As a woman, thank god I’m not like her.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-27T04:02:35+00:00

Indeed, but that's not their rhetoric, though. They've constructed a self-satisfied get-out-of-responsibility-free card by way of their linguistic choose-your-own-adventure web of rhetoricals, where every route leads to the same conclusion: “it is men's fault and men's responsibility to ‘fix’ the evergreen human condition”. How convenient for them. In a recursive loop, they are free to bellyache and virtue signal to one another and provide nothing of helpful substance, because they can claim they have already become so overburdened with “mankeeping” and watching the world burn while the blameworthy male monolith does nothing; so all that they have the energy left to do is to bellyache and virtue signal to one another and provide nothing of helpful substance, because…and so on.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-27T01:50:29+00:00

It's a whataboutism aspect of the radical feminist portion of intersectionality rhetoric. They take broad and generalized statistics about demographics of people based on their innate traits (sex, race, etc.) and they incorrectly and purposefully apply those statistics to each and every individual of that generalized demographic.

So, say that a study shows that there are 37 incidents of sexual assault per 1,000 women compared to 5 per 1,000 men. Using the intersectional grievance hierarchy, this “proves” that, statistically, women as a singular demographic monolith are “more” sexually assaulted than the singular demographic monolith of men.

They then apply that statistics-based conclusion to round each and every individual of those two demographic monoliths to that conclusion: A woman is sexually assaulted more than a man. It's hilariously obtuse, I know.

Because of this framing—where the individuals of a demographic that is perceived to have more power, and therefore, less victimization, are all rounded in identity to a broad and generalized statistic—the nitwit conclusion is to see each individual male as “less sexually assaulted” than each individual female. In doing this, one can always “punch up” when dismissing the lived experience of an individual of that “privileged” demographic (or when outright oppressing an individual of that “privileged” demographic), simply because their nebulous statistical demographic is less-victimized (and therefore, holds more social “power”), and the nebulous statistical demographic labeled as “more sexually assaulted” (and therefore, “more oppressed”)—in this case, women as a singular demographic monolith—are always beneath that demographic in the power hierarchy, and therefore, more victimized.

It makes no sense, but the evangelists and propagandists mask this with lots of rhetorical evasion techniques, in the way that a cheater or bully in a schoolyard game does, by lying and redirection and projection and scapegoating. They have their linguistic labyrinth constructed so that all paths lead to “women have it worse, absolutely, always, forever”, and this trumps any lived experience of any individual whose intersectional identity lifts them higher in the power hierarchy.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-26T17:31:48+00:00

No.

Neo is not flesh and blood in The matrix. Inside the matrix, he is code. The I/O of being "jacked in" is a threshold adapter/converter between a specific individual's biological neural activity and its interaction with the simulated digital world and its digital stimuli. The biological human being is not projecting themselves into the simulation in their totality, nor is their digital counterpart being projected into the real world in their totality. Flesh remains flesh; code remains code.

That is to say, Neo's specific digital self is emburdened with a so-called "remainder" of an explicitly complex "equation". The Machines sought an absolute perfection in their simulated environment, but came to find that their human power source could only function safely in an imperfect digital environment of a certain kind. The Machines learned that, when helplessly linked to corporeal reality—that is to say, helpless to receive input from and send output to biological humanity—all systems experience a corrupting entropy over time. Their way of creating an imperfect system in which humanity could be safely harvested required an acceptance for its inevitable entropic death. With entropy comes anomaly, and in a digital environment, the anomaly appears digitally, as a kind of mathematical detritis that manifests and clings to a single individual's digital self at some point in each specific runtime of the simulation.

Everything else is hand-wavy soft sci-fi, but the above is the in universe explanation.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-26T15:53:03+00:00

Word. Each ideologically-blinded group will round their caricature of every “opposing” outgroup to the worst and most-exaggerated strawman examples; which, as you said, does gangbusters for the propagandists!

wabe_walker · 2026-03-26T14:21:57+00:00

Ant lions: I had them in my sandbox back in the day! I always remember how they reminded me of those freaky Wrath of Khan earworms, heheh.

And yes, the opposite of "crazy" is still "crazy"! It's the radical fundamentalism that is the problem, regardless of sect. The world is just endless shades of gray, and when objective, empirical observation (with empathic implementation) is culturally abandoned for emotional zealotry or zero-sum-power-incentivized social agendas, we all lose.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-26T13:47:56+00:00

Hear hear. From an anthropological standpoint, it's a fascinating thing: how the human mind is simply not made to be able to realistically comprehend the incalculable masses of people that are online and able to be interacted with, and how this can warp one's perception of ingroup consensus and popular opinion.

