August 15, 2015

Gen X and Millennials don't say "Hi" around the neighborhood

Although the climate of cocooning leads most folks to stay inside all day, a decent number still go for a walk around the neighborhood. Whether they acknowledge and greet one another, though, seems to have less to do with being sociable vs. cocooning and more with whether they came of age in an accommodating vs. status-striving climate.

Some of the folks who say "Hi" you can tell are introverts and are simply making their best effort to fulfill the duties of neighborliness, while some who don't acknowledge the other pedestrians give off socially normal rather than spergy vibes. They're just too self-important to acknowledge unknown members of the community.

The strongest demographic predictor of who will initiate a simple "Hi" to strangers, or return the gesture if it's made to them, is generation.

If someone from the Silent Gen is walking around the neighborhood, there's a very good chance they'll act neighborly. Boomers too, especially the older ones. There's an abrupt shift with Gen X, though, who are about 50/50 or less likely to say "Hi" or even exchange a nod and eye contact. And some of those who have acted neighborly may have been very late Boomers who I mistakenly took to be early X-ers. The later-born the X-er, the less neighborly they are. And of course the Millennial adults are guaranteed to either stare straight ahead or down at the ground (or phone) when they pass someone.

I remember my Greatest Gen grandparents and others their age greeting others around the community, so put them in the neighborly group as well.

Silents and Boomers (and Greatest Gen) have always been more automatic to greet people in church or other civic places, whether they already knew the person or were welcoming a newcomer. Gen X and especially the Millennials have to be prodded by the leadership to meet-and-greet.

In fact, Silents and Boomers are more likely to acknowledge and start talking to strangers from the community no matter what the setting is. "What wonderful weather we're having today," said to a stranger at the supermarket parking lot. "My, that's a lovely sweater," said to the person standing in front of them in line at the drug store. And so on and so forth.

The earlier generations imprinted socially during a climate of accommodation rather than status-striving, roughly the Great Compression of 1920-1980. Back then, the norm in public spaces was to humble yourself by acknowledging and getting along with others. You see that even during the cocooning period within the Great Compression, like Mayberry or the world of Father Knows Best, where despite being more introverted they still stopped to say "Hi" to neighbors, ask how their day is going, etc.

This imprinting effect does not get over-written even if they later become more self-centered strivers, like the Me Generation of Silents and Boomers. Striving in their case is an acquired language, not their native tongue.

Gen X and Millennials, who went through adolescence and young adulthood during the '80s and after, imprinted on an environment marked by rising competitiveness and one-upsmanship. You lower your status by having to acknowledge others. For the striver, if others are to be acknowledged, it must come off as deigning to do so — a form of social largesse rather than social duty. In any case, it comes down to individual choice rather than obligation to others.

Mirroring the Me Generation, even those X-ers and Millennials who are acting to reverse the hyper-competitive climate still struggle instinctively when it comes to neighborliness in their own everyday lives.

We may not be able to undo the imprinting of our formative years, but we do have to be aware of it and make a conscious effort to behave more neighborly to our neighbors.

PS: These generational differences cannot be blamed on changes in the racial make-up of the environment that the earlier vs. later groups have imprinted on. Certainly growing up in a minority-white environment is more likely for X-ers and Millennials, and is more corrosive of neighborliness than a mostly-white environment. But you see these generational differences in all-white communities too, where racial changes are not a factor.

August 7, 2015

Fox News lobs bomb at Trump, bounces back, blows the face off of sell-out "right-wing" media

In case you missed the GOP debate, the cuckservative moderators failed to ask any substantive questions of Donald Trump, using the opportunity instead to try to snare him with petty, snarky "gotcha" questions about:

- Whether he's inflaming the War on Women by calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat hairy dyke?

- Whether he has a professionally lit cell phone video of the Mexican government nudging their undesirables over the border? And

- Whether he'll swear loyalty to the Republican Party rather than the American people?

On and on it went, the most shameful thing I've seen in a long while. The substantive questions went only to the empty suits who gave boring, dickless responses, all of them canned. Yet I sat through two hours of questions from a bitter bimbo and a leathery, closeted Jew (frat bro was OK, aside from the opening ambush about GOP uber alles), just to see if it would ever get good (it didn't).

That was the first and last time I'll willingly tune into Fox News. But I'm not part of their target audience, so big deal to them, right?

However, check out the comments at Fox News' Facebook page, or responses on Twitter. Those are coming from the large pool of regular viewers. Not a single person chimed in to tell them what a great job they did as media moderators between the public and the candidates. Every single one that talks about the debate overall is not only negative, but shaming of Fox News as a whole and the individual moderators too (mostly the airhead and the putz).

Even if these devoted viewers weren't all gung-ho for Trump, they were still disgusted by the flagrant set-up of the most popular candidate, and coming from what they had trusted as the only (quasi-)conservative news source in the mainstream media. Recurring comments to the effect of "Now we see your true colors," "Never watching again," and so on.

