You don't have to read between the lines very carefully to see who the problem is among the residents -- it's primarily the Jewish palate that the Italian-American critic is blasting.
Savvy readers may have suspected this already, given that about 1/3 of the neighborhood's residents are Jewish. But the critic can't come right out and say that in the mainstream media (for similar reasons that he would not be able to discuss openly). He did manage to drop a rather big hint toward the end, though, while quoting some other source (my emphasis):
And a new place that sticks to its guns must put up with what [Jewish restaurant manager Ed] Schoenfeld calls the “kvetch factor.”
On Christmas at RedFarm [Chinese food on Christmas], “A lady at the bar was counting people and seats to see who should get a table next.” She made a loud stink and “made my manager cry,” Schoenfeld recalls ruefully.
He asked her to leave — “I basically fired my customer,” he laughs. “You’d never see that downtown.”
Perhaps locals share lingering nostalgia for the days of Mexican beaneries and dairy cafeterias. Call it Karl Marx’s revenge on a neighborhood that prefers Gray’s Papaya to the eats that make this city the most famous dining destination in the world.
And this related hint:
Restaurants that bravely open with creative menus quickly dumb them down for proletarian tastes left over from the age when bearded “intellectuals” debated Sino-Soviet relations over refried beans, and “fine dining” struck West End Avenue sages as capitalist decadence.
Propagating and magnifying capitalist decadence is a Jewish specialty. Hence their sneering at "fine dining" is a sour-grapes defense mechanism to keep the world from noticing how sub-functional the taste centers in their brains are.
You saw something similar in their sneering at representational art, which had to be dumbed down into color field painting and the like. Or decorative motifs in buildings, which must be eliminated and exploded in the deconstructionist approach to, or rather retreat from architecture.
This suggests that the lack of Jewish accomplishment in a domain of taste stems from a more fundamental weakness in basic perception, akin to a blind man who cannot paint. (Their low scores on tests of visual-spatial cognition have been documented and accepted for awhile now.)
Why, though, do they insist on ugly art, brain-hurting buildings, and food meant for the barfbag (Mexican)? Why not just go with the flow and not make a big display out of your rejection of fine taste? It all traces back to their characteristically antagonistic stance in interpersonal relations, reflecting their genetic and cultural adaptation over the centuries to an economic niche as tax farmers, financiers, and other middleman roles.
Being upstaged by a bunch of dumb goyim is too threatening to the Jewish ego, so they turn it around and call it an abomination what is delightful, and seek delight in what is abominable.
The answer to your question is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008RCDBXQ?ie=UTF8&redirectFromSS=1&pc_redir=T1&noEncodingTag=1&fp=1
I dunno, it just seems like jews are so chronically selfish, petulant, paranoid (for good reason, scumbags are the least trusting people), and brash that they are disdainful towards anything which emphasizes:
ReplyDelete- High spirits and vigorous camaraderie (I can hear the gas chambers being fired up again)
- Nature (the goys sure seem to get aroused by "natural" beauty). Notably, the Sierra Club was shamefully extorted by a Jew, David Gelbaum, in the 90's (when else!). There's a perception that the enviro. movement is highly leftist but obviously the Jews who are involved further slant things. Besides, a kind of religious awe towards nature is a gentile thing. I suspect that the main reason Jews get involved with environmentalism is to further the anti-Western/anti-white/anti-Christian agenda.
- A grown up aesthetic refinement that places limits on indulgent shock value junk. Modesty and restraint are an uptight goy thing.
Since the early 90's the West has gone full retard on so many things that Jews (and gentiles doing a me-too impersonation of Jews) can openly flaunt the vulgarities that usually end with a fed up society doing a large scale "cleansing" in which subversives, heretics, perverts, and other alien elements (including Jews obviously) get a long overdue punishment.
Truth be told, a lot of this ugliness started in the 60's/70's, got somewhat worse in the 80's, then exploded after 1992. The Jew influence neatly parallels surging inequality. Didja know that Rick Rubin forced Slayer to mention Satan at least one time on Slayer's 1988 album? The band did that stuff as a gimmick but was getting tired of it. Rubin objected because, of course, he was the producer and wanted bigger sales since he was getting royalties too. Typical.
