Culturalism · Personal Finance

How To Win At Economic Dating

If you’re more than a young whippersnapper, you probably remember the video I made on Prince Harry’s decision to wed Meghan Markle. It got about 60,000 views, and made a lot of folks angry.

Why? Because I called his decision an “impending disaster.” This was wholly unacceptable, for anyone detracting from his life choices was necessarily a hater in the eyes of my critics.

As it turns out, I was 100 percent correct. Harry the heroic helicopter pilot has been relegated to the status of a dutiful servant beneath his hard-charging and clever wife. Yes, I meant clever. The mistake of the outrage crowd is to assume a negative attitude towards Meghan, which was never the case. We should rather look to her as a model.

Stop and figure things for a second. At the time of their wedding, Markle was pushing forty and recently divorced. Her acting career had been moderately successful, but nothing to ensure long-term dominance in the entertainment industry. She stood to end up like a more ethical Lori Loughlin: famous, but hardly a star.

Nevertheless, she managed to wife up a younger prince with access to copious wealth, AND had a son with him. That’s pure talent.

The press frenzy over the royal couple’s “Megxit” chapter of stepping back from duties to live in Canada remains baseless controversy, as it’s all part of the plan. With legal and blood ties to the royal family, plus a newly-minted trademark brand, she has become financially invincible. Even Camilla Parker Bowels could never dream up such a fantasy.

How’s that for happily ever after?

Culturalism · Personal Finance

The Broken Male

I tend to avoid aimless social meandering, but sometimes an image rolls by that says everything without speaking a word. Let’s take a look:

What makes it odd? Well, this is a campaign promo pic, typically meant to showcase the warmth and nonthreatening Americanism embodied by the office-seeker. Instead, we have an unsmiling man forced into the process, perhaps to “keep the peace” at home.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is jayapal2.jpg

Maybe it’s a cheap shot, but does the tight-lipped Mr. Jayapal look even remotely happy? The expression signals passivity and resignation to the dominion of another person. He looks scared and restless, as if he wants nothing more than to escape the setting and play a few hours of Railroad Tycoon III, but only with the wife’s permission.

As you can see, his hands aren’t around the wife’s back, or clasping hers, suggesting a coldness or distance between them. Affectionate couples usually strive to showoff their union in public, particularly in politics. Case in point:

Trump firmly clasps his wife’s arms, and doesn’t lean away from her when posing. Whether you believe there relationship is sincere or not, it looks like one bathed in affection and admiration.

Mr. Jayapal on the other hand seems to be a prisoner of the sanctified institution known as marriage.

Culturalism · Personal Finance

While You Were Outraging…

Is any anger campaign organic?

It might seem like a silly question, as we already known that “going viral” is largely a planned and calculated event, designed by firms to generate followers and purchases. That’s old news. The real query relates to whether these “outrage activist” movements are not aligned with the same interests.

Think about it for a second: at the beginning of December, Peloton’s cute holiday mom ad began to generate substantial controversy for its depiction of a woman working out.

Fat activists were furious at the misogyny and sexism, because the husband is not shown working out, and his wife already happens to be slim. Those who thought the fury was silly probably pointed out that exercising is not just about losing weight, but also remaining healthy.

 Now, I will not pretend the Denny’s Division was not at some level legitimate; after all, we are well aware of the Trigglypuff saga.

But what was the broader objective? Let’s take a look at Peloton’s stock price right before this controversy blew up around December 2nd:

And now December 5th:

As you can see, Peloton suffers a nearly six-dollar drop over the course of a few days, the perfect opportunity for someone SHORTING the stock. In the event they chose to wait a bit longer, Peloton actually hit $27.00 per share on December 26th.

So, is Wall Street paying for SJW campaigns in order to rig speculative bets on stocks?

I’d lean yes, but no one is really paying attention.

Culturalism

The Sad Truth About Andrew Yang

It’s Déjà vu, but you probably don’t remember. In 2008 we had throngs of young people singing the praises of a politician who promised  to rescue them from war and poverty, whilst delivering healthcare to millions and also balancing the budget.

He ended up doing only one of those things, and badly at that, but forget about history. There’s a new kid in town who millions have started talking point simping for on the Internet dot com: Chairman Andrew Yang.

