I was going to write up a big thing, but honestly, I'm not the person to do it. The short version is that, no, they're not joking. Some people on the_donald probably are just trolls who are fucking around, but most of the people who post there are serious. Those posts mostly make it to the front page as a direct result of bots (check out /r/all/rising) but there still is a large population of real people who actively upvote and post on that stuff.

Its a complicated scene that ties in a lot of different threads of people together including 4chan/8chan shit posters, actual conservative americans, and legitimate racists with some serious overlap included between those groups. Although you might traditionally think of reddit users as young, educated, and socially liberal, it's important to remember that this site has long since expanded past the type of audience you might expect out of a similar site like slashdot and - just like in real life - there is now a huge range of people who post here.

If you're at all interested in learning more, I would suggest you read The Elephant in the Room, a short book by Jon Ronson detailing the interaction the Trump campaign has with the alt-right and - in particular - one of its leading members, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (a man who believes Sandy Hook was a fake, orchestrated false flag government operation). Also, Ronson's book Them has some pretty haunting and prophetic stories in it about the KKK attempting to rebrand and mainstream its message starting in the late 90's/early 2000's to gain political influence that really resonates and appears to have really come to term.

There is a book called The Elephant in the Room by Jon Ronson that details the influence Alex Jones has on Donald Trump.

No matter how trivial YOU find him, the person leading this country takes him quite seriously. That is something none of us can afford to take lightly. Trump quoted Jones at the RNC! Called him "Very Smart" and meets with the clown. Talk about a Confederacy of Dunces, we got one now and it's not nearly as entertaining as the book by John Kennedy Toole.

>Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture based on preconceptions that are found in values and standards of one's own culture.[1][2] Ethnocentric behavior involves judging other groups relative to the preconceptions of one's own ethnic group or culture, especially regarding language, behavior, customs, and religion. These aspects or categories are distinctions that define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.[3]

>William G. Sumner defined ethnocentrism as "the technical name for the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it." He further characterized ethnocentrism as often leading to pride, vanity, belief in one's own group's superiority, and contempt for outsiders.[4] These problems may occur from the division of societies into in-groups and out-groups.[5] Ethnocentrism is explained in the social sciences and genetics. In anthropology, cultural relativism is used as an antithesis and antonym to ethnocentrism.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

They teach this crap.

https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Warrior-Bill-OReilly/dp/0767920937

Wow I honestly thought this was an adams family joke that I just wasn't in on.

It's a legit fucking book.

She just wanted to brag that she buys expensive butter and organic coconut oil. Standard Bobo stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/Bobos-In-Paradise-Upper-Class/dp/0684853787

Garbage like Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War On Terrorism, by Ann Coulter or Culture Warrior by Bill O'Reilly.

There's my LATE NIGHT CREW!!! <3 <3 <3

High Energy WINsomniacs!

_

New from Ben Garrison! Damage Control

Monday was the first Tucker Carlson Tonight in the new timeslot! Here's the morning promo and news review from Fox. It's hard to believe “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has only been on for about 2 months now! TCT is currently the #1 rated cable news show with 25-54s, however Carlson's show was yugely successful from the very first night. According to Nielsen, 3.7 million viewers tuned in for the debut of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on 11-14-16, making it the biggest audience of 2016 for Fox News during that time slot. An estimated 750,000 of those viewers were in the crucial age demographic of 25-54. The debut of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” also beat the ratings of CNN and MSNBC combined. (LOL! Dishonest Media BTFO!) From the Daily Caller: Tucker Carlson’s New Show Has Epic Ratings Premiere — Beats CNN And MSNBC Combined Here is another promo with Bill O'Reilly (Tucker Carlson Tonight will now air right after the O'Reilly Factor) Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson Discuss Hollywood's Liberal Elitism at The Golden Globes






Starting the first show off the right way, Tucker Carlson talks about putting Americans back to work with Mike Rowe! (inb4 MikeRoweAggression) Carlson talks with Laura Ingraham<3 on Meryl Streep's silly anti-Trump Sermon at the Golden Globes Ingraham's book "Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the Media are Subverting America" covers the virtue signaling, social engineering and promotion of cultural Marxism from the Hollywood Left. But this is why we tune in: HERE COMES THE STUPID!!! Tucker Carlson grills flip-flopping idiot shill Glenn Beck over his low-energy stance on Donald Trump



_


Gavin McInnes says Meryl Streep lied in her Golden Globes speech: Trump never mocked a disabled reporter. (We know this, there are videos going back over 10 years with Trump making these sort of hand gestures, even a video of Trump targeting himself with the silly-hands-gesture. I even do this myself, when discussing the Extremely Stupid or Easily Flustered.) Another interesting note: the sort of people who are freaking out over this are also the people who insist on doing "jazz hands" lest anyone be "triggered" by applause/hand clapping. I digress, the point here is: Meryl Streep is retarded.