I know that some aspects of the 80's were indeed more conservative, but there was a bit of a duality/dark underbelly thing going on. It wasn't as nasty as leftists made it out to be (contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, stern 80's suburban fathers were generally not cross dressers and closet homos with deep daddy issues). Still, there was a growing sense that in 1980's America, regardless of superficial trappings of success and renewed respect for tradition and authority, we had become permanently unmoored by the Me Generation upheaval of the 60's/70's. This upheaval had set so many shockwaves into motion that if for no other reason than sheer inertia (not to mention the pride of the Me Gen.), there was no way to avoid a collision with the rampant and growing consequences of greed and hedonism.
The largely liberal crowd (and increasingly some honest conservatives as well) who point out the two sides of the 80's coin are often correct about the ills of the period. What they generally miss out on is the cause- growing inequality and striving. The liberals especially also overlook how pleasant the period was because people were outgoing and well adjusted, in spite of rising signs of inequality like worse jobs, more homeless people, more addicts, and more corruption.
It ought to be noted that abuse, exploitation, and corruption was indeed getting worse in the 80's. And it wasn't just because of better or trendy reporting. The rising level of abhorrent behavior we saw in the 60's/70's/80's/the 90's to some extent can be put down to two things: (N. 1) callous silents and hot head Boomers getting older and hence gaining authority which they then abused while (N. 2) striving/inequality rose (greater striving is linked to a disregard for others). These two factors caused the demons dwelling in the heart of the Me Gen. to be let loose.
ReplyDeleteNow that the Silents and Boomers (more so the early ones than the later ones) are largely finished with parenting we've seen a decline in parental child abuse. Still, the Me Gen. dominates so many other areas of the culture to this day so naturally other kinds of corruption are still common.
By the way, the free range parenting of the later 60's thru earlier 90's was good in many ways but let's not forget that part of the reason such hands off parenting was done was because the Me Gen. to a fairly large degree simply did not care that much about protecting their kids. If they did care we would not have seen such horrific abuse of kids in the 60's-90's.
Also, as you can imagine, Me Gen pedophiles are still messing with kids but now it's other people's kids. If memory serves pedophilia declined somewhat in the mid 80's-90's which I think was because so many Me Gen. pedos had been locked up and also because late Gen X kids were street smart to the point that they were much more difficult to take advantage of than Boomers.
There is a large sex difference in visual spatial perception, but women tend to have better tastes until you get to the high end.
ReplyDeleteThe strongest correlations with prole tastes, behavior, etc. seem to be a more systemizing brain (famous stereotype) and low intelligence. And when you combine the two...shudder. More cerebral types I think tend to mainly be a bit boring, but they can appreciate things made by the creative.
But maybe if you take women out, the visual spatial theory can still hold.
I can't agree, since NYC is full of Jews in general, and everywhere in the city. The UWS is no more or less than Jewish than most "secular" parts of NYC. There is a large Orthodox community building in the UWS, and that might be it.
ReplyDeleteSecular Jews love showing off their wealth---usually in very ostentatious ways. From getting the best seats at restaurants to cheesy, look-at-me dress, cars, and homes (many negative movie stereotypes about "Italians" are really Jewish stereotypes dressed up by Hollywood, and Donald Trump's cheesy real estate gaudiness was actually very appealing to many secular Jewish apartment-dwellers in the 80s).
Subtly in wealth is not a secular Jewish trait; that is the religious, orthodox Jewish way. The urge to show how good their networking is by getting a seat at the new hot restaurant in town is a Jewish trait as well (the customer's anger at not getting his seat right away is a Jewish stereotype). NYC has long been home to powerful secular Jews and has long been home to great restaurants; these two are related.
In fact, I would venture that the UWS's problem is orthodox influence. As Israel has developed power, a great awakening in Jewish thought has taken hold; Orthodox Jews now openly recruit secular Jews on the street ("are you jewish, sir?" was a question one Hasidic was asking every male passerby who wasn't conspicuously black or asian). Orthodox Jews have strict dietary requirements, and discourage ostentation. Those two things would cause restaurants in the UWS to have trouble being more than a strict-kosher (and thus bland) offering. I would bet Crown Heights (Brooklyn) has few non-bland restaurants as well.
In contrast, Lower Manhattan (outside of the old LES) has no orthodox communities, so would tend to have more secular Jews and thus be very open to wild dishes. Fusion restaurants abound, as do Michelin-star ones.
But this isn't about Jews v. Gentiles, but intra-Jewish differences. Much like how steve sailer has pointed out that the "Jews excluded from country clubs" stories weren't WASPs v. Jews, but rather, German-American Jews v. Eastern-European Jewish newcomers.
