Stromboli1 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Mainstream media garbage, they aren't impartial and have agendas to cram down people's throats. I know the reasons that they do it for and it sucks, but like I said before that from the generations from the boomers till now lack critical thinking. The media needs to get back to being impartial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 15 hours ago, Stromboli1 said: Mainstream media garbage, they aren't impartial and have agendas to cram down people's throats. I know the reasons that they do it for and it sucks, but like I said before that from the generations from the boomers till now lack critical thinking. The media needs to get back to being impartial. The media bias seems to be "reflective". They want to get maximum eyeballs so they do attention whore tactics, and being very polarized is more effective. Eventually they just gravitate to either right or left. This makes them a very poor source of education and of zero historical value. I remember, in my lifetime, that prior to the internet the newspapers were about 3 times longer than they were now. Magazines were about twice as long, and they were better written & with more intelligent articles. I don't think that the media was ever impartial, I have read old books on politics and economics in the past and their viewpoints were also predictable. However, it seems that they were much more CIVIL, a trait lacking today. There was also a lessor tendency to advance radical viewpoints for the sake of trolling/attention whoring- the positions chosen were generally more moderate. There was also far less diversity, leading to less conflict. The pundits back then were very different, like a Galbraith or a Buckley who were erudite- not the far larger array of morons that dominate today. Maybe this wasn't so good either- these were slower times for the media and with less voices- basically a bunch of "distinguished" white men who didn't have to raise their voices so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 16 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: I disagree. Talking and trying to understand something is rarely a waste of time. That's a human need (more or less big, depending on the person, depending on the moment in time). I feel it's strongly important to discuss issues, any issue that is key in our life. This issue is key: healthy relationships between men/women. Not "ideal" relationships (they don't exist), but healthy ones (the ones that meet a minimum standard). Sadly, they slowly degraded over the past decades and they strongly degraded over the last few years. Not talking is making people bitter. Bitter people become resentful. Resentful people become blindly violent, and then it becomes ugly. Talking is saner, even when we disagree with sby. Yes, it's a social contract that's threatened. However, since a social contract is mutually beneficial, women will endure severe hardships from its disappearance (and they already do, same as men). Talking and trying to understand something useful is not a waste of time. However, feminist day to day rhetoric is worse than useless, so it's a waste of time. Life is too short to spend it on things that you dislike and are useless. If you hate something and spend lots of time on it you will hate it even more and more, until it turns into an unproductive interest. For me personally, besides feminist stuff I also ignore news on murders , stealing, and other person to person crimes- it is not relevant at all to me, I despise listening/reading it and therefore it's worse than useless to me. I avoid all mentally ill and stupid pundits, they are disease spreaders. The traditional social contract will evaporate as it already has to a large extent. I think it still exists in "Small Town White America" and maybe parts of Europe, especially Eastern Europe but most certainly NOT where I'm at. Nobody can prevent the tidal wave, it is better to focus on how to adapt to these things. My grandparent's relational world could have been of an alien species, for goodness sake. My parents gave me nothing but outdated, ignorant and stupid advice tailored to dynamics that no longer exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah.Adams Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 On 1/7/2019 at 4:15 PM, Cult Icon said: Men are mindless and pathetic slaves to their sexuality and are crippled by their inadequate instincts and emotional intelligence- far more than they would admit either. YES. On 1/7/2019 at 4:15 PM, Cult Icon said: Related to the above, women are mindlessly programmed to be attracted and repulsed by certain actions of men, despite how honorable or reasonable (or lack there off) they could be. NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkjk Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stromboli1 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 That Candice thread is ruined with big gifs of her ugly children in every page... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandleVixen Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Our president is not only a bully, he’s also a childish, spoiled brat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 @Enrico_sw Related to this discussion- yesterday I heard that a 31 years old employee got pregnant- for the 4th !!! time and wanted to work from home due to Doctor's advice. The whole story was so sad and an order of magnitude worse than Candice's animal behavior; she had her first baby at age 14. After her 3rd baby, she divorced her husband. But with 3 girls, she was hungry for a boy so she invited him back to live with them and he got her pregnant again...Maybe it's a lie but she says that her ex-husband is unemployed and that he is "worse than ever before"- sound like the typical "bad boy" trope. The woman can't help herself- maybe this man is an extremely good looking bum/loser- I've never met him. Is this "decent" behavior? I think not, it's disgusting behavior that's unfair to the children who are growing up on One low income. She brings people into this world out of her own greed. If this woman (from Lebanon) was properly educated and civilized she would not do things like this. .... I'm watching Season 5 of Vikings and it's obvious that the main character (Lagethera) is completely ahistorical and developed largely to appeal to the feminist power-fantasy and get female fans. I love her character don't get me wrong but it's so obvious upon reflection: Lagethera is a "strong independent woman" in 8th Century AD. She: -is forever young and beautiful - she is around 60 years old in the story and looks like a 30-year old. -is super rich and powerful "Jarl", and then Queen. Armies do her bidding. -is a great warrior, killing men a foot taller with ease and leading from the frontline -has an elite troop of female shieldmaiden special-forces- a great sisterhood -has a lesbian lover- is a bisexual -kills her rapists herself -she even rapes! a man on-screen -divorces her first husband after he takes on his first new woman; this is an age when men of his rank had many women. -She has sex and seduces a large number of powerful men, two of which she kills (Black Widow) -She moves from conquest to conquest, gaining more status and power. -Her children are superstars; princes of the viking world Definitely larger than life. Now the story is moving towards her downfall but the show is also ending in 1 season with declining ratings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrico_sw Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 ^ Hollywood (and now the American TV series) is a propaganda machine. They are little soldiers who do what they are told: - In the 30s-50s, their "mission" was: making cigarette cool. - In the 70s-80s: making the Russians look like bad guys. - In 2003 & after: making their allies (who disagreed with Uncle Sam) look dumb and stupid (and I remember how fatuous your news outlet were at the time, particularly CNN) - In the 2010s: making people understand that men are "bad" guys. Hollywood is sometimes brainless. The political beliefs of actors/actress often follow a Pavolvian conditioning: following the wind. They change sides like wind vanes..... In nicer terms: the level of political conformism among actors is extremely high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandleVixen Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 @Enrico_sw great use of the songs. They prove your point well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 18 hours ago, Enrico_sw said: ^ Hollywood (and now the American TV series) is a propaganda machine. They are little soldiers who do what they are told: - In the 30s-50s, their "mission" was: making cigarette cool. - In the 70s-80s: making the Russians look like bad guys. - In 2003 & after: making their allies (who disagreed with Uncle Sam) look dumb and stupid (and I remember how fatuous your news outlet were at the time, particularly CNN) - In the 2010s: making people understand that men are "bad" guys. Hollywood is sometimes brainless. The political beliefs of actors/actress often follow a Pavolvian conditioning: following the wind. They change sides like wind vanes..... In nicer terms: the level of political conformism among actors is extremely high. That's not what I'm saying. Most American media is not state-owned like the Russian or in other countries; they are privately owned, multi-national conglomerates that survive from a mixture of gov't benefits and ratings. The "propaganda/totalitarianism" you complain about is "reflective..." It is not just the media that is transmitting the message but the audience also desires it internally. It's a circular relationship. An audience that is open to certain biased messages will tune in, and this would stimulate producers to focus on producing more and more biased material to the point that it makes a portion of the audience even more biased, and wanting more. But eventually these media trends run out, as the audience gets tired of the same thing over and over again. That's why there is a schism between say, FOX and the liberal media outlets as they have a different customer base. Overall, there isn't say, a shadowy puppet-master controlling the masses, the masses bear great responsibility themselves for enabling the media to behave in this way. Per your examples, during the 1990s there was faith in the power of the American military among people in my day to day life as well as being reflected in the media. The operational victory of Operation Desert Storm restored America's faith in the power of the military in an extraordinarily inflated way (this attack was essentially a large scale raid). When 9-11 happened, people got patriotic and started putting up flags around for solidarity. The stereotypes of the 1990s of a powerful american military that could do anything remained. Feminism isn't a phenomenon that the media invented; it was already part of day to day life. In my parent's generation, women made 50-60% of the income of men. Today it is 80% plus. Prior to that the struggle of capitalist democracies vs communism prevented the global integration of the world economy and severely impeded world trade until the liberalizatin of the PRC and the fall of the Soviet Union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrico_sw Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 hours ago, Cult Icon said: Overall, there isn't say, a shadowy puppet-master controlling the masses, the masses bear great responsibility themselves for enabling the media to behave in this way. I didn't say that there is a puppet-master (it's kind of a strawman argument, friend ). I talked about "following the wind", which is not the same thing. I think that there are norms among "social milieux". They are not written codes, but rather informal rules that you need to know in order to fit in your milieu. Each milieu has its norms, but the upper class has the strongest ones. There's a reason for that. A couple of centuries ago, the ruling class got its privilege by birthright (which was unfair, but undeniable). Now, members of the ruling class (the globalized bourgeoisie) need signs, symbols, proofs to confirm their "membership", because it's not undeniable anymore. Famous actors/actresses, directors, journalists belong to the upper class and they want to keep their "belonging". So, they either follow the wind or they get cast out (not "formally", it's not a sect...). 5 hours ago, Cult Icon said: It is not just the media that is transmitting the message but the audience also desires it internally. It's a circular relationship. I would tend to partly agree with this if you talked about the media in the 90s, but it's less true now: - Firstly, because the target of your US journalists is not the US people anymore, it's the globalized bourgeoisie (who speak English - that was not the case 30-50 years ago, eg. nobody spoke English in France). - Secondly, because there is a huge disconnect between the media and their customers. Their measure is the "click" now, but clicking doesn't mean agreeing or liking the article! - Thirdly, because the media are so endoctrinated that they think they are the supply who create the demand (and they believe that the feedback loop is weak). It makes them blind and they can't measure precisely the effects of their marketing strategy. The media "market" (if you want to see it in economical terms) is far from a "perfect market". Look at SW ep.8. A lot of people thought it was a crap movie with a lot of SJW BS. What did Disney (a private company) do? They denied it (they said that it was the opinion of Russian trollbots, which is the prime "conspiracy theory" nowadays). Like everybody, they don't have the perfect foresight. Eventually, they will understand, but the lag can be long (it could be years)! 6 hours ago, Cult Icon said: An audience that is open to certain biased messages will tune in, and this would stimulate producers to focus on producing more and more biased material to the point that it makes a portion of the audience even more biased, and wanting more. Sure, I agree with that, but there is also a big part of the audience (the quiet majority) who is open to critical thinking and listening different point of views, who don't really have strong political opinions. 6 hours ago, Cult Icon said: But eventually these media trends run out, as the audience gets tired of the same thing over and over again. Yes, that's how the new seaquake (that I talked about in an earlier post) is going to arrive. 5 hours ago, Cult Icon said: Most American media is not state-owned like the Russian or in other countries Being state-owned means that they have few freedom, sure... BUT, being private doesn't mean being completely free (that's a liberal dream). Again, the upper class tend to exclude easily, so a poor journalist guy has this "group pressure" to tackle with. 6 hours ago, Cult Icon said: Feminism isn't a phenomenon that the media invented; it was already part of day to day life. I don't think so. It's the result of media hype. The media is an isolated world '"full of the old Christian virtues gone mad". 6 hours ago, Cult Icon said: In my parent's generation, women made 50-60% of the income of men. Today it is 80% plus. That's not today's feminism. I'm not shocked by this. Fair income for women is fair. I dislike today's feminism because it's unfair, it's not inclusive. They treat women like eternal victims and they want an eternal guilt-tripping for men. They place this guilt-tripping above all else, even justice (see how they deny the Presumption of innocence)! And there's this feminist conspiracy theory called "patriarchy"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 this bear is creepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cult Icon Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 why do younger millennials have so many tattoos? They're as tattooed' up as criminals and prostitutes now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandleVixen Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 hours ago, Cult Icon said: why do younger millennials have so many tattoos? They're as tattooed' up as criminals and prostitutes now. My take is that tattoos are popular, and thus everyone should have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stromboli1 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 7 hours ago, Cult Icon said: why do younger millennials have so many tattoos? They're as tattooed' up as criminals and prostitutes now. What about the facial tattoo trend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.