Open-Mindedness Does Not Magically Happen

I have a weird realization.  Congealing (concentrating) a bunch of discordant ideologies into one small cramped location does NOT lead to open-mindedness.

We hear all the time from obscure modern political floating heads that a mixture of differing ideologies is somehow good for the growth of society.  Uh, are you sure about that?
This lofty ideal is supposed to be the basis of committee meetings and, indeed, it is supposed to be the foundation of democracy.

Thus far in my general education credit requirements, I have taken a Soc course, a Psy course, a Poli Sci course, a History of World Civ, and an Eng 102 argumentative writing.  As you might imagine, this was concentrating a bunch of wildly differing opinions into a five-hundred cubic foot area of space.
In all these classes, a common thread or theme was woven through all of them.  The majority of the people simply thought that [[[[that they should be heard, I have as typing opinion and I'm a strong capable person in charge of my own life, or something like that.

What was happening is that they did not listen to anyone else.  No one wanted to hear what anyone else had to say.  <They> had the aspiration that they wanted to be heard, but they didn't think anyone else should be heard.  Each person thought he or she alone had the stage, and therefore did not need to afford anyone else much respect or attention.  There was not a whole lot of the hypothetical, mythical, “ohh this person has a different opinion from my own, so I will be open-minded and listen to what they have to say.  After all, it might broaden my horizons and help me grow my world view.”  Nope, not hardly.  Noone was really crazy about the idea that a sociopolitical opposite might offer new insights, etc.

Whereas interaction betwixt students was much more pleasant in the science courses.  I've seen that there is much better cohesion amongst students in the hard science courses.  It seems that that this is precisely because this is a science course, and not one of the social studies courses.  There are definites, there are absolutes.  There _is_ such a thing as a right or wrong answer.  This does not leave room for any indignance, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, perceptions, taking something someone said the wrong way, inferring a different meaning from a speaker than what the speaker intended.

None of that miscommunication mess.  So therefore there is no political disagreement, no taking things personally.  All that leaves is the facts.  All that leaves for students to engage in -- is cooperation.

Rebelling Against Authority- Misconceptions

REBELS always say that conservatives are conformist, predictable, unoriginal, and that they are only trying to get approval from authority.

But rebels derive their identity from the actions of the perceived authority just as surely as any conformist.  Think about it thoroughly.

Whatever actions, etc. that the authority commands people do, rebels do the opposite.  Whatever actions, behavior, etc. the authority forbids people from doing, rebels do just that.

All they ever do is complain about Christianity and what it does to people.  They define their own [[[identity, perception of self___]]] in terms of how they rebel against Christianity.  To what extent or degree do they rebel against Christianity?  In how many different ways do they rebel against Christianity?

Like Tori Amos.  Okay, so honey, do you have any actual identity of your own?  Or do you simply look at___  like bill Maher and his atheist libertarian friends.  They derive their sense of self-worth by the degree to which they reject Christianity.  Their persona is innately tied to the identity that Christianity has already forged for them.
((just realized, this would be excellent bridge from rebels -to- atheists))

If they really do dance to the beat of their own drum, if they really don't care what anyone else thinks of them, then why do they complain that conservatives are so judgmental?

Ha!  Rebels LOVE the strict domineering authority figures.  Without authority figures, there would be no rebels.

For where would rebels derive their identities if not for the existence of authority?

In case anyone hasn't noticed, rebels' identity revolves solely around their reaction___
Their view of themselves orbits their perception of the proximity of authority figures.

it is a direct inverse-proportionate relationship___

Whatever a rebel does, it is always in exact reaction to___  Therein lies my point.  It is a reaction only.  no taking action on your own, no personal responsibility, no telling oneself, that if you want to change the world

It is merely a reaction to what someone else is already doing.  Not taking initiative to solve your own damn problems.  No examining your own life to see if you are really doing what is best for yourself___

Nope.  It is as simple-minded as seeing what "they" are doing, and then doing the opposite.

There is no capacity for critical thinking.  They do not use reasonable logical reasoning; they do not try to extrapolate what the conclusions would be for a particular choice.