"Not all blacks" loot stores during a natural disaster, "other blacks" volunteer for church functions.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, "not all Jews" praise prole chow and blaspheme anything flavorful, "other Jews" try to make a big display of being foodies.
And yet, looting stores during a natural disaster is a distinctly black thing, and worshiping the upside-down culinary cross of Mexican / Chinese food is a distinctly Jewish thing.
NB: other groups, like fat nerds, may prefer Mexican and Chinese take-out over French, but they don't wear it as a badge of faux populist honor, nor make it a crusade to tear down Brie and ham. It's that zealous inversion of what is natural that the Jews show in domains of taste.
ReplyDeleteLol as a part-jew you are dead on about the personally antagonistic nature many of us have. I see it in mixed company. A room 50/50 Jews and Christians. Jews get into these heated arguments about nothing. "This soup is great" "Yea the fresh herbs really make it great" "No I think it's the broth that really stands out" *huge argument ruins the dinner* *Christians look on shocked and embarrassed, and try to change the topic*
ReplyDeleteIt's really astonishing too if you bring it up with a Jew "there was no need to argue about the tasty soup" they will just go back into their argument "You agree right? It was totally the broth that was exceptional! I can't believe..." Never recognize that the whole thing was retarded.
"There is a large sex difference in visual spatial perception, but women tend to have better tastes until you get to the high end."
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you're thinking mostly of the domestic sphere. TV shows aimed at mostly female audiences (i.e. most TV these days) are not quite as dumbed-down and crass as those aimed at purely male audiences (Spike TV).
But movies, which you see in a crowded public place, go the other way: chick flicks have no redeeming features, while action movies have more memorable dialog (vs. blathering that you try to block out), more striking cinematography (compare Die Hard to any rom-com), and a well-crafted plot that keeps advancing (vs. meandering here and there until a deus ex machina gives the girl her guy).
Women are better at creating a charming atmosphere inside the home, while men are better at landscaping outside.
I meant in a very broad sense. What that show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was trying to reform*. There's just a slight tendency for a wife to have better tastes than her husband.
DeleteThere is a sex difference in landscaping. Women's tend to go for a more organic, bountiful plant look whereas the men are all about the LAWN. At the high end, though, men's tastes become more like women's but the execution is superior. Claude Monet probably created the most beautiful garden known today. This is where the superior visuospatial perceptions of can be so appreciated. And take this to most any realm: food, painting, fashion, cinema, etc.
*Artistic straight men are superior in their tastes and underappreciated, but I won't deny that gay men are talented even if I find most of their design ideas "off" a little.
Interestingly, I recently came into contact with might be termed an "old style" lefty Jew: he was completely worshipful of great Gentiles---he referenced Aristole, Socrates, Lincoln, Cicero, even Thomas Jefferson, all unironically, all worshipfully, all kindly. Reminds you of how many Jews used to behave--reverently towards the culture that gave them so many freedoms and opportunities and wealth, rather than pooping on "white male" achievements. As a non-Jew, it was a nice change, and made it easy to see how such Jews could have been seen as the same as gentiles to naive community groups of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. I do not doubt the sincerity of his reverence; I probably could have been taken in by lefty-Jewish thought in the 1960s had this Jewish man been one of the persuaders.
ReplyDeleteAs to your point, I think the divide here is like with Jews and sex. Secular Jews have more sex partners than non-secular Jews (whether Jew or gentile), and are more wild in bed; secular Jewish women are particularly slutty, as I discovered in NYC. But the Orthodox lifestyle clamps down hard on this sex drive, down to keeping Jewish women from ever displaying their hair to anyone but their husband, (so the proliferation of Jewish women in wigs in certain neighborhoods). The Orthodox severity on sex (as Luke Ford has pointed out) is probably a reaction to the fact that Jewish women and men are more horny/debauched than average, and so is an overcorrection. The strict, orthodox dietary laws, I think, are the same. Woody Allen, the 1970s king of secular Judaism, has long had a fetish for the french, who are both rich in food and sex.
I think a good test would be to look at the restaurants in Israel (probably Tel Aviv) that cater to secular Jews: do they have wild, exotic dishes, or are they bland? Do they have an abundance of rich, exotic restaurants/highly rated ones, or are they just bland ones? Anyway, the research is beyond me, but your hypothesis just doesn't gel with my admittedly limited experiences with Jewish dietary taste in the big apple. But I do appreciate your articles and agree with you 90% of the time, so please don't think I'm trolling.
