Dirty Secret
Readers may recall our various, quite lengthy discussions regarding the desperately bohemian Laurie Penny and her enthusiasm for supposedly radical lifestyles, which often entail parasitism and tend to have ruinous effects on those born without means:
Laurie is following the standard trajectory of her type. Her status and career would have been much less likely without the very same bourgeois values she claims to despise and urges others to reject. If instead of a stable, rather comfortable middle-class upbringing she’d been raised in keeping with her own professed values – say, by a welfare-dependent single parent with multiple transient partners and no stability or commitment – I somehow doubt she’d have been able to spend time at Wadham College finding herself politically and playing “riot girl.” And I doubt she’d now be able to flit around the world while tweeting about how oppressed she is.
Likewise, her self-imagined role as a wordsmith revolutionary would be much harder to sustain without a great many other people cultivating those same bourgeois values and keeping things ticking over. A fact that Laurie counts on, despite her pretence. In effect, we, the bourgeois rubes whose values she rails against, are her safety net. The fact that few of us are credulous enough to take her at her words and follow her advice is what allows her to mouth it in relative comfort and security, knowing that the destruction of capitalism, marriage and the family unit (and all that would go with it), which she claims to want, won’t happen just yet.
Well, a self-styled bohemian type seems to agree:
I’m a Boho, and square society should indulge and appreciate Boho contributions, IMHO. But I also think that Boho values are RUINOUS for everyday people. Seriously: for 5% of us, living the Boho way is excellent, but for most people Boho values and life-techniques will wreck them. That’s where I differ hugely from my fellow Bohos: I WANT square society to prosper, to be proud, to do a good square job, etc. Bohemia (which I love and am committed to) is dependent on a vigorous, healthy conventional society. It ain’t the reverse! Don’t let me down, squares.
At least the honesty is refreshing.
Laurie Penny doesn’t really seem very bohemian to me, she is too rigidly conventional for that game.
Laurie Penny doesn’t really seem very bohemian to me, she is too rigidly conventional for that game.
She’s not a very flexible thinker, or particularly convincing. Hence desperately bohemian. There is, I think, an air of neediness, of very much wanting to be seen as counter-cultural, and Laurie uses the word “radical” – about herself – with comical frequency. All while following the trajectory of countless other middle-class lefties who pretended the same things.
Laurie Penny doesn’t really seem very bohemian to me, she is too rigidly conventional for that game.
Exactly. Like so much of the contemporary left, Laurie is starchy, priggish and unimaginative.
That’s why the left these days are so ghastly. They’re not only wrong about most things, but they’re also pitilessly dull and lifeless. Bohemian, they are not.
I’m a Boho, and square society should indulge and appreciate Boho contributions…
“Bohemian” I don’t think that word means what Ray thinks it means. “Poseur Bohemian”, maybe.
Just because no Laurie Penny thread should be without the classics.
I suspect there are as many “trust fund” Bohemians as there are “trust fund” artists. And they’ve all jetted off to Burning Man this week, where they gather to preen in their specialness.
Good bohos are seen but not heard. The best bohos are neither.
Welcome back!
Somebody left the lid off the pickled “egg” jar, and Cuddles got out, and, um—well, it’s all in the lawyer’s letter.
But we did use coasters. Really. We did.
But we did use coasters. Really. We did.
I’m still surveying the wreckage.
I suspect that Laurie and the other self-styled “bohemians” actually fear being too successful. That is, their self-worth is derived from being countercultural–i.e. “other.” If everyone’s doing it, it is no longer special, is it?
Second, they know that only a robust, “square” society can/will tolerate and indulge their Che Guevara LARPing. Venezuela doesn’t need a lot of overwrought, self-indulgent think pieces in the local papers or preening television interviews at the moment.
Since Cuddles hasn’t been recaptured, should we invite Laurie over for Happy Hour? To see how self-indulgent she can be while running for her life?