They are but exactly still stuck in the mindset of the silly rebellious teenager who has no real power over his/her own life.

Fanatic Raving Lunatic Nutjobs, Not "Feminists"

Oh, no.  I had seen little schmirrecks of this, like rats scurrying into the shadows to avoid detection. Those are the slightly unhinged nutjobs females that call themselves fems -- when it is clear they are not.  I don't even want to type the entire word in the same breath as those screwballs.  They screech and scream that the normal two-parent-headed family unit is oppressive, abusive, horrible, and must be abolished immediately.  {{these were mentioned in john Macionis "sociology" textbook.}}

This crazy chick was absolutely rabid, foaming at the mouth, that “the family unit is destructive,” that “people should sever themselves from all ties with their extended family and relatives, because the nuclear female-mother-and-male-father family unit by definition is violent abusive oppressive, this is because they biologically created the kids together and that is somehow misogynistic, and if they keep strong relationships with their relatives and extended family then they are only sustaining this misogynistic regime, because family means tradition, and tradition is evil and violent, therefore the family must be disbanded," etc.

Those whory nutjobs screech and squawk and rabidly foam at the mouth.  They also get livid, I’m talking furious, if a guy is chivalrous, gentlemanly, if he is courteous and considerate.  Like if a man holds the door open for her or offers up his seat on the bus to her.  Apparently they think this is a staunch insult to their equality.  They think that if a guy is mannerly and chivalrous, this somehow indicates that the female is not equal to him.

But hang on a second.  Wait a minute.  Why exactly is a man holding a door open for a woman a bad thing?  Let me get this straight.  So a guy is treating you with respect -- and your reaction is to get angry??

Men *should* treat women with courtesy and respect.  They should treat a woman like a lady.

Just like how women should treat men like gentlemen.  Just like how ALL members of society should be polite and kind and considerate.  I myself do hold doors open for people all the time.
Why is a guy looked down on if he does the same thing?  Manners and respect are important.  They are what hold society together and keep us functioning.

Okay, see now, that is the kind of slightly unhinged, nutcase, few screws loose, somewhat mentally unbalanced type of assessment that I'm talking about.  They sound exactly the same as so-called "liberal" blacks that voluntarily keep screwing up their lives and then refuse to acknowledge that they did this to themselves.  Racism did not make you drop out of high school.  Racism did not make you get into fistfights in the hallway and be suspended from school.  Racism did not get you pregnant in high school.  Racism did not make you sit on your derriere and collect welfare checks.  Racism did not make you deal drugs, or be a lookout/sentinel for drug dealers.  (Hey, I do my research).

Luckily, this is more of a lunatic fringe incident.  Hardly any normal, mainstream feminists who have healthy psychology agree with this.

Goddamn it.  It’s weird insane nonsense such as this that makes me question feminism sometimes. Once in a rare while, I worry that by very distant association, I might be subconsciously allowing that drivel to seep into my mind, and gradually at such a subtle rate so as not to be detectable, I would eventually take on the personality of one of those sorry degenerative monsters.  Or worryingly, some other feminists already are, however rare in numbers.

The Groupie Tendency

Remember how I have written about girls having a "muse" affliction?  Okay, well, here is a close inbred cousin phenomenon to that prior:  the groupie tendency.

We’ve all heard of and made fun of groupies of rock bands and other musical excursions and entertainment outfits.  But now it turns out that this is not just limited to the realms of cheap entertainment.

It appears that some females display groupie tendencies towards males in other professions as well.  There are quite a few choice fields of expertise that men pursue, that seem to attract females quite happy being relegated to the status of "arm candy" or "hood ornament," as the kids say.

This sometimes sneaks up on you.  This is because I've noticed that when a woman starts talking about all the things she expects in a man, she generally <starts off> on fairly solid ground.  (And she usually insists that she is a strong independent woman in charge of her own life.)  She will say she does not want a guy that cheats on her, she does not want a guy that is dishonest.  She wants a 100% honest human being.  She wants a guy that will stand up for her in front of his friends when they complain, and will come rescue her when those friends make fun of her.

