Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Rants

The Loneliness Epidemic: “A Generation of Liars”

Published

on

When Robert Putnam’s 2001 Bowling Alone came out, I thought it was just a delayed liberal response to the Reagan boom. But then, 11 years later, a sociologist whom I greatly respected, Charles Murray, came out with his profound Coming Apart, in many ways validating what Putnam argued. That got my attention. Now, Jessica Brown, in theweek.com, broadens the Putnam/Murray arguments with a new probing of human connected-ness in the wired age. To put it bluntly, we’re on the verge of a loneliness epidemic, with ramifications far beyond mere personal isolation and depression. In part, this tech-induced epidemic may explain the utterly bizarre and insane violent reactions to the Trump presidency and the fascistic frothings of the new American Brownshirt Movement formerly called liberals.

As Brown points out, human interaction is hitting all time lows. Putnam more than a decade ago warned against this when he noted that once-common social activities such as bowling and bridge are no longer popular. While it appeared for a while that gaming rooms—at least for young males—might offer a type of social interaction centered around video games, those too dried up as more and more gamers played on-line. (How many of you remember the video arcades that were common in so many malls, now abandoned?”) People over 40 used to laugh at a table of four teenagers, each on his or her cell phone, not talking to each other. But 20 years later, it threatens both a Borg-style mentality and a shocking lack of connectedness to other people. Some 25% of Vancouver’s residents, in one survey, reported being lonely—a percentage almost certain to grow as more jobs are filled by robots and automation. And one proposed solution, car-pooling, is comical given that liberals have done everything they could to demonize cars over the past 30 years—despite the fact that public transportation is held in as low regard as ever.

Murray’s research sheds socio-economic light on this phenomena by noting the stark divisions being perpetrated on the non-industrial economy by elites infatuated with “tech” and “clean” jobs. Under Barack Obama, the American coal industry and its workers were almost made extinct, saved just in time by Trump. American steel, auto, textiles, and other core industries may have just escaped death by fewer than 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, the myth of the college education being the be-all and end-all of job security has finally been exposed for the fraud that it’s always been. As the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco notes, the gap between college educated and those with only a high school degree has remained about the same since the mid-1990s. But by the late 1980s, a much more significant chasm has developed between those with merely a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree, nearly doubling. Other studies show that wage growth in technological skill-areas has flattened.

Trending: WHAT? Barack Obama Says He’s ‘First American President From Kenya’ In Foreign Speech

Researchers have already pondered the impact of so many college-educated laborers who are, or at least feel like they are, underemployed. This feeds the isolation brought on by the internet society, and in part has spawned the rise of social media and all of its pathologies. Whatever value social media has in spreading information and news fast, it also has created a generation of liars, or, at the very least, exaggerators. Just peruse people’s pictures on Facebook, for example. Then there is the widely-publicized online bullying, the incessant gossiping, and the outright fraud and invasion of privacy. But a vast expansion of social media was inevitable given the decline of genuine relationships. These were made worse by the “soccer society” in which parents transport kids to every athletic activity imaginable, further purring off genuine independence. Not surprisingly, in May 2016 the number of young adults living with their parents exceeded that of young people living with wives, husbands, or even “partners.” More desocialization there: it’s highly unlikely a 25-year-old will bond with parents in the same way he or she would with peers. More isolation. If you’re only options are Mom and Dad or Alexa, Jack will not grow up to be a well adjusted adult.

Given these trends—depression at prospects in the labor market (thanks again, Obama), the tech isolation, and the delayed adulthood—it is not surprising that younger people are both alienated and searching for any form of socialization. All that is necessary to send them off on a protest march (a social activity if there ever was one) is fake news hyping “Russian hacking,” “stolen elections,” “ global warming,” or the horrors of enforcing American borders. Fake news, which at one time would have been discarded by adults at the dinner table, by pastors from the pulpit, or by employers telling their younger employees they can do what they want on their spare time, but they can’t spread that manure at work, are all a thing of the past. The Brownshirt Movement (I refuse to allow them to name themselves, so I refrain from the “A” word) is a natural outgrowth of all this de-socialization, isolation, and phony news.

Consequently, the next time you see the black-clad fascist marchers assaulting people, while it’s doubtful in this history-bereft society that the first images coming to mind will be the SS and the SA, at least think of Robert Putnam and his bowling alley. You might ask Alexa where the nearest one is.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Rants

CNN: Hurricanes Kill People Because of Sexism

Published

on

CNN headline news: Hurricanes kill people because THEY’RE SEXIST.

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey ripping through Texas, a 2016 CNN article has resurfaced on my feminist Twitter feed, titled: “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says.” Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, I guess.

It would make more sense if they believed female hurricanes were actually more violent than male hurricanes — women being the more vengeful and vindictive of the sexes — but no, femininity is absolved, because it’s sexism that justifies female meteorological aggression.

