Travel Girls and Being-Towards-Death
format A baby we love a nice iterable little format don't we
“…tribes, identities, and the different selves that they bring out…the different ways people channel this today and what’s productive/toxic IYO. Sports teams, political parties, KETO/CrossFit/MLM/JBP/culty type groups”
We’ve got a prompt boys, we’ve got a real prompt. What’s nice about these sorts of topics is that the time I’ve shoveled into Being the Smartest Brightest Boy in the Classroom can pay off. I already wrote an essay about this, about danger w/r/t the Anyone as Heidegger refers to it. This will be Format A. Theory, Subject (topical pogchamp press that like and share button), Application. Got a sick Tracklist here, gonna be puttin on the Little Uppy Funtime Playlist Gems on for this one, snag tha headphones crack a brewski and browse along.
——————————————————————————————————————
Theory: Martin “Always-Already-Dripped-Up” Heidegger
B-B-B-B-Bangers for the King
Buckle up nerd, got 4 pages of single spaced theory coming at you. Wrote this 6 years ago, which makes me 19. Little kid, lol. I added some interesting bits of editing in there to make the essay pop a bit more, it is a fun read and worth going through. These are both 1) useful concepts and 2) if you @ me with any of these ideas i will reply every time.
“Dasein I don’t want to read, I am a little Baby, I have attention span of a little Bug, I am a little Writhing Content piggy and I don’t want to read this much theory to get the joke you’re telling just tell me the punchline!”
Ok, there is a TLDR at the end that will allow you to Skip this part of the Language Game.
Heidegger’s fundamental claim is that to be human, to undergo the experience of being human, is one of Dasein. This term translates roughly as “being there” or as “presence,” and is a concept that is crucial to exploring Heidegger's thoughts at any level. Heidegger’s definition of Dasein is as follows: “Dasein is an entity which does not just occur among other entities. Rather, it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it” (213). Dasein is that being for which the world appears. In the human eye, objects make themselves distinct for us. These objects can be the variety of objects strewn across my desk, the exhale of a cigarette (cringe i am in pain), or the imagery of Seungmo Park’s artwork. Let’s explore Heidegger’s concept of Dasein in application to Mr. Park’s artwork, specifically Maya 9782. (yeah you nerd, let’s)
Maya 9782 uses layers of black wire mesh to depict a number of human figures across a large rectangular installation. When walking by the artwork, different figures appear and disappear as the viewer progresses from one side to another. Men and women on bicycles, suited men, sitting figures, all these shapes apparate and fade away throughout the work. This impermanence, this sense of things appearing to the viewer, disappearing from the viewer, becoming important through the perception of the viewer, is the essence of the Dasein concept. As the viewer progresses through the artwork, the world around him or her changes. This constantly shifting viewpoint is the human experience. In other words, we are a thrown-fallen-projection of the world, whose self-adjusting lense chooses to capture the world around us in an ever-changing way. Not only are these images appearing and disappearing to the viewer, but the viewer cannot help but to explore where the images appear and where they do not. Our perception of the artwork becomes an issue for us, something that we have a need to explore and engage ourselves in. Our existence in relation to the artwork is an issue for us, further reinforcing Heidegger’s assertion that Dasein is a being whose being is an issue for it. (this little sentence is really important to understand, which is why i repeat it so many times) The ever-appearing and disappearing imagery of Mr. Park’s work are a direct parallel to our concept of the world appearing to us instead of simply being. (we are what brings the world into “existence” without us there is no “world”) Dasein is both in the world and somehow outside of it. Kierkegaard refers to this dualistic sense of humanity as our immediate and our temporal selves. While our bodies are physical objects in the world, humanity is not simply a collection of meat robots wandering about fulfilling arbitrary directives. We have the ability to create overarching narratives and purposes for our lives. While we can be reduced to this meat-robot state (CNN/FOX/Fuentes (though not by any means as bad, he is like puppet man, very gud) most content creators/most people) by completely losing ourselves in Heidegger’s Anyone, that alienating reality is not a necessary state.
The ramifications of this conception of Being are massive. (wow man, what a sentence. what a real just banger thing to write. learned so much from that one, thanks) From this basic assertion of the human being as the action/activity of always-already being, Heidegger constructs a remarkably complex analytical structure of how one can be involved in one’s life as Dasein. Within this framework are three important concepts: authenticity, resoluteness, and the Anyone. Through these concepts, Heidegger sets up his framework of Dasein’s being-within the world.
Heidegger’s concept of the the Anyone begins with a very basic assertion: that the individual’s relationship to general society is that of an Other. This fundamental separation of the Anyone from the subject as Dasein is best explained by Heidegger as “The ‘who’ is not this one, not that one, not oneself, not some people, and not the sum of them all. The ‘who’ is the neuter, the anyone” (254). The ‘who’ of the anyone is not one authority figure, not many individuals conspiring against others, not even the sum of all individuals in a society. The ‘who’ of the anyone is the neuter, the anyone. The anyone can be thought of as a force that appears as a byproduct of modernity. Heidegger refers to public transit and newspapers when discussing the Anyone, saying that “In utilizing public means of transport and in making use of information services such as the newspaper, every Other is like the next” (234). Every Other becomes like the next, every black and white column in the newspaper neuters narratives into convenient information tablets and every suited man on a subway becomes just like the next suited man that takes his place. This is the bit we are doing with Spirit Away, what Miyazaki is up to. It’s third level Simulacra stuff. This brutally anonymizing force typifies the strength of the the Anyone, in that it is remarkably easy to lose oneself in it and that the result of that is the loss of one’s identity.