-- Well, that is good.  As long last she is realizing that she needs to respect herself and insist that the guy treat her with respect.  Doing well so far.
--- The female's checklist then continues with the stuff she expects a guy to have.  She starts rattling off more and more increasingly specific things that apparently a guy must have if he dares approach her.  Whether in the bar or club or wherever the hell she goes to expect to find true love and her soul mate.  (Guffaw.)  She wants a guy that is incredibly romantic.  She wants a guy that will sweep her off her feet with this romantic and seductive prowess.  She wants a guy that will enact a three-ring circus, and put on a whole dog-and-pony show to win her affections.  And those are just the other 364 days of the year.
-- Talk about valentine's day?  Her expectations are growing evermore exaggerated.  She wants a guy that will totally make her swoon with heaving bosoms or some crap.
...Uh, okay, now this is being a little demanding.  But I guess saccharine romance-novel-grade theatrics is something that many females want.

-- But then there is a slight shift in her sanity.  Her demands started getting a little outlandish.  At this point her soap-operatic heights are growing a little kooky.
-- She does not want an unemployed broke loser that still lives with his parents.  She does not want an alcoholic loser that sleeps on his friends couch.  Nope, she wants a high-flying wonderful success story because she is a modern woman in charge of her own life and she deserves a guy that treats her like a queen and treats her like gold, dammit.  She wants a guy that is financially secure.  She wants a guy that is emotionally secure.  She wants a guy that is not hiding any demons or skeletons in any closets.  She wants a guy that will give her a life of excitement, she wants a guy that will enthrall her at all times.  She does not want a minimum wage idiot who plays video games and smokes pot all day.  She wants a drippingly romantic perfect guy because she is such a wonderful modern woman that deserves a guy who respects her and treats her like an equal.

They claim that they are adventurous and wild at heart and free spirits.  Therefore they demand that they want a guy who is adventurous and will take them traveling all around the world.  They claim they love art and culture and sophistication.  Therefore they want a guy who will take them to the opera and the ballet.  And who will take them to fancy posh restaurants.

Notice a recurring theme floating through all these demands?  These females want the guy to do all the work.  More specifically, they want a guy that is absolutely perfect in every way.

They say they want a guy that is fascinating.  They want a guy who is intellectually stimulating, presumably because they value intellectual stimulation.  They want a guy who has an interesting job, and they say this is because they like interesting stuff.
Well, if success is so important to you, then why do you not pursue it yourself? ///

The never-ending romantic demands and stuff:  they want a guy to shout it from the rooftops and the mountaintops that he loves her.  They want a guy that is drippingly, saccharinely romantic, enough to give a person diabetes.  They want a guy that will plan extravagant, crazy dates such as take her on hot-air balloon rides, etc. because she is a strong modern woman and she is worth it.  This is as they simultaneously demand that the guy forget about her past, forget about her past mistakes, do not judge her, and just accept her for who she is.

Okay.  But, what are yuuuu doing for the guy?  We know you don't like to cook or generally take care of yourself.  We know you probably do not work a job useful to society or the economy.  So what are yoourr contributions to the relationship?  -the guy has to be the totally romantic one and the swashbuckling hero who comes to inject excitement into your life.  -If these silly little females insist they are a strong capable woman in charge of her own life... then why do they still in some ways expect the guy to be a knight in shining armor for them?  She insists the guy treat her as an "equal."  Notice how much she expects the guy to contribute to the relationship.

Then what is <your> role in the relationship?

*What is this weird groupie tendency that a lot of females seem to display?
This is not merely limited to dumb sluts that would be classified as groupies that are involved in the se, dr, rocknroll scene.  The nasty stuff that rolling stone magazine preaches to be great and wonderful.
(They would rather date a guy that is a doctor or lawyer -- rather than be one themselves.
Rather than becoming an accomplished professional themselves____
What are they trying to do?  I really do not understand.  Do these females think that they will be able to somehow contract that scientific knowledge, skill sets___ through their vaginal mucosa?

-- like science._((((this might alrwy be in the voice rec memo))))__. it never occurred to me that I couldn't.  [[like when gurls ask me,, how did I find the courage or the inclination, or the drive or the encouragement, etc. to pursue a math and science field.