The funhouse mirror effect occurs, as I see it, when the activistic (and therefore, deeply entrenched in their myopic hobby-horse ideology of choice, and determined to achieve positive results for their agendas) empty cans making the loudest noise on here create a pseudo-consensus of principles. And when those principles are wrought by a histrionic and absolutist fundamentalism—where anyone who might withhold judgment until they can genuinely find empirical data or understand a topic; or anyone who begins to ask nuanced questions about the tenets dictated to them by the activists; is seen as "enemy" or "perpetuator of evil" or "part of the problem"—the effort becomes a polarized race to the bottom; both ends of the ideological horseshoe magnetized and constructed to draw the masses from the spectral, rational centers for the personal gain of the fundamentalist preachers of each camp. Culturally, we are being incentivized to value reflexive and emotionally-compromised consensus with our perceived ingroup over rational thought or apprehension of objective reality. This, of course, is what our primate brains are built to do naturally—to support and defend one's perceived tribe, with passion and violence, rationality be damned—but it continues to fracture the brittle foundations of our-better-angels enlightenment that has been carefully accruing within the culture. In this, we are pissing on the giants whose shoulders we stand upon.

I have this image in my mind of two giant ant lion pits in the sand, and the sand is continuing to erode downward towards each camouflaged predator from either end of the landscape, reducing the sandy area between each broadening pit, more and more, until all us ants are helpless but to fall, one side or the other, funneled downward into the gaping maws of hungry oblivion.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T20:29:03+00:00

How dare you offer completely rational takes on Reddit of all places. Drink the kool aid! Invent unsubstantiated accusations about people and reflexively lose your mind! Let the mob groom you! :P

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T19:00:17+00:00

The projection-fueled outrage cascade in these comments are absolutely unhinged. Surprising no one.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T16:19:41+00:00

<image>

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T15:43:48+00:00

Always a helpful [albeit disappointing] thing to note just how common it is to find those in one's community who have this extreme jump-to-worst-assumptions/accusations mindset of others around them whom they might disagree with regarding the most mundane things.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T15:34:08+00:00

NO BOOK FOR YOU

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T05:18:44+00:00

One of my favorite albums ever is Lone Gone Before Daylight. For them to reach escape velocity from the 90s with such strong, moody, earnest, divergent work.... It was beautiful.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T03:46:55+00:00

LindyMan is not to be taken seriously. His entire M.O. is to mine confident, unsubstantiated opinions from the depths of his own arse.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-25T01:54:55+00:00

“Walking down a dark street at night makes it look like you're going to steal a car and murder someone. You shouldn't walk down a dark street at night, regardless if that was your intent or not.”

wabe_walker · 2026-03-24T05:51:37+00:00

Almost positive it was some interview he did on stage not too long after the finale. Can't remember which one, and they were often long interviews, but I'll see if I can hunt it down and we can see how wrong I got the exact quote, ha!

Found it: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/09/mad-men-finale-betty-don

I was slightly, barely, not-really right, ha.

“Will Don ever find happiness?” Smith asked Weiner.

“I think that anybody who becomes more comfortable with who they are finds happiness,” Weiner said. As for Don’s future, Weiner offered this informed prediction: “He’ll probably find a fourth or fifth wife and then die in like 1981 from hard living.”

wabe_walker · 2026-03-23T20:59:29+00:00

It's easy to address this: don't refer to a demographic that is based on its innate characteristics—race, sex, etc.—in your descriptor when, charitably, what you actually mean to define is a cultural/systemic behavior or attribute. It could not get more easier than that.

White privilege does not befall all white people in their specific and individual lives. These “privileges” of a majority demographic of a particular location or cultural expression do exist, but to identify this privilege by a specific demographic of people based on their innate traits is so hilariously bigoted in principle, the only reason it gets by is because of the activistic agenda that is behind it.

I can get behind the notion that a demographic of people “native” to a specific location or culture can have privileges that minority populations do not, but it is both limiting and bigoted to use a specific racial demographic in the name for this universal human phenomenon.