Also, the henchlesbians refuse to clean up the wreckage without hazardous duty pay. Should we engage a bunch of desperate fools—I mean, an outside hazmat team—instead?
Oh. I thought we’d finally got off the blacklist. Never mind.
And they’ve all jetted off to Burning Man this week, where they gather to preen in their specialness.
Oh, yes, the bohos and other hipsters do go to Burning Man these days, where with apparently very rare exceptions, the actual artists who founded Burning Man don’t bother any more and haven’t been there in years . . .
When I first heard of Burning Man—because I was doing some project work with said founders and we were all quite within walking range of a Bart station, instead of heading off to the middle of nowhere—the overall assessment was already that Yeah, well, it just hasn’t been the same since they banned the drive by shooting range.
There’s a kind of a credit bubble to do with being a rebel. Like attending college, it’s being encouraged for everybody and not just those with a gift for it. There’s no price to pay upfront, and the long term risks are soft pedaled, so deluded young wannabes end up making lifetime commitments that they’re unsuited for.
The culture supports this bubble by presenting scenarios where the rebel enjoys both the thrill of being “subversive” and the final security of conventional success and social approval. The rebel in James Dean movies ends up dead or in jail. The rebel in Robin Williams movies ends up being applauded by the professional colleagues he thumbed his nose at. Modern Hollywood rebels can trade in their hot rod for a Rolls Royce. It’s not a realistic life plan, unless the hot rodder is a rich kid who’s slumming it.
The job of the squares in a “vigorous, healthy conventional society” is to apply skepticism and social disapproval to wannabe rebels. This scares away the phony rebels who are really just conformist, and ensures that the real rebels have paid a price and are prepared for the life they’ve chosen.
Oh, yes, the bohos and other hipsters do go to Burning Man these days…
In style, of course. This is how I’d imagine Ms. Penny and company arriving:
https://monarchairgroup.com/burning-man-private-jet-and-air-charter-flights/
P.S. That drive-by shooting range sounds fun!
There’s a kind of a credit bubble to do with being a rebel. Like attending college, it’s being encouraged for everybody and not just those with a gift for it.
The read I’ve gotten over time is not so much of Being A Rebel as much as what hipsters would like to make of the imagery—Oh, I am to be admired!!!! or where there’s an attempt to frantically reject actual reality—Noooo!!! The Nineteen Empties had clothing instead of butt ugly costuming!!!.
What the hipster, et al, would like to frantically ignore is the repeated actuality of someone wondering What happens if . . ., or, Hang on, what about that loose thread over there. . . and then that “rebel” noting Uh, people, whether you like it or not, there is that reality that you’re now frantically denying . . .
Of course, whet prolly isn’t helping the hipsters is that very carefully arranged instances of What happens if . . . also happen to be the standard practice of actual scientific method and experimentation.
There’s a kind of a credit bubble to do with being a rebel. Like attending college, it’s being encouraged for everybody and not just those with a gift for it.
Well, quite a few wannabe radicals are discovering, much to their shock and dismay, that an expensive education in “social justice” voodoo and general self-flattery is, and I quote, “apparently worthless in the current job market.” Though some have yet to register that being an unspecified “creative” armed only with a degree in Gender Studies is not entirely practical as career trajectories go. And others remain puzzled by the fact that announcing yourself to potential employers as a “political troublemaker” isn’t the most obvious path to a self-supporting adult life.
It’s a kind of farcical wreckage.
I’ve only taken 2 college classes: Principles of Accounting I (ghastly) and Business Law I (quite interesting). So I may not know what I’m talking about, but since that has never stopped pundits paid well into the 7 figures, I see no reason it should stop me. So consider this. It is an article of faith in your family that Everyone Must Go To College, so you dutifully sign up for, let’s say, organic chemistry, and quickly find out that you are not smart enough for it .(I mean no criticism; whatever native intelligence God and your parents endowed you with is not your fault and, by definition, half of us are below average intelligence.). So you try accounting. That also is beyond you. By degrees (sorry) you come to Angry Studies, which anybody can pass. Now you’re 5 figures in debt, unemployable in any remunerative field acceptable to your caste, and your outstanding cooking skills are going to waste.
What I’m suggesting is that these people have good reason to be angry, but they are angry at the wrong people. It wasn’t white deplorables who decided Everyone Must Go To College and it wasn’t white deplorables who invented Angry Studies—we were too busy manufacturing and transporting goods, plumbing, building, landscaping, caring for your caste’s children and old people, cleaning your houses, and manning cash registers. If victims of Angry Studies are looking for justifiable targets for their wrath, they might start with family and friends.
Speaking of wrath, Cuddles got into the men’s room so the deplorable plumber is deplorably refusing to go in and unclog the toilet unless HE gets hazard pay. Since henchlesbians work cheaper than plumbers, even on hazard pay, do we want to give one a plunger and send her in?
On the other hand, we have another esteemed member of Clown Academia arguing that capitalism is bad because it makes people unfree
Of course, his definition of “freedom” is “free stuff” with absolutely no consideration on how that “free stuff” is to be provided when people are not required to do anything for it.
“All while following the trajectory of countless other middle-class lefties who pretended the same things.”
In the second decade of the 21st Century, a Guardian-reading socialist woman with brightly-coloured hair is about as unremarkable as you can get.
“But we did use coasters. Really. We did.”
They fly really well. Like little frisbees.
Welcome home.
On the other hand, we have another esteemed member of Clown Academia…
…who, being a political “scientist”, lives in Wolkenkuckucksheim.
What I’m suggesting is that these people have good reason to be angry, but they are angry at the wrong people.
Like so many others, the examples I linked above are suckers and dupes, whose vanities and credulity were exploited by older lefties in the Clown Quarter. Though I suspect few of them will dare to acknowledge it, even belatedly, as doing so would make their own narcissism difficult to miss.
Speaking of angry, the plumber wishes to speak to the proprietor. Something about being hit with a mini-frisbee?
I don’t know why he didn’t just fend it off with the plunger—. Oh. Cuddles ate the plunger.
Hmmm. We’ll let our leader tackle this problem.
Oh, yes, the bohos and other hipsters do go to Burning Man these days…
Do they still have naked chicks with glow-in-the-dark hulahoops? That’s the only thing remotely interesting I’ve seen about it.
If the regular hazmat team is unavailable then you might consider hiring San Fransisco’s new Poop Patrol. It’ll only run you $184,678 a man (I’m reasonably certain that few to no women will be employed)
https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-employees-make-184000-a-year-2018-8
I’ve just realised Monday is a bank holiday over here. I could have had a long weekend off too. Bugger.
It’ll only run you $184,678 a man (I’m reasonably certain that few to no women will be employed)
Cue the Outrage™ in 5… 4… 3…
They need to give out trowels and explain the idea of digging a cathole.
Cue justification of shitting on sidewalks as creating high-paying jobs in 3…2…1…
Seriously, this is a “problem”? These people are idiots. “Grappling with the steady influx of tech workers…” indeed…
“A fact that Laurie counts on, despite her pretence. In effect, we, the bourgeois rubes whose values she rails against, are her safety net.”
I rewatched Jack Reacher recently, and the scene where he looks out the high rise office window at the ‘drones’ opposite spoiled it for me. He can be rebellious and drop off the grid, but who the fcuk does he think maintains the busses and runs the Western Union outlets he relies on? Twat.
At least the honesty is refreshing
He has a point, I think. A few years ago I watched a documentary series on one of the BBC channels called “How to be Bohemian”, presented by Victoria Coren Mitchell. What struck me then, other than just how narcissistically self-absorbed many of the so-called “Bohemians” were, was that if it weren’t for the “squares” and “rubes” like us, their special lifestyle would ultimately be devoid of meaning. And had many of them not come from prosperous, square, bourgeois backgrounds, then their Bohemianism would have been much less shocking.