_


HIGH ENERGY! Sean Hannity talks with Kellyanne Conway<3 on Building The Wall, Repealing Obamacare, and other important work Donald Trump is taking care of before he even takes office! MOAR! Kellyanne Conway<3 Truth Nuggets™ on Fox and Friends: "I Wish Meryl Streep Was As Concerned About Disabled Boy On Chicago Facebook Live" Moar fun with Fiberal biased shills: Rand Paul schools herpderping Wolf Blitzer on Upcoming Trump Cabinet Confirmations Moar from the Hannity show, counter-terrorism expert Dr. Sebastian Gorka discusses the reality of the ISIS threat.






Judge Jeanine Pirro and Darrell Issa Rip into California Governmental Fruitcakes for Hiring Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder to help preserve the Obama/Soros legacy of sanctuary cities, illegal immigrant coddling, and other low-energy policies!






Lee Ann McAdoo<3 reports on the ways in which the mainstream media and the intelligence agencies are distracting the the American public: Intel Report: Weapons Of Mass Distraction






Paul Joseph Watson brings us moar ridiculousness from the Professional Triggerbrats™ of the Liberal Elite! Lily Allen threatened Tommy Robinson with legal action because she lost an argument on Twitter. Yes, really. Here's Tommy's response: Tommy Robinson Responds to Lily Allen






Truth Nuggets™ from Stefan Molyneux: The Death of Nations: Globalism, Immigration and Migrant Crisis



_


Moar lulz with Mark Dice: Man reeeeeee On The Street Monday! Are Millennials the Dumbest Generation in American History? They have the world at their finger tips but do they even have a clue about basic history or common sense? (He's generalizing, we have some smart Millennial Centipedes here at The_Donald, but the ones he interviews in this video are on the Cutting Edge of Stupid!)



_


Otherwise, I've been doing the same thing I do every day, Making America Great Again.



WE ARE THE GROUND GAME



DEUS VULT



NO BRAKES



NO SLEEP TIL WASHINGTON

MAGA!!!

My favourite line from Jon Ronson's The Elephant in the Room: A Journey into the Trump Campaign and the "Alt-Right" was when he was talking to a Trump supporter who told him Hillary was a 'known luciferian' and he replies 'She's not a known luciferian', 'well yes and no' comes the response. Where I come from the only people who believe in luciferians and satanists are 13 year old death metal fans.

Sit down and give this book a read.

From a Salon.com article on the book:
>Ultimately, Female Chauvinist Pigs want power. They equate power with being like men, and being liked by men. They're the kind of girl who's always felt more comfortable with boys, who doesn't really like other girls. Raunch is one way for them to gain access to that circle of men and to separate themselves from other women. Annie, for instance, used to enjoy Howard Stern because "it's humor masking a pretty woman-hating thing -- which I've got a good amount of in me, I guess, because I take pleasure in it."
>
>"Yeah, we're all women, but are we supposed to band together?" asks Anyssa. "Hell, no. I don't trust women."
>
>Yet as Levy points out, being the exception that proves the rule -- the girl who gets raunch, who laughs at Howard Stern -- just means the rules are still intact. As long as "acting like a man" is valued, acting like a woman will be devalued. And regardless of how you understand gender, being a woman -- having breasts, bleeding once a month -- will be a handicap.

> "The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Uhm, apparently not. Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and even Limbaugh are all published authors.

For real. You sing. If you were in politics I would vote against you, but you sing. Shut up and sing.

This video is amazing. I, for one, am irked when large businesses tackle social issues and it's seen as a sustainable practice. It reminds me of that time freaking Forbes came to our school to tell us how "capitalism is great" because of this (here's the poster for that).

Interestingly enough, the social changes that reward these empty gestures of multiculturalism and progressiveness are nothing new; it's a trend that exploded in the US after the 50s but also existed in other parts of the world before then.

There's two great books on this phenomenon that give the historical context in the US, even if they don't provide a direct solution:

Bobos in Paradise - David Brooks (bourgeois bohemians = "bobos")

Everything but the Coffee - Bryant Simon (talks a lot about how Starbucks was able to manipulate social changes)

No, but they are perpetuating the same stereotypes that justified not giving you those rights for generations and generations.

See: Enlightened Sexism and Female Chauvinist Pigs

>Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the Media are Subverting America Paperback – October 24, 2006

>Feisty radio sensation Laura Ingraham is tired of the Hollywood Left--and she has all the answers in this pugnacious, funny, and devastating critique of the liberals who hate America

she's such a fucking idiot.

https://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Sing-Hollywood-Subverting/dp/0895260816

I'd recommend Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy.

The book Furry Nation gives a pretty good description of those times. The fandom really didn’t exist before the 80s and up until the early 90s was limited to flyers at conventions for room parties and zines.

I got into it early/mid 90s when it was largely based out of newsgroups and MUCKs with conventions starting to get a good foothold.

There's an awesome book called Female Chauvinist Pigs that looks at how we went from women burning bras to 18 year olds posing for girls gone wild. It's a great read and I highly recommend it! It explained a lot about my own journey into feminism. =)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0743284283?pc_redir=1414449178&robot_redir=1

> The Elephant in the Room: A Journey into the Trump Campaign and the “Alt-Right

It's free to read (in the US) if you have Amazon Prime.

Sowell does write about race and culture, too.

But he is also a serious economist, yes.

I really enjoyed Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, especially the chapter about "Pigs in Training" where she examines the oversexualization of female youth. Also fascinating was her analysis of this category of women in the workforce called "loophole women" who consider themselves an exception to the rule of timid females in business, boasting about having "the biggest cock in the building" to seem more "male" than their female co-workers. And she looks into the commodification of sex as it relates to the perception of empowerment. It was a quick read and very relatable to me at a time when I was struggling to make sense of what femininity and sexuality and feminism really meant for me.

http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312261847&sr=8-1

He has written maybe a dozen books about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Economics-and-Politics-of-Race-Audiobook

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/067930262X

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

But here is a speech he wrote about three such books (Race and Culture, Migrations and Culture, and Conquests and Cultures.)

https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

Note he immediately points out not only that things aren’t equal or just, but also that there’s no reason one should expect equality, nor that we should expect everyone to behave morally. That’s specifically what I was responding to re. your post.

Buy [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Furry-Nation-Americas-Misunderstood-Subculture/dp/162778232X) and tell her about it and then say that if she wants to learn more she should read the book and just warn her of the prejudice of the internet.

And for the love of God don't say something like "it's not a sex cult" straight off the bat because that is something someone in a sex cult would say.

Spliffs: A celebration of cannabis culture 3 book series (links to 2 + 3 lower down on link page, pretty sure that page is from the second book, however. The second book's got a killer joint-rolling guide in it too.

I really wish someone other than Vox day would, effectively, re-write this book. His name has so much baggage that you can't just hand a copy out to normies.

​

Looking at his related books... (Holy shit, linking these are a nightmare due to Amazon's tracking buillshit in the URLs)

https://smile.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-ebook/dp/B00L9B7IRC/

https://smile.amazon.com/How-Trump-SJWs-Alinskys-Radicals-ebook/dp/B01JFOM1LM/

https://smile.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Warrior-Handbook-Millennials-ebook/dp/B074N6968P/

https://smile.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans-ebook/dp/B008GULMDK/

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Church-Ladies-Extremely-Uptight-ebook/dp/B06VVHV1DX/

​

Nothing short and to the point, but some good stuff there for normies to read.

Thomas Sowell, probably the greatest black intellectual alive today has been saying as much for a long time. And of course I doubt whites have more sensible political opinions, the only difference is that blacks have an easier time asking for handouts and special treatment (even if in reality it harms them more than help), whites would do the same stupid things if they could.

Race and Culture: A World View and Black Rednecks and White Liberals are two great books by Thomas Sowell on the subject.

Of course, in the current climate of political correctness paranoia, anything that can in any way be interpreted as criticism of a 'minority' is not acceptable, whatever it is true or not.

If you read Jon Ronson's Kindle single about Alex Jones and the RNC, apparently Trump tried to get Beck on board with a trip to Mar-a-Lago, and Beck viewed it as manipulative.

If you are interested in learning more about this, there is a famous economist you may have heard of called Thomas Sowell, who has written extensively on this topic.

His most extensive work on the topic, from my perspective, is the book below:
http://www.amazon.com/Race-And-Culture-World-View/dp/0465067972

edit: spelling

No Steven is definitely not family. He used to be the editor of the Bay Guardian and came up under Tim Redmond and therefore had great access to Larry. His political beliefs are pretty out there (no surprise) but he is a nice guy and he writes well. The Tribes of Burning Man is a pretty good read.

Read all about it

Also, Ronson's short piece "Elephant in the Room."


https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Room-Journey-Campaign-Alt-Right-ebook/dp/B01LXOO7UQ

I think Ronson is the perfect person to do a long expose on Jones. Him and Jones have a long relationship and Jones seems to trust Ronson.

It's know as internalized sexism. Those who express it are female chauvinist pigs.

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-LSD-Manufacture-Uncle-Fester/dp/0970148577/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451100891&sr=1-5&keywords=LSD

I've thought about getting this just to see what it has to say.

If anyone would like to learn about Alex Jones I recommend a book by a guy who actually knows the guy. Jon Ronson actually happens to know Alex Jones. He worked with him for a while and they diverged. One went into conspiracy theories and the other into journalism. The book goes into a lot of it. He also spends a lot of time talking about Roger Stone and more. I... I just really like the book.

The reviewer, who is no stranger to Superman, sees the amount of wanton destruction as a bad thing because the violence is never redeemed, never made worthy, by the thing we want most in a Superman movie -- hope. Instead it leads to Superman sinking to Zod's level by snapping his neck.

It's one thing if we're forced to focus on the human cost of a super-battle, that's all well and good. But the moment all of that builds up to is not one that inspires hope. As the reviewer says, "We keep waiting to thrill, to exult, to cheer our hero on." That moment never comes. I can't cheer for Superman taking a life, distraught and clinging to Lois Lane for comfort. For me, this is a movie that ends with Superman defeated.

The problem for me is that there are plenty of heroes that are willing to "do whatever it takes." There's only one who is so full of hope that he believes even Lex Luthor can be redeemed.

I'll just leave this here...

He also had a little kindle single about the 2016 campaign and the alt-right, featuring a reunion with Alex Jones (it was written before the election, so Ronson was still confident Trump would remain a fringe character like Jones).

No. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions, so everyone’s opinion matters, to a degree. That’s why there are debates, a popularity vote, etc. To sway the opinions of everyone, not just the politicians. What annoys me is when celebrities use their platform to abuse this and act like they know a lot on the subject, just because they are popular. I don’t watch entertainers for their political views. I watch entertainers to be entertained. And yes, I know what you’re referring to, but I’m assuming you’re with the crowd thinking it was “racist”, when in fact the same woman who made the comment is just reiterating a schtick she does in reference to her own book Shut Up and Sing.

Here it is!

I normally do link books whenever I mention them, don’t know why I didn’t this time.

Also, Ronson wrote a short follow-up in 2016 at the height of the campaign season, The Elephant in the Room, about Jones, the Alt-Right, and the Trump Campaign, generally about the rise of extreme conspiracy theories becoming mainstream and a presidential candidate (sadly now POTUS) embracing them and endorsing someone like Jones, who has now become famous and people all over buy into his crap. Interesting section where Ronson “reconnects” with Jones, 20 years after their adventure. Which, by the way, Jones had a completely different interpretation of, naturally.

Yes, I recommend you read "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster" for more information on this. However Louis Vuitton do still have a lot of leather artisans hired at their french factories. And from what I can see most of their trunks are still made to order at these factories, although I am sure you are right and they still get many of the parts from factories all over the world. Most of the commercialized goods(keepall bags, speedy purses, wallets etc.) are made in countries with cheaper production costs. And it is very noticeable. If you go into a store and check out the craftsmanship on the trunks vs. the less expensive purses, bags etc. there is a huge difference.

Hermes is one of the few high end fashion brands that still does not outsource production to cheaper countries, but you sure notice it on the price(which is so high it is just ridiculous).

There is a handbook.

I'm not an American, but I moved there as a teenager. It was baffling to me in person as well. I'm really curious if there are people reading this who were in frats or sororities who'd like to share stories, positive or negative, about their time as active members.