The root here is revolutionary and empty Talmudic zeal, which replaces a centered Logos. Argument and perversion and destruction, from April 3, 33 AD to Titus curb-stomping the zealots in 70 AD to now. The exact same mess.
ReplyDeleteWith no telos of Logos, you have this ethnicity organizing around revolt. Secular athiests to run of the mill Rabbi to Orthodox shut-in. The common currency is rejection of Christ and embrace of Mammon, from Barabbas to 2015 AD.
Northern Europeans are often chided for having a bland, dull food culture - Irish or Scottish or Scandinavian food, for ex.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Ashkenazi's are necessarily that much worse in their absolute palettes than Saxons or Gaels. I can think of at least one Italian Ashkenazi Jew celebrity chef.
I agree the Ashkenazi Jews' crotchety, picky, success obsessed, "If it sells it's good enough" middle manager personalities will hardly help them create a truly great food culture though.
Half Jewish, half French cook / writer Antony Bourdain could be another example of why Jews often don't excel in many creative arts other than writing - it's easier for them to talk up something which is mediocre, because of their relative advantage in talking (verbal intelligence plus verbal boldness), or talk down something which is awesome, than actually learn to create. While I like Bourdain, his talent and work ethic was obviously never that good, and he made a big deal of himself as a personality as he admits. I bet most of his love of food comes from his French side, while most of his ability to talk himself up comes from his Jewish side.
In the hard sciences and evidence based medicine where the Jews intelligence and drive for achievement pay off a lot more as the evidence based demands of theose fields really tends to trump their ability to talk - in those fields in less you have hard evidence, no amount of talking helps you. That effects everyone to some degree, probably effects people with Jewish profiles of strengths and weaknesses more.
While women are more verbal, than men, they also seem pretty much more sensual than men in every way, so it's a different relationship. Better sense of taste, smell, more sensitive to touch, warmth and cold, better colour vision, better tone perception - seems like pretty much everything. My guess for why this often fails to lead to women being among the greats in the arts is that women are often also more sensitive and also self conscious and less ego and success driven (domestic focus?), so often like duller and tamer stuff for those reasons. Women can find strong flavour overstimulating and are less willing to make bold statements and they're generally more humble and accommodating. (Not that they don't have their own forms of narcissism, particularly about their appearance, and I think have their own difficulty taking criticism, very defensive). So men end up pioneering bolder forms of art and food even though their senses are weaker.
On women and men, this strikes me as very perceptive and I agree with a lot of it. I would add everything I've said about visuospatial perception above as well.
DeleteOne thing I've gotten interested in lately, though it's been popular for awhile, is art yarn. I'm not aware of a single man who has ever spun up a skein, but many of these reach the heights of high art. There's a range from the beautiful and sublime to the avant-garde to the experimental.
Art yarn board
This spinner, Studioloo,is the Salvadore Dali of art yarn.
Spinning yarn doesn't make demands on visuospatial perception, is domestic, plus their may be a confidence factor playing here because men haven't gotten involved. Isaac Mizrahi made a mass line for Michael's and it is deadly dull compared to what is sold on etsy (I know artisans versus mass production and all that).
Wow. Congratulations on the stupidest thing I've read all week. Ripping on Jews for their taste buds? Sorry you don't like Mexican food or Chinese, but I don't think it's the Jews fault that those restaurants stay in business. Also, the idea that Jews don't like Italian food is laughable. Everyone likes Italian food. Btw, what kind of ignorant asshole thinks that the Upper West Side of Manhattan has a sad foodie scene relative to anywhere else in this country? Go to rural Indiana or Kansas where it's just white Protestants as far as the eye can see and enjoy the "bold," "creative" restaurants you'll find now that you've gotten away from all those Jews. I mean seriously. So stupid. Feel terrible.
ReplyDelete"There's just a slight tendency for a wife to have better tastes than her husband."
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen that in a general way. Women read trashy romance novels, and whatever someone thinks of spy novels, they don't have such a low reputation. The cover art for romance novels is tackier too.
Women usually are not the go-to consultants for landscaping and groundskeeping, even though it is not dirty or dangerous enough to keep them away (like plumbing).
I don't think it's a matter of men having greater variance, with more at both the high and low ends. Those reality shows about hoarders are more about women than men who let their interiors decompose and accumulate tacky junk (worse if she's a crazy cat lady). The worst that men go is having a blank, bland, dingy, generic apartment. Although this touches on greater male stewardship as well.