What struck me then, other than just how narcissistically self-absorbed many of the so-called “Bohemians” were,
Not entirely unrelated.
What struck me then, other than just how narcissistically self-absorbed many of the so-called “Bohemians” were, was that if it weren’t for the “squares” and “rubes” like us, their special lifestyle would ultimately be devoid of meaning. And had many of them not come from prosperous, square, bourgeois backgrounds, then their Bohemianism would have been much less shocking.
There’s far too many relevant bits to quote, but I recently revisited a book on this very theme and found it even better than I’d remembered.
“That’s where I differ hugely from my fellow Bohos: I WANT square society to prosper, to be proud, to do a good square job, etc.”
“Not me, of course, I wouldn’t lower myself. So get busy, worker bees, that honey doesn’t gather itself.”
Not to be a bad sport, but after the war, these lousy bastards will be the first ones sent to hoe weeds in the fields.
“(I mean no criticism; whatever native intelligence God and your parents endowed you with is not your fault and, by definition, half of us are below average intelligence.)”
You didn’t like maths as well as accounting 🙂
Not entirely unrelated.
Oh boy! I’d forgotten about the bottle rockets!
(In the comments – R. Sherman, that was genius.)
Oh boy! I’d forgotten about the bottle rockets!
The Guardian piece by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett also reveals a common dishonesty among the supposedly alternative demographic. In that Ms Cosslett evidently wants the trappings of a bourgeois life – indeed, of a very well-heeled bourgeois life – she just doesn’t want to have to earn them or have to bother with any of the concerns and obligations that come with them. In Ms Cosslett’s case, what she wants, and feels entitled to take, with a crowbar, is an “impossibly grand house” on Park Crescent in London.
And she declares this while denouncing others as “selfish.”
That’s true, Bloke, I should have said “mean.” I’m busted. 😄
Oh boy! I’d forgotten about the bottle rockets!
Thanks. Two weeks ago, I revisited those old haunts when I delivered the youngest for his freshman year in college. This included an historical tour, the end of which resulted in the question, “Is Mom aware of any of this?”
“Is Mom aware of any of this?”
Ah, the patriarchy.
“Is Mom aware of any of this?”
I like your kid. 😉
…she is too rigidly conventional for that game.
You cannot be radical if you are not uniform.
In Ms Cosslett’s case, what she wants, and feels entitled to take, with a crowbar, is an “impossibly grand house” on Park Crescent in London.
Yes, this is a better arrangement, more just.
Exactly, Darleen. But I feer most are whistling past the graveyard. Of course it’s hyperbole to say that such things can happen here. I’m sure Comrad Zhivago would have said the same in his day…before he got home. But of course he’s fictional. How silly of me. CIA plant as well.
we, the bourgeois rubes whose values she rails against, are her safety net
It’s the fundamental flaw with the New Utopians’ Socialism – This Time.
If the proles decide to sit on a beach gargling Margaritas rather than labouring for the common good, the Narod can’t have their New Utopia.
And as David posted three years ago, the same Boho conceit is at the heart of The Good Life.
What bottle rockets?
Isn’t there something in game theory about strategies that only work for a minority? Stealing, for example, only works when most people don’t steal. The best strategies being those that still work well if everyone adopts them.
They need to give out trowels and explain the idea of digging a cathole.
Hmmm! San Francisco does have more than nonstop sidewalks and unending cement, but the established problem is going to remain though.
Hipsters being too hipster to learn to be adults aren’t going to learn anything else either.
The Good Life…ahhh…so anyone know how Felicity Kendal is getting on? Does she need anything? Anything at all? Asking for a friend.
Felicity Kendal…
Last I saw of her she was still gardening. Also, still cute.
What bottle rockets?
These bottle rockets.
What bottle rockets?
