Your psychological observations are applicable to everyone, regardless of politics… and, if I may suggest the following: have you considered that the neurosis you observed in certain right-wing men may perhaps be as, if not MORE, common amongst left-wing individuals? I shouldn’t need to remind you that the rate of mental health diagnoses is SIGNIFICANTLY higher amongst left-wing identified individuals relative to those on the right. You seem to be making many unjustified assumptions in the course of your analysis, you should probably take a look at that.
Sounds like typical leftist projection, it is precisely your inability to separate the political from the personal that indicates psychopathology. I hope you’re well.
I think the inability of many boys/men to "properly" interact with women is indeed not limited to any particular political or ideological group. It's more an aspect of modern Western (though we also see similar issues in Asia) culture. Many boys grow up never having been taught much about dating or interacting with women other than "be nice" or "just be yourself", both of which can be absolutely disastrous for a guy's chances with women. (Their parents' generation grew up in a time that marriage at a young age was still far more common and there was no pill, no internet, no online dating etc. so we can't quite blame them either).
On top of that, they grow up watching movies and tv with reversed gender roles and unrealistic romances and are told approaching women is "harrassment" and being masculine is "toxic". Not to mention the possible real world consequences of say, approaching a woman at work and being rejected (hello HR department!).
“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.
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.
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.
As a regular reader of GeenStijl, I think it's really not true that GeenStijl is Breitbart without the humour. I think it's exactly the opposite. Places like Breitbart or Daily Wire position themselves as serious, while GeenStijl position themselves as, if not quite satirical, at least as kind of irreverently humorous. They don't pretend to be a serious news or commentary platform like Breitbart of Daily Wire.
Also, GeenStijl is really not aligned with the FvD party and people like Lucassen (and Baudet) are mocked more than admired by them. If anything, GeenStijl readers will probably mostly be working class PVV (Geert Wilders) voters, but the site itself is regularly critical of them too.
Fascinating, I'm Dutch and have never heard of this "project" at all. I'm going to watch this, even if it sounds like a lot of second hand embarrassment may be the result.
LOL.....your observations APPLY TO ALL MEN. This is just another way to SMEAR out of hatred the only real dissident voices against the current nasty racial hierarchy we live under.
Your psychological observations are applicable to everyone, regardless of politics… and, if I may suggest the following: have you considered that the neurosis you observed in certain right-wing men may perhaps be as, if not MORE, common amongst left-wing individuals? I shouldn’t need to remind you that the rate of mental health diagnoses is SIGNIFICANTLY higher amongst left-wing identified individuals relative to those on the right. You seem to be making many unjustified assumptions in the course of your analysis, you should probably take a look at that.
Sounds like typical leftist projection, it is precisely your inability to separate the political from the personal that indicates psychopathology. I hope you’re well.
I think the inability of many boys/men to "properly" interact with women is indeed not limited to any particular political or ideological group. It's more an aspect of modern Western (though we also see similar issues in Asia) culture. Many boys grow up never having been taught much about dating or interacting with women other than "be nice" or "just be yourself", both of which can be absolutely disastrous for a guy's chances with women. (Their parents' generation grew up in a time that marriage at a young age was still far more common and there was no pill, no internet, no online dating etc. so we can't quite blame them either).
On top of that, they grow up watching movies and tv with reversed gender roles and unrealistic romances and are told approaching women is "harrassment" and being masculine is "toxic". Not to mention the possible real world consequences of say, approaching a woman at work and being rejected (hello HR department!).
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.
The violent stupidity of this premise. No we don't give more access to people who don't respect us as a baseline of our humanity, fuck off forever.
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
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.
Bruh… what the..?
The pregnancy question is extremely creepy and off putting
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.
As a regular reader of GeenStijl, I think it's really not true that GeenStijl is Breitbart without the humour. I think it's exactly the opposite. Places like Breitbart or Daily Wire position themselves as serious, while GeenStijl position themselves as, if not quite satirical, at least as kind of irreverently humorous. They don't pretend to be a serious news or commentary platform like Breitbart of Daily Wire.
Also, GeenStijl is really not aligned with the FvD party and people like Lucassen (and Baudet) are mocked more than admired by them. If anything, GeenStijl readers will probably mostly be working class PVV (Geert Wilders) voters, but the site itself is regularly critical of them too.
How odd
Fascinating, I'm Dutch and have never heard of this "project" at all. I'm going to watch this, even if it sounds like a lot of second hand embarrassment may be the result.
LOL.....your observations APPLY TO ALL MEN. This is just another way to SMEAR out of hatred the only real dissident voices against the current nasty racial hierarchy we live under.
So obviously this couch got used after the interview