According to this dubious study, female-named hurricanes result in more death and destruction than male-named hurricanes, because people prepare less for them. And this all has to do with our sexist notion that women are weaker than men:

“Feminine-named hurricanes (vs. masculine-named hurricanes) cause significantly more deaths, apparently because they lead to a lower perceived risk and consequently less preparedness,” a team of researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In other words, a hurricane named ‘Priscilla’ probably wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a hurricane named ‘Bruno,’ which might spark more fear and prompt more people to flee.”

Either CNN must take the general human population for complete idiots, or their newsroom is ideologically brainwashed and braindead. This study is just a sad waste of tax money.

By Brant Kelly – _DSC9079.jpg, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61979714

I never thought I would see the day when I have to spell out to feminists that hurricanes are not people. They possess no sentient or sexual characteristics. They’re freaking CLOUDS. Hurricane names are picked from a predetermined list, the names have nothing to do with the severity of the storm. Everybody knows this.

Meteorologists aren’t mulling in their laboratories, going “gee, this hurricane on the gulf coast has windspeeds of 100 mph; sounds like a Butch, what do you think? Oh, but the next one over in California is only at 80mph; let’s name it Sally!”

How utterly dumb must someone be to dismiss a deadly hurricane and stay at home just because it’s named Katrina instead of Kevin? Virtually nobody, or they are hopelessly stupid and deserve to be drowned under a flooding attic.

That’s right — all of those poor, dead people? They all died just because they hate women. It is the fate feminists want to befall on all those who dare question the superiority — I mean, equality, er um, equity — of women.

Of course, this isn’t what feminists are actually saying. In reality, their theory is much more absurd.

They say gender bias is unconscious. Our sexist notions are so deeply ingrained in our instincts, that even though we “know” that a hurricane is just a hurricane, whether named Christopher or Christina, our preconceived notions about the sexes are so deeply rooted in our minds that they taint our judgments and actions without ourselves realizing it. In order to undo this instinctual sexism, our minds must be constantly on the alert for “wrongthink,” purified with the ideology of feminism.

CNN’s so-called “study”? This is the drivel that passes these days as the scientific method:

“In one experiment, participants predicted the intensity of 10 hurricanes — five with female names and five with male names. The male hurricanes were deemed more intense — regardless of the gender of the participant.

That’s right. Researchers literally just questioned participants in the experiment to judge the severity of several hypothetical storms, only given their names. No other information.

Side note: the male hurricanes were deemed more intense regardless of the gender of the participant. Men are not the exclusive perpetrators of sexism here. Ah, but they’re not let off the hook. I’m sure each of those female participants was just a victim of “internalized misogyny” — which means women can only hold prejudice towards other women by learning it from a male-dominated society.

“In another test, participants were asked to judge the risks of a hypothetical “Hurricane Alexander” and a “Hurricane Alexandra.” Despite being told both had uncertain intensity, respondents considered Hurricane Alexander to be riskier.

Of course people are going to judge female storms as milder than males storms — you’ve given them no other information to go on. It’s a rigged experiment.

“A third experiment tested whether participants would be more likely to evacuate due to a “Hurricane Christopher” vs. a “Hurricane Christina.” As expected, more people would flee their homes if Hurricane Christopher came barreling toward them compared to an impending Hurricane Christina.”

How convenient that another study has already debunked this entire concept.

The government-subsidized study confirming implicit sexism in hurricane fatalities relies completely on restricted data that’s sensitive to the study’s conclusion. If there’s an implicitly sexist reaction to hurricane names, there should also be a sexist response to tropical storm names. Guess what? There isn’t! Hurricane Alberto in 1994 caused 30 deaths and $1 billion in damage, and from 2010-14, 18 tropical storms off the Atlantic wreaked 235 deaths.

What about hurricanes that didn’t make landfall? They would have seen that male-named storms such as hurricane Bill in 1991 were also not taken seriously, not because of sexism, but because of real-life circumstances.

They also excluded fatalities outside of the United States (how ethno-centric of those feminists!). In 1980, Hurricane Allen racked 269 deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border and $1 billion in damage.

Once the hypothesis is applied to a broader or entirely different data sets, it doesn’t appear to apply anymore. Color me surprised.

This claim of implicit sexism is just another way that feminists are belittling these disasters, blaming fairytale sexism instead of dysfunctional government responses and a lack of human charity and foresight for increased damage and destruction.

Storms used to be only given female names — but that changed when feminists complained that such a practice was sexist. Roxcy Bolton was noted as stating: “Women are not disasters, destroying life and communities and leaving a lasting and devastating effect.”

I don’t know about that — when you let women vote, be single mothers, hold elected positions, rob men in divorce courts, open the borders to hostile populations, and practice unrestrained sexual liberation, they’re worse than hurricanes. Women destroy entire civilizations.

And with that, I’ll hunker down and wait out the coming storm, because it looks like there’s nowhere to run from the rising flood of feminism.

 

SOURCES:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/health/female-hurricanes-deadlier-than-male-hurricanes-trnd/index.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300517

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend