He sure wasn’t a saint but I take him seriously.
US people have become dysfunctional and intend to bring down others who desire to create and maintain healthy families and relationships down to their levels. (allegedly)
Ex-Catholic Schoolgirls are the easiest lays in general. (true IME)
Progressives trying to eliminate the nuclear family or at least create the perception that it’s undesirable.
Methods (allegedly) used, eg, head of family portrayed as deadbeat dad in popular shows.
Other stuff I’ve missed.
1 Like
I couldn’t post another post in this thread because I had already made 3 consecutive ones so I posted my reply here:
EDIT:
I don’t care for his character, only how good his methods were. It seems they were pretty effective in 1928.
BUT this is 100 years later and I’ve went very in-depth into why you cannot rely on his book even in the slightest to explain what’s happening today.
If we’re talking purely about State Propaganda, then it may be useful but I’d have to read it first.
Yes, however a distinct correlation exists between IQ during adolescence and adulthood. IQ CAN change based upon a myriad of factors throughout childhood/adolescence, but generally speaking a high IQ during adolescence is a fairly good indicator of high IQ during adulthood.
Stabilisation of non verbal intellect has been documented to occur around 14-15 years of age whereas stabilisation regarding verbal functions occurs at around 15-20 years of age.
I’m unsure as to what the meaning of this quote is
Are you trying to insinuate I’m intellectually inferior? Perhaps I am; the concept of intellect doesn’t cross my mind all that often as my perceived level of intellect, whatever that may be has yet to hold me back.
I’ve also noted this within girls raised within highly conservative households. The same can be said for those who had been exposed to sexual abuse. Both of these demographics can associate an overt expression of sexuality with “acceptance”, attempting to feel “wanted” etc. Unfortunately this opens one up to being manipulated, preyed upon. Sexual repression during adolescence can have profound, unintentional downstream implications later on in life.
WHAT! How did you come to this conclusion? If deciding to break out of a tight knit community, a male or female will be exposed to the same societal constructs as others raised ‘moderately’. Casual sex is common within secular society, it has little to do with “sticking to the man”. Some people are amoral, sociopathic, without remorse and this demographic will unfortunately manipulate those raised within ultra conservative households for their own gain because it is easier to do so with a demographic that simply doesn’t know any better.
To note, I’d never have sexual relations with anyone raised this way. Potential ramifications/the impact on ones psyche would be greater as opposed to someone raised within a secular household, I don’t want that on my conscience.
I’m curious as to how casual relations are so “irresponsible” if adequate precautions are taken. The odds of pregnancy if contraception is adequately employed are nil to none. The same rhetoric goes for STD’s. If referring to impact on mental health/relationship dynamics, it’s rather unlikely two single parties looking for casual sex is to result in the development of neuropsychiatric abberations.
You’ve referred to disdain towards anything of which could in theory stifle the success of your children. It should be noted these programs aren’t all one and the same. What makes programs like “the Simpson’s”, “family guy”, “South Park” etc so funny is just how amoral they are. Aside from political commentary/satire present, the premise within many episodes is absurd, blatantly innapropriate and offensive. These programs aren’t identical, the content within South Park is generally far more crass as compared to the Simpson’s. Regardless, the material present within these cartoons aren’t appropriate for children, nor are they intended for children to view.
I don’t think it’s a particuarly big deal if children watch snippets of family guy as the majority of said content will fly right over their head. The biggest issue I have with children watching South Park/family guy etc is the development of a perceived sense of morality. Will a child be able to differentiate between wrong/right with regards to the content seen in X show? Probably not, but it should be noted just because something isn’t appropriate for children doesn’t equate to “it need not exist”. Rather “it need not be shown to children” is perfectly valid. I wasn’t allowed to watch South Park until I was about fifteen… though I still watched it because I was told not to…
I don’t believe procuring heroin can be equated to casual sex… completely different ballgame. Selling heroin = profiting off the misery of others. The dealer incurs a profit, the buyer gets his/her fix to get high and/or starve off withdrawals and thus inadvertently prolongs his/her suffering. Casual sex between two single parties, particuarly associated with an app like tinder equates to two people looking for a good time. There is (usually) no power dynamic present.
Yup you get what I’m saying. In fairness, there could be a host of reasons. Lack of socialization with boys at an early age, sent to single sex schools for secondary education, couldn’t take the constant reminder of Catholic guilt and just said “fuck this shit”, individual characters not suited for certain types of upbringing, mixing with the wrong company, etc.