In fact, most reactions weren't in favor of this or that candidate's total performance, so the debate's effect on the polls may or may not be noticeable. Fox News failed at their goal of souring the conservative voters on Trump.

The main result of the network's debate was in fact to alienate and anger a YUGE segment of the party's base from the network itself. The consensus from the audience response is, "I don't know who won, but the clear loser was Fox News".

And so, not only is the Trump phenomenon breaking apart the corrupt Republican establishment, it has also led one of the central propaganda outlets to self-destruct. While flailing to wound Trump, the arrogant fool wields the blade so recklessly that it hacks off its own head.

Truly this campaign is the gift that keeps on giving.

August 5, 2015

Another fag hag humiliated by her gay eunuch's adultery (Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale divorce)

This was brought up by DdR in the comments to an old post, but it deserves a post of its own.

Here is the link from Blind Gossip about Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale's divorce being caused by his continued adultery with other men, which was already discussed in an old no-longer-blind item here.

What's weird is that they were not a sham couple, with the wife knowingly and cynically bearding for a closet case. She truly believed he was "just" bisexual, rather than preferring rotted male buttholes over her own pussy, and that he could/would quit his old ways.

It's ironic because Gwen Stefani owes her pop icon status to a persona that blends streetwise savvy with girl-next-door wholesomeness. Turns out, she's just another clueless airhead who got conned by a promiscuous fudgepacker, contracting who knows what kinds of diseases via all the Sodomites her husband has taken loads up the butt from.

I was going to say, "At least our memories of '80s pop stars remain clean of this sort of stain." But then there's the dark-haired babe from Bananarama, who is in a 25-year arrangement with the other guy from Wham! Besides showing Peter Pannish gayface in every single picture, he was also in a duo with George Michael.

Checking google, they split up for awhile recently, probably because his twink-fiddling got a little too flagrant for her self-respect to stay intact.

It's disturbing to look at these cases of Strong Independent Women who date/marry a gay eunuch in order to preserve their public desirability ("power couple!") without having to actually pair-bond with a male. Such a strong signal of the growing divide in trust between the sexes.

Of course in the end, indeed throughout the relationship, she gets humiliated privately or publicly by reminders that her beau prefers diseased dude-rectums over what she felt was a desirable, spellbinding pussy.

I'll never understand how beards or even fag-hags can compartmentalize the fact that their gay BFF / closeted homo husband finds everything about their feminine sexuality and womanhood utterly revolting. I guess they perceive that threat to their self-worth as the lesser of the two evils -- she might have to risk dating and getting dumped by a man whose abandoning her could not be easily written off as "he's not into girls at all," rather than just not into her specifically.

In a way, then, the admittedly fringe trend of women bearding for homos or simply spending all their time fag-hagging with gay BFFs, is a sign of the trend among men to not stick around or pair-bond with women. It's obviously a clueless and unhealthy reaction, but they are reacting to something real.

Related: young women less and less likely to choose men as sex partners, since the early '90s. (That post covered data through 2010, but the decline continues up through 2014.)

Girls are not turning to other girls for physical reasons, as though boys can't pleasure them, but other girls could. Other girls can't fill her up. Instead, it seems like they're searching for an emotional bond during intimacy that their distant, checked-out, porn-scarfing, video-game-addicted male peers are incapable of providing them with.

As in the gay eunuch scenario, these girls are in for a rude awakening when they discover that bisexual and lesbian girls are just using the straight experimenter for a taste of fresh forbidden fruit, and have zero intention of emotionally bonding with her and sticking together long-term. Lesbos are convinced that straight experimenters will return to dudes sooner or later, and so don't bother getting emotionally invested with the bi-curious type.

While the young women themselves ultimately bear responsibility for these attempts to take the easy way out of the problem of men not committing to them, they are too childlike to be the target for reversing the trend. Children will always prefer what appears to be This One Weird Trick to solve all their complex problems, no matter how deranged it actually is.

The target, instead, should be young men who need to be shunned and shamed out of their porn-and-video-game cocoons. Parents can do their part by reversing the trend of over-protectiveness, which turns a blind eye toward their sons losing themselves in safe virtual worlds rather than going outside into the scary real world and interacting with their peers.

Real-life friends and girlfriends must be gained by committing to them socially, unlike the virtual world where their party members automatically join them at prescribed points during a video game journey where no one can ever die and go back to start, and where vicarious lovers can be customized and streamed with a few clicks of the mouse.

Training your children to be afraid of the outside world is setting up the next generation of men to fall back into the risk-free addictions of internet porn and video game grinding, which will in turn drive the next generation of women to disconnect from pair-bonding in all sorts of unhealthy last-ditch ways.