Certainly, four years at one of the West Coast's big state schools and a gobsmacked reading of this book didn't improve my views on the system! Seemed like there was a lot of sanctioned bullying, often of a sexual nature, from both men and women towards their "sisters and brothers."

Would like to hear opposing opinions however...

EDIT: Ugh, I can go on about this too. Who is to blame? Surely you can just walk the fuck out if someone is about to assault you or is abusing you or making your life shit? But people don't - they're young, perhaps have little other social contact at the university, they've been brought up to revere the Greek system, some variation of Stockholm Syndrome (woo amateur psychology!) is kicking in, and they stay. I'm sure you guys saw this today - at first, you think "GET UP AND LEAVE!" and then you read the reasons why OP stays. Not saying it's right. But it's what happens.

I "get" the shit that can go on in your head that stops you leaving a deteriorating situation. I was on a university sports team (not so dissimilar to the fraternities, the athletic department) where it occurred to me a few times how bad or irrational things would have to become before I quit. I couldn't quit though. I made up lots of reasons why I had to stick it out, and although it turned out well for me, but you'd see and hear other stories and think, "is the kudos of the sport or the scholarship worth it?" Later, I was in a relationship which was done and dusted and unhealthy long before I walked out. Now, I can't believe it took me so long, because I'm with someone where we treat each other 100% differently. Getting the hell out is harder than it seems.

There’s actually an entire book written on how to synthesize it

Practical LSD Manufacture 3rd edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0970148577/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_G7gNDbDTY9X3S

Of course it's "logical" for women to buy into patriarchy - but it's only logical after one has accepted that this is the way things are and they cannot change.

>So why is it that when men hold a sexist ideology, their positions are attributed to a well established (and by many, respected) ideology, but when women analyze the same information, and come to the same conclusions, is it assumed that she's internalized this completely irrational ideology that supposedly belongs to men alone, as if she's somehow been brainwashed and manipulated?

This is confusing - I think feminists would say both have been equally socialized (they wouldn't say "brainwashed") to believe patriarchal constructs. Part of the confusion seems to be that you're using "rational" to mean "self-interested." A man buying into patriarchy is purely self-interested, right, because he's reaching for the highest status in his given society, accepting no limitations on that status. Women who buy in are also trying to achieve the highest status possible in their society, and in that way are self-interested, but the woman is accepting that there are limitations for her. She is trying to be the highest-status subordinate. From that wider perspective, she's not acting in self-interest if she does not challenge her ultimately subordinate status. That doesn't mean it's irrational, but it does make buying into the patriarchy as a man vs. as a woman inherently different, because a man's position in patriarchy is by definition different from a woman's.

I think you could go further, though, and argue that men buying into patriarchy are not actually truly acting in their own best interests, because as we all well know, patriarchy hurts men too. But it's different from internalized misogyny because it's still completely self-interested within the logic of the system - within the way patriarchy defines value - if not truly self-interested in the context of other (more organic?) systems of value.

Edit: There are also different ways of "buying into patriarchy." My discussion above has in mind women who accept and embrace a very traditional feminine role. But there are also women that are what Ariel Levy has called "female chauvinist pigs", who essentially adopt a sexist masculine persona in order to try to achieve higher status than women are generally allotted in patriarchy (since, again, in patriarchy masculine>feminine). Again, this is completely rational within the context of patriarchy, arguably even more "logical" (self-interested) than the traditional woman's strategy, but as Levy points out:

>There's just one thing: Even if you are a woman who achieves the ultimate and becomes like a man, you will still always be like a woman. And as long as womanhood is thought of as something to escape from, something less than manhood, you will be thought less of, too.

You've already had some good suggestions, which I'd suggest following. I have a BA in geography and even after school found these interesting reads.

Cultural and Historical Geography

Eratosthenes' "Geography"

The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker Who Revolutionized Geography

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Race And Culture: A World View

Technical, GIS, Cartography

How to Lie with Maps

Thinking About GIS: Geographic Information System Planning for Managers

An Introduction to Geographical Information Systems

I know most of these won't be of much use with a BS degree, but gives you a good foundation for thinking geographically. For the more science aspects; a good understanding of physics, chemistry, and to a lesser extent biology, will really give you a leg up when starting out.

There are many more that exist, of course, but here are some of my favourites:

Bitchfest - A collection of essays from Bitch magazine

Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture by Ariel Levy

Men explain things to me - Rebecca Solnit

Backlash - Susan Faludi

Bad feminist by Roxane Gay - I'm just in the middle of reasing this now, really enjoying it.