Who cares? I’ve posted at least 3 posts trying to convince people I’m a lot dumber than I sound lol. IQ is meaningless to me. It’s the results you attain with it that I care about.
I thought The Simpsons were clear Lisa not only possessed above average intelligence, she was also overcompensating by working harder than others because she was afraid she could have inherited some of her dad’s dumb genes.
This was the case, however from the perspective of role models, the show has nil to none. Within the first few seasons of The Simpson’s this was less apparent as Homer was merely seen as an honest, hard working albeit simple man who still wanted what was best for his family. He screwed up an awful lot, but his actions were associated with remorse. Later on his character changes and he’s abusive, callous and careless with his children, his wife and everyone around him. There was an interesting video on YouTube regarding this character analysis (I’m regurgitating information of which I agree with).
The concept of a “nuclear” family is adequately depicted in all aforementioned cartoons, however said families are heinously dysfunctional. The majority of characters are guilty of taking the preference of personal gain over benefit towards the greater community time and time again. There are no “role models” present, just overt dysfunction, political satire and crass humour. It’s hilarious, but IMO it’s certainly not meant for children, nor is it marketed towards children.
1 Like
I think they were running out of ideas in the later seasons so they decided to make him more and more stupid for the laughs.
I don’t think the original intent was to critique the nuclear family per se, but to show certain realities that contrasted with what was being sold to people in earlier shows like in the 50s where everything was squeaky clean and even farts smelt like roses.
The important thing to note here is that if people didn’t IDENTIFY WITH THE CHARACTERS, the show would NEVER HAVE BEEN SUCH A HUGE HIT.
This goes back to what I’ve been saying. The show is giving the audience what they want and it’s written in that way to drum up the highest ratings possible. Shows that get this popular and are able to last for so long are normally REFLECTIONS of society,
It’s not some kind of propaganda to diss the nuclear family, even if sometimes it does so unintentionally. Maybe there were a couple that were intentional.
I mean. the show’s been going on for 20+ years already. Closs to 30. How much original stuff can you come up with using the same characters for so many episodes without offending certain people of every demographic?
Excellent TL;DR Cliff Notes you wrote for me, for real.
1 Like
Thanks, I’ve thought about these issues myself and I do identify the root of these issues but in different areas of life.
If you’re not misunderstanding what the people are saying in the first one, then I’ve been through it before. People would ridicule me for studying too hard, working too hard, call me a misogynist because I married a naturally submissive wife while they’re scared to death of theirs’ etc. Some fuck I met the first time even asked me how much I bought her for before receiving a punch in the jaw lol. It’s a shitty part of human nature that I try my very best to not emulate.
ALL POSTS TRANSPLANTED FROM THE STUPID THREAD (zero revisions) @loppar
You aren’t, you’re clearly a highly intelligent individual. As to the first statement, I don’t care about IQ. As I’ve specified perceived intellect, or lack thereof has yet to impede my ability to get where I want to be. I’ve gotten into a decent university, if this is where inferior intellect and degeneracy gets me I’m more than okay with that.
I think it was a critique of American society, particuarly “hick” towns. As a byproduct of the shows incongruity, satirical nature and outlandishness both the prospect of nuclear families and societal constructs as a whole are portrayed as being grossly dysfunctional. It isn’t a reflection of society per se, more along the lines of a reflection regarding everything that is wrong with society. Look at the “itchy and scratchy” cartoons. They’re a mockery of “Tom and Jerry”, “roadrunner” etc. Cartoons that are marketed towards children yet are based around violence. Itchy and Scratchy took this overboard with overtly graphic, yet comical violence as to state “hey, do we want this marketed towards children?”.
Communism was open to manipulation too (aware Edward Bernays wasn’t a communist, I’m replying to your post about undisclosed opinions relating to communism). My basis of disdain towards communism stems from historical examples of how this framework was enacted. In theory it isn’t such a bad idea, a lack of homelessness for those who participate, no socioeconomic discrepancies, wealth gaps or reliance on materialistic possessions to gain/showcase social status. That being said the “all are equal, no matter what” basis is problematic to me when accounting for individualistic abilities/intellectual capacity. It becomes fairly apparent a doctor who has more or less sacrificed quite a few years of his life through arduous study, residency etc ought to be rewarded in some way, shape or form. To state the ER doctor working 18 hour shifts ought to be earning similar rations to a kid working at McDonald’s seems unfair
What’s more, those who work within powerful positions tend to manipulate certain dynamics within ‘the system’ for personal gain, as appears present within all forms of government. Once again we have a discrepancy regarding socioeconomic status, albeit one of which the generalised populace can excise very little control over (generalised historical implementations of communism have been imposed under an authoritarian framework).
Historically communism has resulted in barbarity, authoritarianism, overt corruption and more. George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ sums up many of my issues with communism, albeit in a simplistic manner.
An example wherein communism has been fairly effective would be a Kibbutz in Isreal. This small scale framework doesn’t appear particuarly open to manipulation, and those who reside within these places appear relatively satisfied.
@unreal24278 Chinese people and IQ tests:
I don’t view this as a valid quotient for intellect. IQ is a measure of generalised intellect over a variety of parameters, it somewhat allows one to measure how efficiently one can use dialetics to make a prediction and/or answer a question within a stable, comfortable environment. This doesn’t always translate over to practical application.
Furthermore differing fields of intellect exist, one can excel regarding verbal fluency but be on the “slow side” regarding the ability to predict outcomes/use analytical skills when given pictures in sequential order and asked “what comes next”. How does this factor in?
You’re a smart potato, just accept the compliment. You have a wide array of knowledge covering a myriad of topics. History, media, business ownership, advertising, politics and more.
Perhaps I’ll shell out the cash for another IQ test one day in the far future if I can ever be bothered to. I know a place that formally and legitimately conducts these tests.
First, I already gave you my official IQ score.
Second, this is because of working on various projects over the past 15 years. it shows knowledge, not intelligence. If intelligence were measured like this, all the morons I’ve met who relied on rote learning to get good grades and couldn’t even solve basic real world problems despite years in their respective positions wouldn’t be morons.
I appreciate the compliment, but I’m certainly not of above average intelligence. I would know if I was. Anyone can sound smart if he knows a lot of shit. And I have to know a lot of shit to convince clients I’m smart yet here I am trying to convince you that I’m not that smart.
None of this makes any sense lol.
Knowledge retention can be considered a facet of intellect. Should also be noted 100-109 is average, but on a bell curve it’s above the 50th percentile (anything above 100 is), albeit within 1SD of normal.
1 Like
Knowledge retention is easier if you are taught how to retain it. I was trained by a mentor to process information using mental mind maps. It’s hard to pick up, but once you do, it becomes second nature. So I have a great memory when i use this technique for certain things, but I can forget where I left my keys at least 2 times a week.
1 Like
Also, it’s the way you approach adversity, as in when you encounter shit that’s hard to learn. This shit is taught, not acquired naturally.
When I was a kid my dad would try to “toughen” my forearms up because he wanted to teach me a stupid Southern Chinese kungfu. The fucker would make me hit my forearms on a thin vertical wooden beam with rope wrapped around it.
His philosophy: “Pain? Good. Get angry and hit it harder. EVENTUALLY YOU WILL FEEL NO PAIN.” I think that’s the only good advice he ever gave me. Luckily it was a load bearing beam and we had to stop before I killed all my pain receptors and caused too many microfractures.
Well I thought most of the Jewish peoples of Spain ended up in the Maghreb. But not surprised that they ended up in the Ottoman.
Honestly, I have the sneaking suspicion that when I am criticised for sharing sentiments similar to yours it is because they are somehow being perceived as supremacist beliefs. And we all know no one fears anything more than being deemed that.
I don’t care if they want to be a doctor or a tradesman. Just get after it with some tenacity. Or as our people would say. With some chutzpah.
Sure. I know you know lots of things. So I will take your word for.
But thats why I asked earlier my post when that IQ test would have been performed.
No. I was saying IQ measurements in childhood are not that valuable when you are talking about an adult. As in saying I had an IQ of 150 when I was 9 but you are 20 now does not matter. Because of how IQs are calculated. A 20 year old with an IQ of 150 = almost genius. A 9 year old with IQ of 150 = 9 year old that can cognitively do the normal mental tasks of a 13 year old. Or something like that.
Now I don’t know when your IQ test was done. I just thought it was funny when you brought it up.
Although it was a very unreal24278 thing to say.
1 Like
Early adolescence
I don’t understand?
Even more of an unreal24278 thing to say. Haha.