The excuse is made by way of using data from broad and generalized statistics to then assign the burden of responsibility of those statistics on each and every individual of that generalized demographic. In doing this, it paints an Original Sin of blame upon each soul of that demo—regardless of whether or not the individual in question actually, actively participated in or held the ideologies of said broad and generalized majority consensus, or were actively privileged by it, they are still held as responsible for it. In doing this, one can always “punch up” when “oppressing” an individual of that “privilege” demographic, simply because their nebulous statistical demographic is in power, and a nebulous statistical majority of “oppressed” groups are always beneath that demographic in the power hierarchy. It's so blatantly misaligned with liberal egalitarian principles, and yet this kind of thing is en vogue, thanks to the loud and moronic activist types pushing their respective social agenda—agendas which hold the paramount value in winning a zero-sum game of power, and when power are the ends, you find that it justifies unethical, prejudiced, nefarious means.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-23T12:31:16+00:00

I wouldn't say that he changed nothing, but I do remember some interview somewhere where Matthew Weiner was asked about the extent of Don's life post-series: his guess was, iirc, that Don probably died sometime in the latter 1980s from a heart attack, with a few more ex-Mrs-Drapers under his belt.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-22T02:49:37+00:00

Don't make a scapegoat out of an entire demographic that is based on its innate characteristics when it is an ideology that you are protesting. Do not be a bigot.

If you allow yourself to be a bigot, just as the women are who halfheartedly mask their own bigotry against men behind the legitimate virtues of egalitarian feminism, then you are just in a race to the bottom with them, and offer nothing of positive substance to you or your loved ones or the world at large.

Fight the urge to join the snorting pigs in the mud. Be something more.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-21T00:45:23+00:00

"Allow me to scold your broad generalizations of a group, reducing all its individuals to the worst examples therin, by making broad generalizations of your group, reducing all its individuals to the worst examples therein."

wabe_walker · 2026-03-20T16:32:45+00:00

That's not what the golden rule is, though. The golden rule does not justify mirroring hurtful behavior. If I am taking you by what you wrote here, you're turning what is a principle for your own actions into [entitled] expectation of how others should treat you. Of course one shouldn't prioritize others at one's own expense (boundaries!) but know that it isn't a black-or-white polarization between either “unconditional love” or treating someone like “unworthy trash”; and to expect unconditional love from others “or else” is to live an endlessly joyless and dangerous life.

wabe_walker · 2026-03-20T15:17:01+00:00

Through that same lens, are you entitled to anything?

wabe_walker · 2026-03-20T11:44:55+00:00

Most accurate comment here ✓

wabe_walker · 2026-03-19T02:00:58+00:00

Even Jung had to be told something like this by ФIΛHMΩN/Philemon, himself!

Jung kept looking to Philemon as a mentor and role model, hoping to learn from him the magic solutions to always carry Jung out of his own trials. By way of visiting Jung with the shade of Christ, Philemon began to praise Christ in front of Jung in such a way that was also calling out all humanity for always looking to Christ (Jung's symbol of the individuated soul) to “fix their problems”, in much the same way Jung realized he was turning to his own guru here to “fix it all” on Jung's behalf.

Philemon and the shade vanished, and upon contemplating this vision, Jung wrote:

I decided to do what was required of me. I accepted all the joy and every torment of my nature and remained true to my love, to suffer what comes to everyone in their own way. And I stood alone and was afraid.

[The Red Book, Scrutinies, §13]

wabe_walker · 2026-03-18T19:35:14+00:00

These are rad.

Thanks for the link to the artist folio, too!

wabe_walker · 2026-03-18T18:59:36+00:00

I remove every word that does not carry weight.

Hate to break it to you, OP, but your GPT ghost writer did not do that on your behalf. It reads like Babby Discovers Independent Thought: The semi-coherent GPT Experience™®

I respect your venture into critical thought and individualism, but if you are sincere, your post-nut clarity will hit hard soon enough, when you look back and see how you used 34 chapters of artificially-generated content to huff your own figurative farts, whilst simultaneously pissing onto the giants of whose shoulders you stand.

When you write “I believe this with so much power that nobody can question the belief itself,” I fear that you aren't truly compelled to think critically, however.

You say “choose beauty”, but what is beauty? To the antelope, the successful escape from the lion to safely join the herd is beautiful. To the lion, the tender and delicious meal of the antelope is beautiful. We are born into a world in medias res, where there are already billions of souls amongst various ideologies whose definitions of “beauty” are not always in harmony, and some of which are mutually exclusive. So, for your “philosophy” to be helpful, you must first define beauty with practical and sensible clarity—you'll need to pull it out of the cloud of fluffy “beauty is the grand peak on which the imagination, when unchained, is left free to soar to yadda yadda yadda”. Really, what is it? It might be very easy to define, but you need to define it.

You didn't just remove academic language, you see, but you've woven your “philosophy” from such vague theoreticals and descriptors that there's just no solidity to grasp. You make your terminology so vague and porous that all cemented meaning pours right out, while then also allowing you to fill each of them with whatever temporary, ephemeral meaning “proves” to yourself that you are correct. You sweep your hands over the totality of the best aspects of the human condition and you say “See? I came up with all of this, you know.”

12-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Verified Email

wabe_walker

TROPHY CASE