I’d forgotten that thread. It was one of the better ones, inasmuch as it allowed us to establish our younger year “freak” bona fides from the safety our now extraordinarily staid, bourgeois lives. Just imagine several harumpfs, after each one of our comments:
Roommate…flat…harumpf…cereal…stains…harumpf…Kitchner…hrumpf…Monty…vomit…hurumpf…Roarke’s Drift, what…jolly good…harumpf ad infinitum.
SF’s problem is homeless people shitting on the sidewalks augmented maybe a little by their dogs shitting on the sidewalks, too. And neither of them picks up after the other or after themselves. The mayor’s Clintonian phrasing can’t change that.
. . . augmented maybe a little by their dogs . . .
Oh, you are free to argue with the numbers. Of course those numbers aren’t going to care what your ideological opinion is, they’re just going to remain.
We do understand you’re merely doing that ideology bit and its inevitable failure, where left wing ideology, right wing ideology, all ideology just fails . . . .
And reality will remain as the ideology continues to fail.
The numbers you cite, Hal, are numbers of people and numbers of dogs, from which you extrapolate activity without support. By the same logic, as many women (slightly more, actually) pee standing up as do men, since the are as many women (slightly more, actually) as men in the world.
And your defensive repetition of the word “ideology” is telling, not convincing.
Why are you so defensive about this? Did you support the policies that brought it about? Are you now embarrassed by that? Or are you just really proud of SF and trying to minimize the damage to its reputation? Seriously, I’m just curious. My “ideology” leads me to declare that water is wet. Your “ideology” says it’s not. But why?
the same Boho conceit is at the heart of The Good Life.
Quite. As noted previously,
And as Lancastrian Oik pointed out in the comments,
Disdaining bourgeois values is so much easier to do if you can coast along on the accumulated advantages of those same bourgeois values. To encourage young people from modest backgrounds to embrace anti-bourgeois posturing, and with it a rejection of wealth-generating habits, is somewhere between foolish and spiteful.
“These real-socialism-hasn’t-been-tried-yet articles basically write themselves. It’s like colouring by numbers.”
. . . are numbers of people and numbers of dogs, from which you extrapolate activity without support. . .
. . . and noting the reality that we’re talking about the same activity here . . .
As opposed to . . .
. . . as many women (slightly more, actually) pee standing up as do men, since the [sic] are as many . . .
. . . where actually—as far as I know from general descriptions, discussions, reading, all that reality Stuff, y’know—they don’t.
Really. Really, really, really, Don’t Do Ideology.
As you’ve just provided another reminder of, doing ideology instead of reality just gets you proven irrelevant.
To encourage young people from modest backgrounds to embrace anti-bourgeois posturing, and with it a rejection of wealth-generating habits, is somewhere between foolish and spiteful.
David, just read your Laurie Penny ‘Lifestyle Advice’ post. Consider your tip jar hit.
David, just read your Laurie Penny ‘Lifestyle Advice’ post. Consider your tip jar hit.
Tipping much appreciated.
Regarding the outpourings of Laurie and her peers, including the equally ludicrous Madeleine Schwartz, I suppose you could think of it as follows. If you heard your next-door neighbours repeatedly and emphatically telling their teenage daughter that marriage and stable coupledom were to be avoided, indeed destroyed, and that instead she should get into polyamory and single-motherhood, and embrace chronic dependence on state welfare as a “liberating” ideal, then you might deduce, quite quickly, that those parents were unfit. And yet this is Laurie’s edgy and feminist recipe for a satisfying life.
Really. Really, really, really, Don’t Do Ideology.
The prophecy of the day . . . and the next day, and the . . .
I so hesitate to ask this but as it keeps coming up…WTF is wrong with “ideology”? I first noticed this decades ago when supposedly high-minded people would say that they don’t vote the party (or ideology), they vote the man (or woman or whatever). Seems to me this is how we got deeper (it was always there) into political personality cults. I understand not trusting a political party to adhere to an ideology, and thus not voting the party. But to throw out ideology as some sort of bad thing, why? To be clear (because God knows this will get mucked up), opposing a specific ideology I understand. But opposing the idea of ideas has always sounded absurdly stupid to me.