Two that I think are great without going back too far are Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.

I'm looking at amazon.com and thinking of ordering a new one from bell hooks, who I've always liked. As an African-American woman, hooks has always had a broader perspective.

I'd also recommend Susan Faludi's Backlash.

Amanda Marcotte's recent It's a Jungle Out There was a quick read and good.

I'm currently looking at Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism and by Siegel and Baumgardner's Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, but they're about 4th and 5th on my current reading list and I can't yet say how I'd rate them.

Also on my reading list is Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint) by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba on my list. Looking forward to that one. Warren Farrell is a former feminist and the father of the men's liberation movement. The movement had progressive roots, but I think Farrell's moved more center, and certainly the men's movement has some very conservative branches. I think it will be interesting splitting apart any anti-feminism from the pro-men's liberation stuff.

I personally don't think there's any conflict between men and women's liberation, but I want to be more informed as to the current arguments.

one. you pay money

two. you meet new people

three. you have easy access to meet attractive people

four. you set up networks for after school.

It depends on what you want out of college. If you know you'll want to party some/get crazy, then it would be worth it. You'd definitely get your fix in (if you wanted to).

Also, read this. Great perspective from girl's POV.

The series is based on the book by Steve Stoute.

The activist paradigm the world over is very much the people described in Bobo's In Paradise. Europeans included.


^(Do you believe that spending $15,000 on a media center is vulgar, but that spending $15,000 on a slate shower stall is a sign that you are at one with the Zenlike rhythms of nature? Do you work for one of those visionary software companies where people come to work wearing hiking boots and glacier glasses, as if a wall of ice were about to come sliding through the parking lot? If so, you might be a Bobo.
In his bestselling work of "comic sociology," David Brooks coins a new word, Bobo, to describe today's upper class -- those who have wed the bourgeois world of capitalist enterprise to the hippie values of the bohemian counterculture. Their hybrid lifestyle is the atmosphere we breathe, and in this witty and serious look at the cultural consequences of the information age, Brooks has defined a new generation.)

Okay, how about https://psmag.com/social-justice/commercializing-counterculture-summer-music-festival-went-mainstream-86334

and the book Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There

Do they have to be sources from social science journals?

http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/31448/1/1-s2.0-S0160738316301761-main.pdf

I thought that was coined by David Brooks?

The way he uses it, it doesn't mean hipsters in the sense of urban youth, but of old-style hippies who grew up and became successful but held onto many of their hippie values. Hence bourgeois.

The hipsters I know aren't really capitalists.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I heard all these arguments first from a black law professor (Steven Carter ) and a black economist (Thomas Sowell). They are common views among those who have an economics-influenced worldview. (which is to say, more common among libertarians and conservatives than liberals)

To be more specific with regard to your bolded claim: in practice the intent to practice AA in colleges has had the effect of requiring Asian applicants to achieve much higher SAT scores than others in order to get admitted to the same set of colleges. When this has been noticed, the ideology seems to encourage covering it up or moving the mechanism which accomplishes it into harder-to-quantify areas.

I left off another argument, which is that AA helps already-privileged members of minority groups (who would have succeeded without it) while either failing to help or actively harming the less-privileged members of those same groups. That was the main thrust of Carter's book .

Of course, the body of ideas that constitute "AA" is ever-changing, just like the body of ideas that constitutes, say "communism". One can always claim some criticism doesn't apply to YOUR version of AA (or communism, or liberalism) and sometimes that is actually true, but more often it's a no-true-Scotsman effort. At its heart, AA policies are based on a set of premises about what is likely to be fair or effective or beneficial, and these premises are reasonably disputed by AA's critics.

(Side note: some of the past intellectual basis for AA used the concept of "stereotype threat", which has since been a casualty of the replication crisis.)

I'd recommend Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs. It's an interesting view of how women are objectifying each other in the way men used to/still do. I also really enjoyed The Beauty Myth.

Thanks for joining the feminist side =D

EDIT: Spelling

Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy

That's actually a misnomer. There is a built in obsolescence just as much with "luxury goods" as with economy goods. this book is pretty good in explaining the evolution.

