducated. The last 30-odd years have witnessed a massive socio-economic change in the world outside developed countries. The average immigrant is no longer that desperate, poor or uneducated- nor are the conditions in their country of origin as bad as they used to be. Cheap communication, outsourcing and globalization have also made inter-country moves rather easy. Consequently much of the leverage enjoyed by the public, and private sector, in developed countries is now gone.
3. Issues related to race and ethnicity.
As many of you aware, most recent immigrants to developed countries are not white. While that in itself would not have been a big issue- the combination of inadequate economic integration, better education, more options and higher self-worth make them significantly less willing to accept levels of abuse which their predecessors accepted without complaining. However the attitudes and behaviors of older white people towards these immigrants have not kept up with the rapidly changing reality. It seems that many white people still inhabit the 1960-1980 era (which is when many of them grew up) and harbor mystical beliefs which allow them to believe that the system won’t fail them regardless of what they do and how they behave towards the very people expected to foot their bills.
What do you think? Comments?
Have you ever wondered why proper sewage handling and garbage disposal, of the type we see today, is barely a hundred years old? Isn’t it odd that the universal human aversion towards excreta and garbage did not result in the development of adequate means of disposing them for thousands of years? While some civilizations did develop rudimentary sewers and garbage handling systems, they rarely survived the their fall. Contrast this to the ability to build palaces, carve statutes, refine “precious” metals etc- all of which survived civilizational collapse, often multiple times.
I am trying to make you see an often ignored aspect of human behavior, namely that people will often expend much effort doing things with questionable utility for them, while ignoring others that might actually improve the quality of their lives.
Some of you might think that a lack of appropriate technology was behind the historical lack of interest in public sanitation. But is that really true? Even today, sewers are mostly gravity driven and the technology used in their construction is old and simple. Indeed even 5,000 years ago, the Indus Valley civilization, was able to build and maintain an extensive sewer network in their major cities for hundreds of years. Similarly the concept of a flush toilet is not exactly new, since the Indus Valley civilization and the Minoan Civilization built adequate flush toilets. However in both cases, subsequent civilizations in that region did not bother to rebuild decent sewers or install new flush toilets. The question is- why not? Isn’t it odd that subsequent Indian and Greek civilizations in those regions took off from where there predecessors left in almost every area of knowledge but sanitation?
Some of you might argue that the ability to treat sewage properly was a bigger impediment than building sewers and flush toilets. While modern sewage treatment plants are indeed complex and technologically sophisticated structures, they need not be so if you can live with lower efficiency and larger surface area. The vast majority of sewage treatment involves letting naturally occurring bacteria and fungi consume all the organic nutrients in sewage to outcompete and kill the pathogenic organisms in it- plus a little UV from the sun also helps the process. So pretty decent sewage treatment is possible even if the civilization has no electricity and pretty basic mechanical ability- as long as it exists in a region with warm weather, adequate sunshine and ability to build open, sequential semi-waterproof tanks connected by water-locks. The ability to plan and build such structures has been around for over 4,000 years.
Collecting and disposing garbage was even an even easier proposition. The ability to efficiently pick up and dump garbage at designated sites far away from human habitation was within the grasp of every civilization in human history. But why were cities throughout the world full of garbage heaps within the city? Even cities like imperial Rome simply moved around garbage from the richer sections of the city to the poorer ones. To make a long story short- cities from the 5,000 year old ones in Egypt and the Middle-East to early 20th century western cities were full of garbage.
I should also point out that there was no shortage of citizens, subjects or slaves to build and maintain sewers, install simple flush toilets, build open-air sewage treatment tanks, collect and dispose garbage properly.
So why did people, including the ‘elites’, live surrounded by shit, piss and other assorted filth? Why would people who built large buildings, tombs, temples and palaces not build sewers? Why did people who built all sorts of ingenious mechanical devices not build simple flush toilets? Why did people who built artificial ponds for temples, palaces and irrigation not build similar structures for treating sewage. Why did people capable of waging complex military campaigns not be able to collect and dispose garbage properly?