Women more than men are likely to favor rabbit food over flavorful satiating meals.
Music fans who appreciate subtlety and variety in either popular or elite music are over 90% male. And again you don't see them over-represented at the other end, the people who get irritated when they hear any kind of music at all -- definitely a woman who's tone-deaf and demanding to cut the racket out.
Some of these preferences don't show up so well because of motivation. Men have greater motivation to earn money and provide for their family, which takes a lot of their attention away from dressing like someone on a magazine, or preparing a pork and sauerkraut meal.
But when it's something public that impresses others, men find more motivation to express their tastes. Architecture, movies, music, cars, and the like.
Here's a box of tissues and a tampon, Joshie.
ReplyDelete"Northern Europeans are often chided for having a bland, dull food culture - Irish or Scottish or Scandinavian food, for ex."
ReplyDeleteThat's more of a fashion cycle thing. Before status-striving kicked into gear, rich fatty Alpine and Nordic food was appreciated. Not as much as French (also N. Euro), but not looked down on. The last high point of its appreciation was the fondue craze circa 1970.
"Better sense of taste, smell, more sensitive to touch, warmth and cold, better colour vision, better tone perception - seems like pretty much everything."
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the other senses, but I suspect they're like the story about color vision, which is that the "female advantage" story is over-sold. The findings in the psych lit are ambiguous, despite over 100 years of research. Here's a newer study (free text) with a good summary of past work:
http://www.journalofvision.org/content/12/1/18.full
They managed to find a sex difference: compared to males, females showed a smaller loss in saturation perception in the green range when the stimuli were shown within a certain range of their peripheral vision.
Does a finding with that many qualifications mean anything? Probably not at the big-picture level. Those are the kinds of findings you get in the color perception literature. "Women are better at seeing colors" is one of those academic urban legends.
One interesting finding from earlier work was that males pay more attention to differences in brightness, while females pay more attention to differences in hue, when matching colors.
That never occurred to me before -- male advantage relating to brightness vs. darkness. But when you think about it, women don't seem to appreciate chiaroscuro effects in painting, photography, or film. Women steer toward visual domains that don't involve lighting -- clothing, knitting, choosing wallpaper, and so on.
Even the most simple-minded little boy appreciates the effect of running around with a flashlight in the dark, or seeing neons signs at night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCZVeIJ8xk
ReplyDelete"Music fans who appreciate subtlety and variety in either popular or elite music are over 90% male. And again you don't see them over-represented at the other end, the people who get irritated when they hear any kind of music at all -- definitely a woman who's tone-deaf and demanding to cut the racket out."
ReplyDeleteMy late Boomer mom once said that she didn't like much AC/DC but she did like, of all their songs, Money Talks which came out in 1990 when she was about 30. Go figure, considering that people (especially women) typically lose interest in pop culture after their mid 20's.
I do think that people born in the early to mid 60's probably have the best taste in pop culture simply because they spent their childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in the late 60's-80's when pop culture was so cool.
Meanwhile, early Boomers were too old to fully appreciate the 80's (in fact, a lot of them detest the 80's since the decade was oriented towards late Boomers/Gen X-ers). Late Gen X-ers were subjected to the god awful 90's when they were teens/young adults so too many of them were poisoned by the anti 80's propaganda of the Clinton era.
I do think that the increasingly anti-male tone of the post 1992 era has let women off the hook for some of their bad habits/tastes. When the swpl types bash the untermenschen for embarrassing taste, what conveniently gets left out is that much of mass pop culture is targeted at females. Who bought all those Barry Manilow and Micheal Bolton records? It wasn't guys.
It's only during a period of high creativity/outgoingness that the kitsch is largely left behind simply because there is too much exciting stuff going on to bother with the really dull/vulgar/maudlin BS. Besides, when people want to have a good time, what do you think they're gonna listen to? Cocooning does seem to steer females in particular towards nonthreatening "pretend" boyfriend type artists and also towards bratty "you go girl" female artists. When cocooning was at a very low ebb in the 80's even girls didn't mind (relatively) inventive rock.
"There's just a slight tendency for a wife to have better tastes than her husband."
ReplyDeleteDude, you've totally bought into the modern PC climate. Don't let NPR or goofy TV commercials fool you.
"a woman who's tone-deaf and demanding to cut the racket out."
There's definitely a comfort zone thing, going on here. It seems like highly complex music requires greater adventurousness to appreciate. Most guys love getting an adrenaline rush out of things and often seek out the novelty of something different and challenging to get a new high. Doing the same old same old isn't going to cut it.