I distrust people with an ideology. Any ideology.
They try to make facts fit the ideology, because to make ideology fit the facts is to not have an ideology. Ideology isn’t about having ideas, it’s having a specific world view that everything has to fit into.
They will ignore bad behaviour, provided the person adheres to the correct ideology. They get into endless arguments about “true” ****ism. They will do stupid things in order to stay “true” ***ists. They’re no much on compromise.
That is not to say you shouldn’t have principles. But principles differ in two ways 1) you can break them and change them without loss of face, if the facts or situation changes, 2) you can accept variance, partial solutions and compromise.
@WTP
WTF is wrong with “ideology”?
If, by “ideology,” one means a set of core individual beliefs or a core philosophy to which one has come through reasoned examination of evidence, then the answer is “nothing,” provided one is willing to continue to examine those beliefs as additional evidence appears.
The problem with “ideologues” is that their core beliefs are derived not from reasoned examination of evidence but from whatever happens to be personally or politically expedient at a given moment. That is, ideology is an off-the-rack suit, selected because it’s in style this year and all the cool kids are wearing it. This leads to absurdities like arguing that Trump is a “Nazi,” because he deported an elderly immigrant who was . . . an actual German concentration camp guard or claiming that border control policies have nothing to do with the murder of an Iowa farm girl by an illegal alien.
All of which dovetails with you point about personality cults. There are “positive” cults, like the one Hillary advanced and “negative” ones as we see with the Never Trump “conservative” class. The vast majority of our problems result from voting for persons without regard to their beliefs or pronouncements about their platforms.
The problem with “ideologues”
Yeah. I get that. When someone says “I don’t like ideologues” I understand where they’re coming from. I don’t do hard-core, absolutism. But that’s not what ideology is. From Webster:
Nothing wrong there. It’s a structure, a meta form, an abstraction describing a domain. Compare:
This is a problem. Again, what are words for?
“Tipping much appreciated”? No “May Cuddles the pickled ‘egg’ never invade your bathroom when the plumber needs to get in”? or some such?
The only two options are obsequiousness or seduction. No mention of working diligently, making life easier for your business team, or making yourself valuable to the organization.
Telling, I think.
“Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Terrified of getting on his bad side, we bow and scrape, flatter and flirt, or worse — just to get that raise or make sure we don’t get fired.
“Telling, I think.” Indeed, he could just change “capitalism” to “socialism”, and “boss” to either “state” or “party”, and see if he gets a different conclusion, but that would require he have some knowledge of history and the capability of minimal introspection.
“Telling, I think.” Indeed, he could just change “capitalism” to “socialism”, and “boss” to either “state” or “party”, and see if he gets a different conclusion, but that would require he have some knowledge of history and the capability of minimal introspection.
Except under capitalism you can work for someone else or, God forbid, start your own company and work for yourself. Which actually means you work for your customers…just like your boss does. Not to mention that under extreme forms of socialism (#ThatsNotRealSocialism) you can’t even leave the country if you don’t like the boss/government. How do people not understand these things? It’s not that hard.
“Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Terrified of getting on his bad side, we bow and scrape, flatter and flirt, or worse — just to get that raise or make sure we don’t get fired.
Perhaps he’s confusing “capitalism” with “journalism”.
How do people not understand these things?
Don’t want to.
How do people not understand these things? It’s not that hard.
Considering that he also wrote this with a straight face…
…evidently it is quite hard as he appears to have no conception of what US “liberal” or “progressive” policies are if he thinks they are for cutting either taxes or regulation.
Apparently classes in history, economics, and politics are not required to become “professor” of political science at Brooklyn College.