If you want a really good look into the history of BM and a behind-the-scenes type of view, I highly suggest checking out Scribe's (author of the article) book "The Tribes of Burning Man" I've been a burner for 5 years and there is SO much that I learned from his book. It gave me a new-found respect for many aspects of the event that I just didn't have any info on.

Great question! I have a couple of go-to cannabis books that I'd love to share! [Spliffs] (http://www.amazon.com/Spliffs-A-Celebration-Cannabis-Culture/dp/1579123600) and its sequels ([Spliffs 2] (http://www.amazon.com/Spliffs-Further-Adventures-Cannabis-Culture/dp/0932551726/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0CBT35HSTFRBBP9YFTFJ), [Spliffs 3] (http://www.amazon.com/Spliffs-Last-Word-Cannabis-Culture/dp/1843403102/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0T1B4E5QN5Z3XG3QTAKY)) are great if you want to read while you're stoned. They have articles about cannabis culture, broken up by cool quotes by famous people about weed, some of the science of getting high, and, of course, pictures of ganja.

If you're above a [7] and reading isn't really your thing, then you'll love the high resolution pictures and digestible descriptions of all the different strains in the [Cannabible] (http://www.amazon.com/Cannabible-Jason-King/dp/1580082084/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416022050&sr=1-2&keywords=Cannabible) and its sequels, [Cannabible 2] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Cannabible-2-Jason-King/dp/1580085164/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0HZ3CBSJ1NSXP6EMD746) and [Cannabible 3] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Cannabible-3-v/dp/1580087841/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0HZ3CBSJ1NSXP6EMD746).

Some people are born in areas where resources are more or less plentiful, this is not fair. That being said, some cultures or demographics make more babies who make more babies at rates which continue to ensure the limited resources available are certainly incapable of handling the population. Well what to do besides fuck if there is nothing to hunt, well their is war, political power, etc...Or their is entering the labor force through education and training. But it doesn't exist, ok import it, NOPE IMPERIALISM! rant off/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

May I suggest Sowell for an interesting viewpoint on historical choices of individuals as they relate to their particular advantages or disadvantages within certain areas, types of legal framework, ethnic groups, and culture... https://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972/ref=la_B000APQ7EI_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495232293&sr=1-17&refinements=p_82%3AB000APQ7EI

female chauvinist pigs is pretty good too. not too theoretical or deep but it captures modern american society pretty well.

Here's actual data on why I urge you to not screw up your relationship, if you are with a good man.

This book was published this year https://www.amazon.com/Girls-Sex-Navigating-Complicated-Landscape-ebook/dp/B0111YAT0Y

>They are considerably less likely, for instance, to receive oral sex in casual encounters, and when they do, it’s rarely to climax: only 17 percent of women reported orgasms in first hookups that included oral sex alone, as opposed to 60 percent whose most recent cunnilingus experience was in a relationship. (Men in hookups, incidentally, overestimate their partners’ orgasms by a third to a half.) In hookups involving intercourse, 40 percent of women said they’d come (half the rate of men who did), as opposed to three-quarters in serious relationships.

>Perhaps one could argue that it takes time for men to learn a female partner’s body and responses, but it also requires interest—and basic respect. Young men routinely express far less of both for hookup partners than for girlfriends or even “friends with benefits.”

Also based on this book from from 11 years ago, 70% of women having casual sex were not having orgasms https://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283

If you aren't satisfied with sex with your boyfriend, I can suggest some books to fix that too.

> absent the necessary punishments of parasitism?

Are you claiming that this can only be provided by a State? Come on man, you're better than that.

>Your guys' political economy has no other explanation for why Africa is so low trust other than "they were brainwashed, man!"

I don't know which "guys" you are referring to, but I personally find the issue far more complex than that. In my opinion, there are environmental, cultural and ultimately genetic reasons why we Africans are so damn poor. We were not just "brainwashed, man".

You're making me math?? Oh, you cruel fiend :)

This book + this dvd should be $22.21, if I didn't mess up my math :) .

In a nutshell, Ms. Levy asserts that women are at least partially to blame for the "raunch" culture -- women making other women and themselves sex objects.

If you are interested in learning more, here is a link from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347384465&sr=8-1&keywords=female+chauvinist+pigs.

I would suggest you check it out from your local library.

Here is the mobile version of your link

Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs - ta da! Women are just as complicit as men are in propagating gender roles, though I don't agree with everything Levy argues.

