|
Guavanaut posted:If you want an identity then get on your bike and build it yourself, like everyone who wasn't an Anglo cishet guy had to do here. I'm not sure there is a positive white, Anglo, cishet masculinity, and that might be part of the problem. All those identities are built on oppressing the poo poo out of other people and entitlement, from more classic "all fight the jolly old fight" stuff that public schools indoctrinate kids into, to lad culture, to football culture, to white nerd culture. It all loving sucks because it's all built on an ethos of competition and subjugation of the other side, or social inferiors. What white masculinity needs is burning the hell down, and I say that as a white male.
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Conveniently, Brexit also makes it a whole lot harder for masses of young graduates to do that Not quite - still plenty of places where it's easy to get good jobs relative to cost of living as a graduate from a UK(!) university(!) Anyone under 30 who can should probably just leave the UK since it's not getting better for at least a generation at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
On the topic of Jesus's ethnicity, the Ethiopian church has some amazing depictions which are probably more historically accurate:  I used to talk about this not-irregularly, and given Jesus was a former carpenter's apprentice and what he gets up to in the scourging of the temple, he'd almost certainly be a pretty big guy, not skinny as portrayed in most religious art.  That said, while any historical Jesus almost certainly wasn't a blue-eyed, pasty white guy, him being 'black' in the modern sense is unlikely. More likely he'd resemble most other semitic people in the middle east at that time.  Here's an article talking about how Jesus would be a radical communist by modern standards. Think of everything the evangelical right in the US hates, basically, and as that article points out, that's the historical Jesus.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I signed up for OK Cupid and was immediately enraged because the example text in the favourite films section said Amelie, and I genuinely love that film but couldn't put it down because then I'd look like I was just typing whatever. So I had to say Breakfast Club which is still an interrsting film to talk about but I don't have the same emotional response to it as fuckin Amelie. I was on OK Cupid and Hinge for a few months and got more interest than most men seem to get - judging by a friend who freaked out when he saw my profile. But nowhere near as many as most women who use dating apps: I chatted about it with one of my dates and she showed me her profile with over 2000 likes and 100-odd matches. Dating apps are kind of a losing game though, because especially as a bloke, it ends up being a numbers game with a routine and it makes you cynical and compulsive. If you like someone, you swipe on them; if you match you chat to them; if they reply you keep chatting; if they send you more than a couple of messages, you arrange a date; if your dates go well, you keep seeing them until the dates get stale or you end up in something more serious. It's effectively a sales funnel which values quantity over quality, and everything except that last step would be totally unnecessary with someone you met in real life. I'm in a relationship with someone now but I would rather meet someone in real life than on an app; dating apps are more of a necessary evil than anything else. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Aug 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 06:02
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Oh, he just meant the Frankfurt School. Surely there's nothing antisemitic about blaming all the ills of the world on a group of German academics who had to flee the Nazis for... reasons. Also, I've read Benjamin, Adorno et al, and none of them were into radical deconstruction the way the right (and credulous 'centrists' like Nawaz) like to claim. Benjamin was mainly a cultural critic who cared about what modernity was, and Adorno was a grumpy Marxist who mainly wanted to tell the masses how easily-conned they were. "Deconstruction" is a term that is more associated with post-war French academics, most obviously Derrida, and even supposed arch-post-modernists like Foucault do, in fact, make claims to truth - they're just interested in interrogating what validates a claim to truth, particularly in humanities. So why talk about the Frankfurt School as though they're actually Derrida? 1. Not very many people have read the Frankfurt School. Critical theory had its peak in the 80s and now has little institutional support, especially in the UK. While it's integrated in humanities curriculums at the university level, it's presented alongside other critical approaches like post-colonialism, eco-criticism, or feminist critique. 2. The Frankfurt School was a big influence on later cultural theorists like our own Stuart Hall, who would eventually get an ear in the New Left and in the Blair Years. By attacking the Frankfurt School, they're really attacking the New Left project and by extension most variants of modern leftism. 3. Critical theory approaches are grounded in analysis of the underlying meanings of texts and thinking beyond the surface meaning and presentation of media. Politicians and their media allies aren't exactly fond of people doing critical readings of their messaging. 4. A lot of the Frankfurt School had Jewish lineage. If you want to sound intellectually sound while also undermining the intellectual heritage of your opponents and flirting with antisemitism, the Frankfurt School is a great candidate for your perfectly valid and in no way biased criticism of Marxist-Bolshevist-Jewish thought, in a way that attacking the actual academics who came up with postmodernist ideas (mostly white French dudes) just isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2020 03:05
|
|