I would normally refrain from silly allusions to communism, but there is no question Mr. Yang shares many of the same communitarian principles, with a necessary dollop of ethnocentrism to boot.

And his fans love it. Take these tidbits for example:

Brilliant points

My favorite is the last one, which drips of Marxist useful idiocy. She won’t respond or explain herself, but others continue chanting in support, so it’s ok. This is typical low IQ behavior, the hallmark of people who can’t get past the basic veneer of issues and simply support a guy because he offers them money.

The comments also tend to explain away any flaws in his plans by appealing to “Andrew says…,” or “Andrew believes…” Forget the realities of politics, or the applied effects. If it sounds good, then it must be good.

The broader danger lies with WHAT Yang has been saying, whilst play acting as Mr. Common Sense. For instance, he boosted his racial self-interest by predicting Asians would be the targets of White shootings in the future:

I think we’re one generation away from falling into the same camps as the Jews, who were attacked in a synagogue in Pittsburgh like just a couple months ago. It’s like we’re probably one generation away from Americans shooting up a bunch of Asians saying like, you know, ‘Damn the Chinese,’ because there’s a giant cold war even more with China. That is the great danger that I fear that my children are going to grow up in.”

Remember, this is the guy bringing people together. Let’s of course forget the Virginia Tech shooting, Eliot Rodger, and Santa Clarita. I suppose they were insecure about the Chinese taking their jobs too.

As I noted in the video, Andrew Yang also likes to pander and cuck for feminists, against all reality..

Finally, we have the bizarre idea that women raising children at home should be PAID by the government. This is the clearest link to communitarian thinking we have seen so far, the “It takes a village” psychosis on full display. Yes folks, we need the STATE to help you raise your kids, because you can’t do it alone, and you aren’t allowed to be free.

 Nevertheless, his fans will persist.

Culturalism

You Don’t Know What Ad Hominem Means

If you have ever backed someone against a wall in an argument on the Internet dot com, chances are good that they started frantically screaming about a litany of fallacies which they neither seem to understand nor care about better comprehending. It was just a momentary gust of emotion, a burst of covering fire to the right and left before they pompously declared, “I don’t have time for small-minded peasants like you!” and proceeded to bravely run way. This behavior is widespread, and even well-educated advocates of civil discourse will employ it, often to merely save face. The sad part is, they probably believe themselves to be correct, and that each of those fallacies truly applies to the context.

Trying to change the irrationality of the internet is a futile endeavor, but at least on an individual basis you can avoid committing the same lazy sins of the mob by considering the weight of your words. The following is a list of the popular candidates in word fuselage, and their correct utilization.

The “Ad Hominem” Fallacy

What it is: Attacking something about the person in place of addressing their argument.

What is it not: Contradicting your opinion with a reasoned manner, and providing facts to support.

Example:

John: Cutting taxes stimulates growth, as shown by this chart.

You: You’re just a greedy bastard who hates poor people!

The “Strawman Argument” Fallacy

What it is: Setting up an opposing argument in a deliberately weak manner so as to effortlessly defeat its propositions.    

What is it not: Defeating your argument logically and making you feel embarrassed.

Example:

Cindy: Rehabilitation can help prevent recidivism on the part of paroled convicts.  

You: LOL so you basically want murderers and rapists on our streets.

The “You’re Projecting” Fallacy

What it is: Holding a position based on a genuine personal insecurity of some sort.     
What is it not: Disagreeing with your viewpoint.

Example:

Nate: I believe child molestation is a heinous crime which should be punished.

You: Nope, you’re just are a repressed pedophile projecting your secrets on the world.

Bonus Example:

Michael: The promiscuity of this woman contributed to the destruction of her marriage.

You: Sounds like you’re just insecure because she’s not having sex with YOU.

The “No True Scotsman” Fallacy

What it is: Using a standard of purity to protect something from dissenting arguments.     

What is it not: Pointing out a legitimate difference in philosophy between individuals or groups.  

Example:

Paul: There are devoted Muslims who believe violence against non-believers is righteous and justified as part of their submission to Allah.  

You: Those people are not “true” Muslims The only way to be a true Muslim is to be like Allah, who is perfect. Since humans are imperfect, no one can be like Allah, and therefore no one can be a true Muslim.