Yeah - I don’t even really understand how all of that works. I see that people apparently sincerely believe, but I have no idea how - what it is that goes on inside their brains that allows them to make that leap to actually believing.
I don’t know that it does, but I can see how it could.
One way that neurodivergence can manifest is as a relative inability to simply assume things - a relatively outsized need for clear evidence on which to base a conclusion. And religion is notably devoid of actual evidence.
As is generally the case, only a relative few have enough power to actually do something meaningful, and as the winners of the countless battles that had to be fought as they crawled their way up whichever hierarchy to the top of which they now cling, they tend to be ruthless, self-serving, dishonest, amoral and entirely heartless, hiding behind a convincing-enough veneer of principles and integrity.
So as is generally the case, the world can be roughly divided into those who could do something but won’t. those who would do something but can’t, and those who aren’t paying attention, for whatever reason.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Definitely.
I posted a fair amount on Reddit too, but mostly I’d just write something, then think about what was likely to happen if I actually posted it, then delete it.
The one time I did that, I just switched my inbox from “Unread” to “All.” Problem solved.
I happened to run across a CD of the fourth one used, a couple of years after it released. I didn’t even know it existed before that, and definitely didn’t know it’d end up becoming my favorite. And I still don’t have a copy of the fifth. I do have the last two though.
25 On is sort of reminiscent of Tornado or The Good News and the Bad News - a return to form. It’s pretty good on its own, but sort of suffers by comparison. Monster Movie is odd but interesting. It feels kind of self-indulgent, but in a good way - just a bunch of guys sitting around playing what they want to play just because that’s what they want to play. It’s a bit disjointed, but I like it.
I happened on them when they put out their first album and have been a fan ever since, and that’s even without ever getting a chance to see them live. Bob Walkenhorst is easily my favorite songwriter.
Flirting with the Universe is their fourth album - after a bit of a recording hiatus after The Good News and the Bad News, and it’s far and away my favorite. It’s obvious that they took their time and carefully crafted an album designed to showcase their talent. It’s unfortunate that it still didn’t manage to bring them the recognition they’ve always deserved, but I appreciate it.
Off the top of my head…
The Presidents of the United States of America - The Presidents of the United States of America
Stan Ridgway - The Big Heat
The Rainmakers - Flirting with the Universe
XTC - Black Sea
Morphine - Good
Bloodhound Gang - Hooray for Boobies
Lloyd Cole and the Commotions - Rattlesnakes
The Mattoid - Great Lovers
Frank Zappa - Joe’s Garage
Was (Not Was) - What Up Dog?
…or something like that…
I browse on All almost exclusively, and if a community or poster is notably toxic or spammy I block them, but if they just don’t interest me, then I just scroll past them.
Honestly, I don’t even understand what the supposed problem is. The world is full of things that don’t interest me. That’s just the way it goes, and really it’s just background noise that I barely even notice.
One of my personal favorites, and technically an example of media universe crossovers though probably not quite what one would think of, is the Japanese manga series Saint Young Men, which is about Jesus and Buddha sharing an apartment in modern-day Tokyo.
3,000 - Oblivion
That’s spread over 40 or so characters, and dating all the way back to 2006.
I doubt it, particularly because it’s almost certainly the case that the people who deride it when others do it do it themselves in other situations.
It’s far and away most common in partisan politics, and it happens because the simple fact of the matter is that most professional politicians and political parties are loathsome slimeballs, and the only thing a partisan can dependably say in support of their preferences is that they’re (purportedly) better than the alternative. So it’s nearly always the case that in attempting to defend or advocate for their preference, they’ll bring up the alternative and shift focus to them.
And then they’ll potentially turn right around and deride their opponents for doing the same.
That’s not uncommon in trades - plumbing, construction, auto mechanics and the like.
There are tricks and techniques that one can learn over time to make things easier or more efficient, but they’re often complex enough or require enough skill and experience that if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re just going to unnecessarily screw things up trying. So new people are taught the standard, safe, dependable way of doing things, even if that’s not the way the old hands do it.
Edit to add: in a moral context rather than a practical one, I don’t think it ever is appropriate. IMO, the first requirement for any moral stance is that one abide by it oneself, and unless and until one has managed to accomplish that most basic of tasks, one has no standing by which to even meaningfully comment on other people’s behavior.
Tremors. It’s just pretty much flawless.
Yes - I know lots of childless genXers, including myself.
I think we were the first generation to see the bullshit fairly clearly, but we weren’t even close to being in a position to do anything about it.
The earlier generations generally didn’t see it, and the boomers only saw parts of it - they were too easily distracted by their own greed and self-indulgence. Stuck in the shadows as we were, and growing up right in the middle of it - in the world after the Kennedy/King assassinations and Vietnam and Watergate and OPEC and stagflation and Iran/Contra and on and on and on - we couldn’t really miss it. But we’ve never had any real influence (other than our brief but notable time at the vanguard of music, art and fashion), so it mostly just left us sort of cynical and detached. It’s fallen to the later generations to get fired up enough to maybe do something about it.
And yeah - my plan too has long been to mostly keep a low profile, try to share a bit of what hopefully amounts to wisdom, then slip off-stage before the inevitable shit hits the inevitable fan.
Invisibility is the defining characteristic of Generation X.
When Douglas Coupland popularized the term in his novel of the same name, that was an awful lot of the point. Generation X was the generation that just sort of fell through the cracks, lost in the shadow of the baby boomers.
Over the years, we’ve just adapted to it, and really, at this point, it’s sort of nice to be forgotten. We can just sit on the sidelines, munching on popcorn, offering up a bit of snidely cynical commentary and reminiscing about great music, great times and great hair.
I would assume that first and foremost it’s that, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And disabled people and their advocates aren’t squeaky enough.
Cynically, I think there’s another explanation…
I think a lot of activism doesn’t actually generate meaningful results. To some significant degree, it just serves as something for people to fight over and politicians to fundraise and campaign on.
To serve those purposes though, it has to be controversial - there has to be a basis on which one party can take a stance in favor and the other a stance opposed. And another handy feature of that sort of activism is that it doesn’t have to actually be enacted, and in fact, it’s better for the politicians if it’s not. That means that the ones who supported it can fundraise and run merely on having supported it and on the need to counter the evil other party who opposed it, while those who opposed it can fundraise and run merely on having opposed it and on the need to counter the evil other party who proposed it. And since no money was spent on any program, that’s that much more money the politicians can funnel to their cronies. It’s basically free publicity with a bit of “Let’s you and them fight” mixed in.
And LGBT might as well have been tailor-made for that exact purpose.
But with something like advocacy for the disabled, there’s no basis on which either party could dare oppose it, so there’s nothing to fight over, and worse yet, if it’s proposed, there’s no excuse for not passing it, which means they’d have to pay for it, and that’s money that they’d rather be funneling to their cronies.
So politicians mostly just ignore it.
Absolutely.
But that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about making the leap from recognizing that such a being could exist to believing that such a being does exist. That, to me, is so bizarrely irrational that I can’t even work out how it is that people apparently actually do it.