Meanwhile, women tend to stick to the familiar and the routine. Which includes often staid "soothing" (aka boring) music.
"Meanwhile, early Boomers were too old to fully appreciate the 80's (in fact, a lot of them detest the 80's since the decade was oriented towards late Boomers/Gen X-ers). Late Gen X-ers were subjected to the god awful 90's when they were teens/young adults so too many of them were poisoned by the anti 80's propaganda of the Clinton era. "
ReplyDeleteThere was no need for "propaganda" as the horridness of 80s pop culture is self-evident.
"There was no need for "propaganda" as the horridness of 80s pop culture is self-evident."
ReplyDeleteWithout getting into subjective matters of taste, there are objective measures of why 80's art was better in almost every way than post 1992 art. And 80's art fares well against 70's art.
Movies:
- Photography, editing, and composition was much more technically proficient in the 80's. Much better use of visual contrast as well. These things have been getting progressively worse since the mid 90's. In the 80's people rarely complained about spastic editing and incompetent camera work rendering theatrically released movies unwatchable.
- There were far fewer remakes/sequels in the 80's (especially in 1980-1984) compared to either the 40's/50's/early 60's or the post 2000 era. Most of the dumb 80's horror sequels that people mock either were released direct to video or were laughed off of the theater screen by the few people who actually saw them. And at least Chucky, Jason, Micheal Meyers, and Pinhead were original characters.
Music:
- The sophistication of music peaked in 1983 (maybe Agnostic can post the link to the study which discovered this). There was an expectation of skilled musicianship with weaker players falling by the wayside. The 80's was the hey day of the guitar shredder.
- On the production side, music was given more clarity and dynamics. Since the early 90's music mixing/mastering has been getting more and more loud and muddy because people's tastes have gotten worse. Also, when modern music sucks so much there isn't much demand to hear it produced properly. When music was great in the 70's and 80's people obsessed about wanting records to sound good.
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2012/07/loudness-wars-another-case-of-lost.html
Oh, Phil, thank you for the condescending remark that it's "self-evident" that the 80's blew. Says who? I guess a troglodyte like me or Agnostic has gotta stop hitting the bong so much so we can finally get over this self delusion that artists had a lot more to say in the 80's.
Ever notice how often 80's culture is still referenced? How many lines of dialogue are still quoted? 30 years from now, is anyone gonna be quoting dialogue from movies released in the 2000's/2010's?
To say the 80's still live on because creators lived thru the period and remember it well doesn't really work since the pop culture of the mid-late 90's is barely ever referenced even by people who were teens and young adults in that period. Late period Gen X-ers who were teens in the 90's are now making lots of movies, songs, and TV shows but they can't seem to think of anything from the baggy pants 90's (especially 1995-2000) that's interesting enough to bring up again.
Last but not least, wasn't it refreshing that the 80's were the last period where grown men (and even most teenagers) generally wore pants and normal shoes rather than baggy shorts and flip flops? We look like a bunch of dumb toddlers nowadays. Go into the clothing section right now and get a load of all the stupid shorts that today's boring and fat males will be purchasing en masse.
The 90's were the period where people started turning their backs on each other. - Women stopped wearing makeup
ReplyDelete- Clothes got baggier
- People started concocting excuses to avoid going out and dealing with people
- Art got uglier
- People bodies started getting uglier (either too fat, too weak, or too much of a gross looking gym body). Women had better looking skin in the 80's when they weren't insecurely falling prey to every stupid fad that came down the pike.
- People started swearing more often
- People's voices got lower and raspier. It was another way of saying "back off, I don't give a damn about you and I don't need you" If you think I'm making stuff up, go watch casual conversations of real life people that were filmed in the 80's. People were way more relaxed and convivial. So people weren't constantly growling and mumbling thru gritted teeth like they do now. Voices have also grown more and more robotic since the early 90's.
No wonder some of us long for the 80's. The Clinton era was supposed to be when people woke after the party of the 80's. We didn't wake up; we just traded a flawed but relatively healthy era (the 80's) for an increasingly uptight/neurotic and coldly anti-social one (the post 1992 era).
And we didn't deal with constant, mindless PC globalist and pro gay degenerate propaganda in the 80's, either. Back then their was a healthier sense of right and wrong.
I feel your frustration. I hope cocooning ends soon, and never starts again - which is possible, if it is some kind of dysfunction rather than a natural cycle.
ReplyDelete