Thanks. I wasn’t aware of where that quote originated. I presumed it was a whiny, ignorant millennial. A professor of political science. At a publicly funded college. Of course. Though I would not question whether he had courses in economics as such is what I would expect from an economics student educated in the last 30-40 years. Bah, same goes for politics and history I suppose. We need to demand that public funding of higher education be cut to just the hard sciences. “Political” science ain’t one of them. How we let them attach “science” to their BS is one of my numerous pet peeves….A bit OT but I recall the very first time I saw that phrase. Believe it or not it was in my 2nd or 3rd grade reader. A story about some little boy, and as I recall it was a little black boy, on his bicycle greets his father coming home from work and the story actually said his father was a “political scientist”. I remember asking my parents to explain to me what those words meant. I don’t recall how they tried to explain it to me but I do recall not understanding WTF they were trying to tell me. I think the reader book was called “From Bicycles to Boomerangs”. Could be wrong on that though. I definitely recall that I hated that reader and one used later called “From Elephants to Eskimos”.
At least the honesty is refreshing.
Parasite realises it needs a host to survive.
The new reader is called “From Bafflegab to Bullshit.”
…is what I would expect from an economics student educated in the last 30-40 years. Bah, same goes for politics and history I suppose.
True enough, I guess, seeing as how, as has been pointed out, you can get a degree in German without have read Goethe, and English without Shakespeare. Of course the economic brilliance of economics degreed She Guevara up in New York speaks to this as well.
The first time I saw “political science” was my first year of college (first iteration) a bit over 40 years ago when liberal arts colleges actually had core requirements, and after filling in the math, English, foreign language, and science required blocks, had to find a “humanities” elective, and it was the only thing that fit my schedule (which required nothing before 1000 or later than 1500). As it was a survey course, other than the profs love of Eugene Debs and Lincoln Steffens, it was actually a fairly balanced overview of political systems.
However, as it, as you point out, resembles actual science as much as Bernie Sanders resembles Patton, it was the last class of it’s breed I took.
A couple of days ago Farnsworth [I think] submitted a collection of tweets about a bridezilla charging her “guests” $1500/head to attend her wedding. If you, like me, didn’t get to the tweets before they were locked down, here, courtesy of a link from Naked Capitalism, is the whole story from the sweet, shy, and unmarried lady herself.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/wedding-horror-story-bride-rant/
WTP, I think you are missing the importance of “integrated” in that definition.
That “integrated” means that *everything* more or less becomes covered. So that every decision becomes determined by the ideology in question.
Most of the world don’t think *everything* can be “integrated”. We live in a world of greys, not black and white.
And while I distrust ideology, “visionary theorizing” scares the shit out of me!
That original thread, and another around the same time, was what first got me thinking about writing a book…which coincidentally was set in part among the Burning Man subculture.
To encourage young people from modest backgrounds to embrace anti-bourgeois posturing, and with it a rejection of wealth-generating habits, is somewhere between foolish and spiteful.
It’s not the message I was supposed to take away from Fight Club, but the “You have been lied to. You’re not going to grow up to be a rock star/astronaut/real estate mogul/CEO” quote is still good advice for most young men.
Find something you’re good at and can make a living doing, work hard at it and manage your money sensibly. (see also Peterson, Jordan B.). Pursuing your dreams turns out to be really bad life advice.
Pursuing your dreams turns out to be really bad life advice.
For one thing, the things that seem fantastically important to teenagers aren’t often the things that are important to people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, etc. I.e., the bulk of their lives.
And while I distrust ideology, “visionary theorizing” scares the shit out of me!
They do a lot of that in San Francisco 🙂
See, this is why I was initially timid about going there…
That “integrated” means that *everything* more or less becomes covered. So that every decision becomes determined by the ideology in question.
OK, so if we restrict the meaning of the word in the context of definition 1b, using the word “integrated” in a strict sense, everything being integrated, yes. But that seems rather narrow to me. More generally, I still say this idea that one can claim that one does not have an ideology is a cop out. Just because ideologues take things to restrictive extremes does not demerit ideology as a general concept. I still will take ideology over “vote for the man” in most every instance. And I would argue somewhat similarly regarding “visionary theorizing”, though I do agree in modern context it is a unsettling.
