“The film ended up telling us something important about the differences between those who land on the conservative side for organic reasons, working-class men who this kind of politics naturally suits, and the thinker who is as distant from members of his own coalition as he is from his fellow intellectuals.”
I would like to see you write an essay about the plight of the right-wing intellectual: so far from the natural space for the intellectual on the left, yet annoyed by the populism, vulgarity, and anti-intellectualism on the right. And the fact that so many right-intellectuals were former leftists (Burnham, Podhoretz, etc.).
On a recent Know Your Enemy podcast they interviewed Sam Tanenhaus about his biography of William F. Buckley. Near the end they talk about Buckley's warm embrace of the liberal intellectual class even as he argued against their values. He was by all accounts a very generous man who everyone liked, regardless of politics.
They speculate that in a way he *had* to do that because the media was so overwhelmingly liberal. Nowadays that isn't necessary because there is a very lucrative right wing media industry. It leads one to wonder how someone like him would fit in today. Would he be such a happy warrior, or would he feel alienated?
The problem is that the "right-wing media industry" you speak of is incredibly anti-intellectual. People like Laura Loomer are basically the media in MAGA World. Buckley would also bemoan the fact that the fusionist liberal conservatism that he pioneered is no longer popular.
The part about misogyny being a part of men and thus tolerating some misogyny being a part of being a woman who has sex with men was really interesting and thought-provoking. It reminds me of one potential outcome of neo tantra, which is to accept and incorporate whatever comes up during sex into the sex act. So if it's anger, both people or all people accept that anger and allow it to exist in the sex. Which would include, I suppose, gendered anger, or misogyny. I don't know. There's something beautiful in that.
On the positive side, the film itself displayed different dynamics between females and males. However, I don't think the filmmakers themselves are coherent in what they are saying. Jini seems to not know why she wasn't attracted to Sid, at least she can't explain it coherently. He was insecure, that's it. Also the film was revealed to be "fake". They directed her to ask for jewelry and say she was pregnant. This framed a false understanding of female attraction. I cannot recommend this inauthentic film.
I truly find this somewhat difficult to believe. With your more brazen moments in the film, it seems like you could handle just about any man. Would you be willing to explain a bit more in depth?
I don't want to speak for Jini and I haven't yet watched the film (and also, I'm a man), but perhaps she means she likes men who are, at least somewhat, vulnerable. There can be a vulnerable kind of insecurity, and I think if the man is self aware enough to be open about it, and not ashamed of it, it can be attractive and nicer than "100% confident chad". It's the kind of needy insecurity, or a man trying to hide his insecurity (and feels ashamed of it) that tends to be really off-putting.
Putting the “pole” back in polarization. You need a bigger sample size to draw accurate conclusions. Otherwise, your prejudices come through.
Richard does love to (at least pretend to) draw sweeping conclusions based on anecdotal "evidence".
So progressives should have sex with MAGAs
Yes!!
Can you, uh, introduce me to some of them
what if the outcome of the congress goes in the other direction?
“The film ended up telling us something important about the differences between those who land on the conservative side for organic reasons, working-class men who this kind of politics naturally suits, and the thinker who is as distant from members of his own coalition as he is from his fellow intellectuals.”
I would like to see you write an essay about the plight of the right-wing intellectual: so far from the natural space for the intellectual on the left, yet annoyed by the populism, vulgarity, and anti-intellectualism on the right. And the fact that so many right-intellectuals were former leftists (Burnham, Podhoretz, etc.).
On a recent Know Your Enemy podcast they interviewed Sam Tanenhaus about his biography of William F. Buckley. Near the end they talk about Buckley's warm embrace of the liberal intellectual class even as he argued against their values. He was by all accounts a very generous man who everyone liked, regardless of politics.
They speculate that in a way he *had* to do that because the media was so overwhelmingly liberal. Nowadays that isn't necessary because there is a very lucrative right wing media industry. It leads one to wonder how someone like him would fit in today. Would he be such a happy warrior, or would he feel alienated?
The problem is that the "right-wing media industry" you speak of is incredibly anti-intellectual. People like Laura Loomer are basically the media in MAGA World. Buckley would also bemoan the fact that the fusionist liberal conservatism that he pioneered is no longer popular.
So we’ve finally reached the intellectualization of the goon flick era of Hananias career.
banania is wild for this one 🙈🔥🍌
The part about misogyny being a part of men and thus tolerating some misogyny being a part of being a woman who has sex with men was really interesting and thought-provoking. It reminds me of one potential outcome of neo tantra, which is to accept and incorporate whatever comes up during sex into the sex act. So if it's anger, both people or all people accept that anger and allow it to exist in the sex. Which would include, I suppose, gendered anger, or misogyny. I don't know. There's something beautiful in that.
On the positive side, the film itself displayed different dynamics between females and males. However, I don't think the filmmakers themselves are coherent in what they are saying. Jini seems to not know why she wasn't attracted to Sid, at least she can't explain it coherently. He was insecure, that's it. Also the film was revealed to be "fake". They directed her to ask for jewelry and say she was pregnant. This framed a false understanding of female attraction. I cannot recommend this inauthentic film.
“Revealed to be fake” your such an idiot
Your 🤦
haha you beat me to it
I like insecure men, I am not capable of handling a 100% confident chad, watch Honeypot again and more closely and you will understand
I truly find this somewhat difficult to believe. With your more brazen moments in the film, it seems like you could handle just about any man. Would you be willing to explain a bit more in depth?
I don't want to speak for Jini and I haven't yet watched the film (and also, I'm a man), but perhaps she means she likes men who are, at least somewhat, vulnerable. There can be a vulnerable kind of insecurity, and I think if the man is self aware enough to be open about it, and not ashamed of it, it can be attractive and nicer than "100% confident chad". It's the kind of needy insecurity, or a man trying to hide his insecurity (and feels ashamed of it) that tends to be really off-putting.
Why in the world did it sound like someone was urinating next to the camera!?
Because maybe someone was? 🫣 (wouldn't even be that unrealistic if you've seen some of that kirac stuff 😅)
The pregnancy question is extremely creepy and off putting
“ I was a whore”
He’s vile.
is this like Adam the plug show?
This sounds like the plot of a certain movie
Why do I keep having to see this red dress chick
All I heard was, Cleaveage.
Is that a bong in the background?
Getting in the mood?
Where was she when I was 17?