Black People Are Not Cool

I would kind of appreciate it if the media didn’t keep trying to tell me that the lowest degenerate stereotypes of black people are “cool.”  You know what I mean when I say "cool" -- like the popular sexy crowd in high school.

The media keep insisting that gangsta rap is so popular.  I read a blurb in rolling stone magazine once that declared “rap” as the one genre that brings all the races together, no other genre of music has done that, rap promotes racial harmony and allows society to live happily ever after and greet the dawning of a new era (Scar), or something like that.

Interesting.  Did you know that crime amongst Asian youths has skyrocketed in this society over the past ten years?

The media keeps trying to tell us that this style of dress, music, verbiage, etc. utilized by crime-ridden, violence-infested bad part of downtown is something that all dorky white kids aspire to.  The black person in all their du-rag wearing, pants hanging below the azz dragging personal style is the epitome of cool.

...And white people struggling to catch up with them.  As if gangsta-ghetto black people are on the cutting edge of latest fashions, trends, music, all entertainment stuff.  The media portrays white people tripping over their feet, making fools of themselves, trying to win approval and affection of low-class black people, so that they may be crowned “cool.”  That is, cool as defined by ghetto fags in the hood.

They were not of the cool kids at my high school.  They were not the sexy, popular clique ___
Sure, the football team was mostly black.  But that proved nothing.  After football practice, they would trudge[trundle]][[] back to their homes in the bad neighborhoods.  Perhaps this was an artifact of South Carolina living.

Tons of dating shows exhibit a very dorky, geeky white person trying in vain, straining hopelessly to impress a black person.

Tons of black comedians make fun of white people for being sooooo dorky because they don’t know the latest dance craze that is all the rage in the government housing projects.  And white people are like so clueless; hopelessly uncool with their lawn mowers and their... eyeglasses.
Often portray an unpopular sexless white person struggling desperately to be accepted by the kuuullll black hip-hop group.

I feel like all over the music
_Especially that comical, laughable, and ultimately confused mess that was eminem.
Music videos and crap depict an unpopular-beyond-repair white person beating their brains out trying to act like low-class blacks.  With a bunch of black people all around getting really offended and angry like, “how dare the white person mimick us?”

Like that “pretty fly for a white guy” song that came out back in 1998.  It was a hilarious and entertaining song, sure.  But I don’t know a single middle class white boy in real life that rebelled against his own cultural identity so much that he rejected his white origins of suburban neighborhoods, barbecues, and stable two-parent family to go join that social disease.

All these ridiculous teenager movies about high school always feature a black student that has been welcomed with open arms into the ranks of the cool, sexy, popular group.  (Just so we're clear, these high school binge-drinking movies would be equally as laughable even if they did not make it look like cool white kids and cool black kids were the best of friends and hung out in the same social circle.)

Either that or-- they show white kids trying their damndest to emulate low-class black behavior, modes of dress, genre of music.  I think the kids nowadays call them "wiggers."  Back in my day we just called them "gray boys."

Notice that the media conspicuously always points to this social affliction as the forefront of “cool.”  Not one pin-drop word is uttered about any perceived coolness of *middle-class black people* who are normal human beings, who value education and progress and come from stable, loving two-parent homes.

Liberals putting words in conservatives’ mouths

If a conservative says they don't approve of gratuitous sex, you liberals immediately assume that we are okay with violence.  Like the nickelodeon controversy of a tv show with two gay parents.  A lot of people protested that.  Then the liberals immediately hit with their now-predictable knee-jerk response.  Oh so you cons don't like gay people, would you rather have an abusive straight couple?

Ah, excuse me?  When the f--- did the con say they wanted abusive straight parents?  Why the hell do liberals insist on putting words in cons' mouths?

The helen mirren thing.  Someone had the good sense to call her on her bullshit, cut through it, and see through the emperor's no clothes and say what the actress truly had the purpose of behind being an exhibitionist.  None of this philosobabble pseudo-psychology crap.  Almost immediately, a liberal knee-jerked with "why do you Americans hate the naked body but love violence."

Ah, excuse me?  Where in that person's post did they say they wanted to see violence?  You liberal just automatically assumed that the American, by which you most likely meant an overly conservative closed-minded hick redneck, judgmental, must like violence because he/she said he/she was sick of actresses trying desperately to prove their self-worth by clamoring for the approval of the mass media.  Liberals are just as closed-minded and judgmental and pre-judging as ANY conservative they lambast.

No Honour Amongst Sluts

Men are already sluts.  ....And you sluts thought you could compete with them.

In heretofore unrelated facts, women have been competing on level ground with men for things like education, jobs, careers, healthcare, voting, financial independence, money, running for public office, sports.  There are laws in place to protect women from abusive aholes.  All of that is good.

But then for some idiot reason, a few dumb females thought that promiscuity, whoring around, catching STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. was the final frontier.  You thought this was the final uncharted territory that women absolutely must stake their claim on.

Oh yeah totally, because if men inhabited that territory, that automatically means women simply MUSST occupy that territory also, totally.  You females thought this nefarious mess was also something for which you needed to be on equal footing with men.  Never mind the plain fact that this particular "equal footing" is not on terrestrial sea level ground.  This "equal footing" is down in the ditch.

You thought you could somehow "get back" at men by way of becoming sluts yourselves.  You were "hurt" by what male sluts did to you in your past, or perhaps you were offended by what men did to women.  (Even though said men did not "do" anything to said women.  Those women were sentient beings that consciously chose to do stupid things that screwed up their own lives.  And now those women have to live with the consequences.)

So you thought you could exact your revenge on those hurtful, slutty men... by having sex with them and never calling them back.

Guffaw.  Seriously?  You really thought this was a legitimate way of getting revenge?  You really thought males would feel "hurt" by a female that has sex with them and then does not bother him with incessant chatter?  Genius, pure genius.  Applause.

Look, you cannot compete with creatures that have no soul.  The depths of their depravity know no bounds.  That is because there <are> no lower limits to their depths.  You’ve heard about how people sometimes hit rock-bottom?  That is sometimes the case.  Except when it comes to sexx and self-destruction, men have no bottoms to their pit.  It is a bottomless pit.

You can compete with people in terms of skill, talent, intelligence, etc.  Those are all valid areas of competition.  You can compete with people for college admission and job acceptance.  This, however, is not something that anyone can enter into with the mindset of "competition."  This is because promiscuity is not an area of "skill."  The only thing it requires -- is that bottomless pit.

You are right of course, that nothing affects them, for the same reason that nothing can "affect" an automaton that is just going through the motions.  Men are but soulless, empty shells that are dead inside.  So, non, in that regard, promiscuity does not affect men, for the simple reason that there is nothing -- soul, spirit, emotions -- to affect.

--
And again, this is all the same self-contradictory, circular, self-contained illogic that I've been saying is wrong with modern sex.

Repeat after me.  There is no way to feel "hurt" by promiscuous sex from strangers if you are *not* having promiscuous sex with those strangers.

Why can't you simply extricate yourself from the equation completely?  That would have been the common sense thing to do.  once you [[encountered upon it, gazed upon its soulless visage, then cringe and realize that merely entertaining the thought was depressing, and then made a pact with yourself to not be embroiled in all that...]]]] countenance,,,

Question for you, Liberals

The trouble with the "black friends double standard" as set by liberals.

Someone expresses hand-wringing concern at the state of crime and safety in America today.  This someone inevitably produces statistics about how the majority of crime is committed by blacks.  To disclose the full truth, the statistics are factual.

This is an automatic knee-jerk reflex response any time__::

Yeah, you're asking NOW, "do you actually know any black people in real life?"

Yet- in all probability, when you hear someone who is racist, and then they say, "Some of my best friends are black," you are probably going to tear them all to pieces.  Saying, "oh it doesn’t matter that some of your friends are black, you're still a racist person."

So which one is it?  Is it, "do you actually know any black people, because if you did then that would automatically prove you are not racist?"

-OR- is it, "even though some of your best friends are black and therefore you do actually know black people in real life, but you are still racist?"