Archives for the links in comments:

• By Aurondarklord (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.fo/mIdlv
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/onw0b
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/ZMRBw
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/BcccR
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/cBwOc
  
  
• By mcantrell (smile.amazon.com): http://archive.fo/N0Rpx
  
• By Kia-Ca-T_D-bot (123rf.com): http://archive.fo/sVvqT
  
• By interfader (campusreform.org): http://archive.fo/oCKSa
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I rate this link 3 out of 5 stars, "it was ok" ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

Don't worry Steve Stoute did it for you.

Great book. "Author Robert Connell Clarke traces hashish origins, history, consumption, production and chemistry, from earliest times to the present. Traditional methods of collecting cannabis resin and processing it into hashish are described in detail."

https://www.amazon.com/Hashish-Updated-Robert-Connell-Clarke/dp/0929349075/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478445561&sr=8-1&keywords=Hashish

You should read Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, it's very informative.

That book is the fucking biblical word on all things Hashish. It is so absurdly over researched and exhaustive.

Hashish! is of a very specific genre of history book--which is the ridiculously over researched book. You can tell the author devoted an entire career to producing it. It really should have been multiple volumes or multiple books on a related theme spanning a career. Instead all that energy went into this one book.

I use it as the spot check when deciding to buy books on Cannabis. Not only do I not buy books that don't cite it I'm skeptical of any author that doesn't have a notation on how ridiculously authoritative it is.

Hashish! 2nd Edition

You're misunderstanding me. I'm explicitly saying Ingraham has the right to say and do as she likes. I'm only saying she has to face the resulting consequences, just like everybody else. In other words, just like everybody else... she has to pick her battles. Making fun of Hogg's college admissions was not the battle to pick.

I'm sorry you think I'm some kind of monster for advocating "censorship," but you're pointing your outrage at the wrong party. It's up to the advertisers as to whether or not they want to pull their money. And they're only going to make that choice when they have a legitimate scandal on their hands.

That's why they're reacting this way - Ingraham legitimately crossed the line this time. She's a professional provacateur who makes her living telling other people to shut up (is that not itself a form of censorship that you so clearly despise?), and made the mistake of targeting a high school student for the high crime of being sad about not getting into his first choice of college. And not just any high school student, but one who narrowly survived being murdered and is doing what he thinks is right to make sure no one ever has to go through what he and his friends had to go through.

Bashing her or memeing her as you describe it is a waste of time, because she doesn't care. She thrives off of that kind of attention, in fact. But her sponsors don't. And that's a reality she will have to live with so long as she wants to continue having sponsors.

But if she wants to tell them all to fuck off and make her own network where she gets to make fun of high school kids' grades as much as she wants..... well, I don't think it's a good idea, but I support her right to do it.

Putting this guy named kim on without even having him sitting in front of the camera (on Skype) then having the sound messed up... Ooh Gavin looks a little hot under the collar

Actually looks like a pretty good book...

The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left


http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Liberal-Mind-Groupthink-Intolerance/dp/1594038511

Very hard. You deal with organic chemistry. Apparently some of the steps include toxic fumes in the old vintage Uncle Fester guide I have seen. Could not make sense of 99% of the blabering anyway.

Cyanide is bad. Also the risk of frying one's brain with OD while manipulating is apparently significant.

Recent research studies have concluded that women have a alternative sense of sexuality compared to men. Women have been prevented from claiming their sexuality through acts such as sex. So they've begun to relate to their sexuality through feeling sexy. This is why women are so willing to participate in what many people would think are ridiculous- Girls Gone Wild is one example. They "look for nothing by 9s and 10s" and they get plenty of them for nothing more than a girls gone wild hat or shirt.

Whether the women are exploited or not, it is an interesting example of the differing sexuality between men and women.
sources
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743249895

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018563

Technically I learned it from Superman - The Unauthorized Biography, but Wikipedia will suffice.

Reminds me of Jim Goad's book The New Church Ladies

Race and Culture is another good one.

Race and Culture, by Thomas Sowell.

Now can we please move on?

http://www.amazon.com/Superman-High-Flying-History-Americas-Enduring/dp/1400068665

http://www.amazon.com/Super-Boys-Adventures-Shuster-ebook/dp/B009E7QC2A

http://www.amazon.com/Superman-Unauthorized-Biography-Glen-Weldon/dp/1118341848/ref=pd_cp_b_1

culture war

one of the classics

https://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Sing-Hollywood-Subverting/dp/0895260816