In my opinion- lack of knowledge, superstition and stupidity are inadequate to explain why the same things kept on occurring across many civilizations. I believe that the answer lies in understanding why people started caring about things like adequate sewage handling and garbage disposal. While discoveries in science certainly helped change public opinion about sewage and garbage- the real changes in behavior and actions occurred in tandem with the growth of socio-economic systems which benefited more than a small percentage of the population.
The real impetus for proper sewage handling and garbage disposal came from the spread of governance that derived its legitimacy from providing social goods, rather than the sole purpose of enriching an oligarchy. It is no coincidence that the Indus Valley Civilization, with its well maintained sewers and toilets in every homes, was also remarkably egalitarian. The same is also true of the golden period of the Minoan civilization.
What do you think? Comments?
Since April is the month for filing income taxes across North America, I decided to write a post or two on the whole topic of taxation. Some of you might be stupid enough to think only something explicitly labelled as a tax (such as income tax, sales tax etc) is actually a tax. The reality is rather different..
Many charges and costs which you do not consider as taxes are precisely that, in everything but their name.
While there are, somewhat obvious but, non-standard taxes such as the payroll tax deductions to cover for social security and medicare- the real extent of taxation requires you to examine many daily transactions through the lens of reason. Is paying more for living in an area with a good school district a tax? You bet it is! What about paying a higher price, and therefore a higher mortgage, for a house in the better areas of your local human termite hill- aka city? What about paying much more to be treated by a doctor in a western country when he, or she, cannot offer a better outcome than somebody from a middle-income country? Do you pay for the use of facilities, services or utilities that are effectively private cartels with the ability to block competition through ‘laws’? What about the ever-increasing rates of spending, and use, of corporate lawyers without a proportional increase in the income of the entities that use their services?
Most forms of taxation are best understood as the excess cost incurred due to the parasitic behavior of people and legal entities with ‘power’ over somebody else. This is also the starting point for my explanation about why most taxation is regressive or become will become regressive as time goes on.
It is important to remember that the vast majority of people who pay any taxes, in any form, have far less ‘power’ than those who collect them. Therefore the potential for those involved in collecting taxes to abuse their power and maximize their collections is omnipresent. Since most human beings, especially those with any amount of ‘power’, also tend to be more greedy and hubristic than those who don’t- it is almost a given that people involved or benefiting from tax collection of any sort will abuse their power. Furthermore, they are more likely to abuse their power and extract proportionately more from the most vulnerable than those who can defend themselves.
In most societies the ability to defend oneself is linked to how rich you are. Consequently a person with lots of money can often avoid paying taxes of any sort by employing lawyers or paying off legislators and enforcement personnel. He or she can also transfer the burden of taxes onto poorer people who are less able to defend themselves. Therefore any society with serious income inequality will always result in richer individuals further enriching themselves by transferring their tax burden onto poorer people- irrespective of the effect of such behavior on the long-term health of that socio-economic system. The ‘socialization’ of tax burden is one of the main mechanisms through which the rich can privatize personal profit while socializing losses and costs.
Regressive taxation ultimately destroys the very socio-economic system that created and allowed it to exist.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you might remember, I once posted a very good Photoshopped image of Miley Cyrus without panties. Though I did say that the person in the image resembled her, I hinted that the real deal would look very similar
Now we have confirmation that I was right!
It seems that the starlet was recently photographed in a very short dress and clearly not wearing any panties. Based on the available photos, it appears that Miley does indeed have a nice shaved slit, without any protruding lips- just like a hot 19-year old girl should have. BTW, I found the photo here- Miley Cyrus Caught Going Commando (NSFW). Enjoy!
and let us be clear about one thing- she knows what she is doing.
What do you think? Comments?
I have noticed that many white and asian morons have a peculiar and obsessive belief about the supposed benefits of ‘high IQ’. I have previously expressed my cynicism about the rather questionable purpose and supposed benefits of civilization, and views on the dubiousness of the ‘high IQ’ argument are well-known. This post takes yet another angle to expose the fallacy of the ‘high IQ is better’ belief.
Let us look at three fairly common professions which are supposedly filled with ‘high IQ’ types. Most of you will agree that people who become physicians, academics and lawyers do actually score pretty high on IQ tests. But what do their professions, activities, beliefs, behaviors and impact on society tell us about IQ?
Let us start with Physicians. Have you ever wondered about what type of person gets into medical school, especially in N. America? The typical person who does so is good at things such as- writing essays full of the “right” lies, doing the “right” volunteer work, cheating in tests to get the “right” grades, blowing the “right” people etc. The vast majority people of people who go on to become physicians are reasonably clever with good memory and superficial, if somewhat geeky, charm.
But how many of them think beyond what they have learnt? How many of them question dogma? How many of them make the same mistakes that their colleagues make- just to fit in? How many of them ‘just do things’ because it makes them more money-regardless of the consequences for their patients? How many use Google for diagnosing illnesses? Here is my question- What part of their behavior justifies the supposed benefits of high IQ?
Moving on to Academia.. It supposedly contains some of the most intelligent and conscientious people. But is that really the case? What type of people are successful in academia, anyway? Contrary to their popular image as objective, poverty loving and rational truth-seekers the vast majority of successful academics are duplicitous and conformist CONartists who spend a lot of time begging from grant agencies, playing political games in committees, screwing over graduate students and post-docs and pretending to be knowledgeable about their supposed areas of expertise.
The reality is that your typical academic, especially under 65 years old, is closer to a dogmatic and dishonest priest than an intellectual free-spirit. They spent most of their supposed intellectual ability on perpetuating petty scams and acting self-righteous. They are, at best, poorly compensated and willing tools of an educational system that uses them as front men for even larger scams. Which part of their behavior is reflective of the supposed advantages of their high IQ? How does a hard-working and pretentious CONartist who makes the same amount of money as a high school teacher a good advertisement for the benefits of possessing a high IQ?
Now let us turn our attention to Lawyers. How many of you believe that having more lawyers would make the world a better place? If not- why not? Let us begin by, once again, asking ourselves the two basic questions- who becomes a successful lawyer and what do successful lawyers do? Based on what I have seen, people who are successful at being admitted into decent law schools are clever and underhanded workaholics who believe that they are the’chosen’ ones.
While lawyers from decent law schools probably make more than either physicians or academics, it is worthwhile to note that they do so by sucking money out the productive economy. Every dollar earned by a lawyer represents one dollar stolen from somebody who does productive work, and their occupation is not useful to society unlike the previous two occupation categories. If anything, they encourage the creation of more laws requiring even more lawyers and thereby reducing the opportunities and money for everybody else.
Having said that- did you notice a series of common threads which seem to run through the three occupation categories listed above?
1. All of the above mentioned occupations are cartels, which use assymetric information to exploit the rest of society.
2. The structure of these cartels and entry into them requires a very high degree of conformity with pre-existing dogma.
3. They do not participate in innovation or change for the better of society, and if anything vehemently resist it.
4. They pretend to care about the welfare of society while bleeding it dry- many of them even believe their own lies.
The bulk of evidence suggests that ‘high IQ’ people are clever and selfish shysters who are supreme conformists, lie a lot, slavishly worship tradition and have no interest in innovation. Their relationships with society, and effect on it, is rather similar to a slow-growing cancer or tumor on the body.
What do you think? Comments?
This is the one scene from that movie which, in my opinion, is totally worth watching for reasons that will be obvious once you finish watching it.
Sometimes a social pathology becomes so pervasive that most people start normalizing it. Bullying at school, especially in N. America, is a good example of a pathological behavior pattern that has been normalized. I have long believed that bullying at school is a product of compulsory institutionalized schools, which came into being within the last century or so. Of late, we hear a bit more about bullying that we used to- primarily because of bullying related student suicides, homicides and documentaries. However this post is not about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of bullying, but about something even more troubling.
Why do teachers ignore bullying amongst their students?
Given that teachers are the adults supervising children in school, are they not responsible for the welfare of all children under their supervision? at least theoretically? So why don’t they show much desire, initiative or even willingness to do something about bullying? What stops them, or more importantly- why don’t they seem to care?
The conventional answers to this question include a variety of reasons ranging from school policy and various laws, lack of time, lack of resources, inadequate pay and supposed concerns about bureaucratic nightmares etc. But are these excuses valid? Why don’t these same reasons affect the ability of schools to implement various zero-tolerance policies, install and staff metal detectors at suburban schools, implement intrusive lunch policies etc?
I believe that the reason behind their apparent inability to significantly reduce bullying amongst their students is linked to the real nature of the relationship between teachers and their students in institutionalized school systems. Others have previously noted that schools are rather similar to prisons and factories. I will take that analogy one step further.
Schools are functionally similar to concentration camps for children. The relationship between students and teachers is therefore equivalent to that between concentration camp inmates and their guards and overseers.
Like concentration camps, schools are run for the benefit of their employees (teachers etc) and business benefiting from their existence. They are not run for the benefit of their inmates.. I mean students. The inmates exist to help the employees justify their continued pay. While that does sometime necessitate the pretense of caring for the inmates, all such acts are for show and profit. Schools as an institution have no reason for providing their students decent education, supervision or food. They only provide the bare minimum of the above to avoid public outrage, shutdown and potential loss of income for the employees. Business also profit from schools, either directly by selling useless or substandard crap to students and schools or indirectly by abusing.. I mean employing or further exploiting (universities) the purposefully damaged products of the system.
The whole system is an engine which burns fuel (childhood) to make money for people who pretend to care about the fuel.
Now some of you might be stupid enough to believe that privatizing schools would magically change this situation. It won’t.. because privatization does not change the incentives or basic framework. If anything, privatization will fuck things even more. It really boils down to why we supposedly require institutionalized schooling.
The motivation behind institutionalized schooling has always been the destruction of free thought and imposition of tyranny. It is about creating damaged, uniform adults who will slave away at boring jobs to enrich a few. The scam worked well for many decades.. and then effective contraception happened. Today the combination of women in the workplace, contraception, decreased structural ability to profit from simple worker enslavement has put a real damper on their business model.
It is no coincidence that schools have responded to a decrease in growth rate of their fuel.. I mean children, by making it more expensive and complicated to educate each child- thereby wringing out more money per unit of fuel.. I mean child.
I am aware that this post was about why teachers ignore bullying amongst their students. As you can see, that or any other issue concerning child welfare is just not relevant to their business model.
What do you think? Comments?
He apparently sees it as an intentional, and somewhat diabolical, manipulation of popular culture by corporate interests to make people unhappy and dissatisfied with the intention of making them buy more crap. While there is some merit to that line of thinking, I believe that the underlying reason is even more basic.
It comes down to two interlinked aspects of contemporary western culture-
1. Women watch more TV than men and buy the majority of consumer crap.
2. It is simply more profitable to pander to those who buy the majority of crap.
Women are the biggest consumers of TV and other passive forms of entertainment (romance novels, self-help books etc). Most men simply cannot watch, let alone enjoy, large quantities of passive entertainment. That is why most forms of passive entertainment, such as TV, movies and popular literature, are heavily slanted towards feminine tastes.
The depiction of TV sitcom characters as backstabbing, superficial, narcissistic, untrustworthy and dysfunctional is therefore not some grand conspiracy aimed at breaking up human relationships. It is however a fairly accurate depiction of how women perceive, and behave with, each other. Furthermore, since most human beings are incapable of perceiving themselves as the “bad guys”, sitcoms often project such behavior on male and subordinate female characters.
Some of you might say- “but women have always been like that, so why are we seeing so much pandering now?”. The answer lies in the somewhat recent ability of women to financially support themselves. Consequently- they don’t have to even fake basic human decency, piety or respectability to obtain a comfortably middle-class existence. Also don’t forget that many woman with jobs spend from two income streams- his and hers.
It is this increase in the relative spending power and legal status of women, in parallel with a diminution of both for most men, that have made it acceptable for TV sitcoms to go in a full “goddess worship” mode.
The depictions and behaviors of sitcom characters are therefore a reflection of the true mindset and desires of most women. While some guys who watch those shows might get brainwashed into accepting such behavior, the majority of younger men have other male-centric avenues for entertainment such as video games, internet porn etc. Furthermore since most younger men nowadays are single or act single, the women in their lives have a significantly reduced influence on their entertainment choices. The same cannot be said of older men who grew up in the pre-internet age.
What do you think? Comments?