Pursuing your dreams turns out to be really bad life advice.
I was thinking about this as information on this weekend’s gamer shooting in Jacksonville came out. I may be wrong but here’s a thought. Story is the shooter was very focused, all business, not personality to speak of. I wonder if this isn’t some result of too much focus on a goal (he was a previous champion in this “sport”) causing one’s whole world to come crashing down at the first hint of failure in pursuing one’s “dream”.
Tiresome and irrelevant as always, Hal.
I was thinking about this as information on this weekend’s gamer shooting in Jacksonville came out.
As a lapsed gamer myself, I have some grave concerns about esports. There’s nothing wrong with the concept (it’s no different than, say, those World Scrabble Tournaments) but the community around most competitive esports attracts the worst gamer stereotype: borderline autistic, anti-social, low amygdala threshold, childish and crude. Unlike most other sports, esports do not involve interacting with other human beings except via a virtual avatar – that you’re usually trying to murder to death as fast and as hard as possible. Esports don’t have the kind of honor culture that’s built up around traditional sports: fair play, sportsmanship, fraternity.
Add to that that most video games are not designed for competitive play – there are always going to be bugs, loopholes, poorly designed levels or corner cases that are exploitable for a cheap win – and you have a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
Story is the shooter was very focused, all business, not personality to speak of.
Video games do not teach kids to be violent; that is a long debunked myth.
An uncomfortable truth is that first-person shooters do teach coolness under fire, tactical thinking and the ability to perceive human beings as target objects, something that normally requires fairly intense military training. FPSes won’t turn your kid into a mass shooter, but if he ends up going that way they’ll make him better at it.
WTP | August 27, 2018 at 16:57:
Again, what are words for?
Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. … Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. … Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.’
A couple of days ago Farnsworth [I think] submitted a collection of tweets about a bridezilla charging her “guests” $1500/head to attend her wedding.
How long ago was that alleged wedding? Because one of the Facebook pictures says the bride is going to be out of the country “these next two months”, which in the post are October and November, implying the wedding should have taken place in late September, or almost a year ago. Why is it only coming out now?
Why is it only coming out now?
It seemed a tad over-the-top even for a classic “bridezilla” story. That said, I am personally aware of bride’s family throwing a huge wedding and then sending a bill for half the cost to the groom’s parents, without clearing things in advance.
As you’ve just provided another reminder of, doing ideology instead of reality just gets you proven irrelevant.
Tiresome and irrelevant as always, Hal.
Ehn, I was content with the original phrasing, but there are indeed times when an enhanced version can work better.
Therefore: As you’ve just provided another reminder of, doing ideology instead of reality just gets you proven tiresome and irrelevant as always.
Maybe it just sat there till somebody noticed it?
I’m not sure the concept of “over-the-top” is readily grasped by today’s yourh. True or not, it was funny.
Or even by today’s youTh.
The mention of polical “science” reminds me that news of social “science”‘s replication crisis has made it to the papers, yea even the Grauniad
But, on average, the sizes of the effects recorded were about 75% as big in the replication studies, despite these using sample sizes that were on average five times as big.
“Despite”?
I’ve long been a fan of the Reacher books, and it sounds like I was right in giving the movie a hard pass. The Reacher of the books is certainly a footloose drifter, but it’s a case of a veteran not really being happy trying to fit in to civilian society, not a boho vs. squares thing.
You’re not wrong, and that’s hardly the movie’s only shortcoming when compared to the novels. Let’s just say that believing Tom Cruise is a 6’5″ 230-pound former military police officer was a bit too much of a stretch for me.
Yeah, same here. That was the main source of my “uhm … no” when it came out. Cruise producing as well as starring also gave it the distinctly fetid whiff of a vanity project.
What Bohemians create:
What ‘bohemians’ create:
But which future to choose?