Losing oneself within the Anyone transforms the individual from an authentic Self into a they-self. Heidegger paints the subject’s surrendering of its agency as a sort of willing lobotomization to the societal other, surrendering one’s desires and drives to those of the Anyone. This lobotomization does make the day-to-day experience of Dasein less burdensome, as the Anyone completely takes care of the agency of Dasein. Heidegger states that “the particular Dasein in its everydayness is disburdened by the ‘they’” (235). In its everydayness, Dasein serves as a function of the Anyone. This can be thought of as the necessity of filling societal roles, as students, sons, daughters, workers, etc. These roles are necessary for modern existence, and we all must inhabit them at one point. While this doesn’t actually sound like the worst of arrangements, Heidegger goes further. Since the individual is the sum of its actions, and the individual’s independence is crucial to the performance of these actions, sacrificing one’s drives and desires to the anonymous Other is the sacrificing of one’s Being. “And because the ‘they,’ which supplies the answer to the question of the ‘who’ of everyday Dasein, is the ‘nobody’ to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in Being-among-one-another…” (235). Since the they answers the question of who for the everyday Dasein, the Anyone is literally replacing the identity It is through this insidious removal of agencies that the Anyone perpetuates its existence, and has the power to establish the societal norms that force Dasein to contort itself into the no-one of the Anyone.
It is against this alienating Anyone that Heidegger proposes the alternative of authenticity and resoluteness. In order for Dasein to progress to the phase of authenticity, it must perform a series of movements similar to Kierkegaard’s surrender and re-acceptance. First, Dasein must establish a being-towards-death that does not allow the anyone to distract it or pull the blinds of society over its eyes. Essentially, the subject must realize that he or she is going to come to an end, and within that discovery discover the burden of owning up to one’s life. “When we face up to our ‘being-toward-death,’ we are forced to confront the fact that it is up to us to make something of our lives a whole” (207). Since we already know how our own lives will come to an end, with death, it is a matter of understanding this orientation and embracing it in a way that is conducive to an authentic relationship to the Anyone roles that Dasein inevitably inhabits.
What typically prevents Dasein from inhabiting this authenticity is what Heidegger calls “making present” (204), a sort of losing oneself within the day-to-day anyone roles. In a description reminiscent of Kierkegaard’s Present Agers, the editor of our text describes this lostness as “We tend to get lost in the latest fads and fancies, and we drift along with the crowd in the busy-ness of day-to-day existence. Life then becomes a mere sequence of episodes in which we try to take care of each new thing that comes along… our existence becomes a series of means-ends strategies with no overarching unity or cohesiveness” (204). Has lockdown intensified this? Has the panic of waiting around to hear the latest “covid news,” every week “taken as it goes,” unable to make plans. If you can’t tell, I’m editing this essay retroactively to add a bit more spice for you, dear Reader. This breakdown of the everyday, the forever-now, is intensified by economic distress, by social isolation, by being Scared of things you can’t See or Understand because if you think you understand The Virus then you really just Haven’t Done Your Research Young Man. My God, we have newspapers of our peers in our pockets and all we do is stare at them, Heidegger freaked out about Trains don’t you dare show this mana Subaru. For the Western Male, “The ‘they’ does not permit us the courage for anxiety in the face of death” (249). It is not a calculus of survival of my family, but of how to acquire the Most Capital. That’s it. There is no death in America. We run from it, we hide it in our closets, we run from our family when it knocks. We have forgotten that death is a beautiful thing, because we are scared. Yes Randy, I’m not saying “we” anymore, I’m trying to be precise. In fact, the Anyone avoids the subject of death at all costs, calling it inappropriate or unhealthy to have an obsession with one’s mortality. There is no time or desire to take these commitments and actions and fashion them into an overarching narrative or direction. This lack of overarching unity makes us forget how our lives will end, affords us refuge from the burden of authoring our own lives, and surrenders our fundamental Being to the arbitrary will of the Anyone as an Other. <— wow little 19 year old Dasein, so true.
Charles Bukowski addresses this alienation in The Pleasures of the Damned, saying that “people are worn away with striving, they hide in common habits, their concerns are herd concerns.” Even the use of the term ‘herd’ reminds the reader of Nietzsche’s blistering critique of the alienating Anyone. People are worn away with striving after the desires that are put in place by the Anyone, and they hide inside of the actions of the Anyone that Bukowski calls ‘common habits.’ This alienation within the everyday is precisely what Heidegger condemns in his analysis of the Anyone.
To not undergo this present-age lobotomization of the immediate (wow, good party line), Dasein must realize that it is not its social roles, but a relationship to them. This owning up to one’s life is made possible by anxiety, where “the familiar world of equipment in which we find ourselves at home suddenly collapses into insignificance” (205). Look, anxiety has a function. It’s good. It makes you look at mortality. This maps onto Kierkegaard’s depression, where the subject feels that all objects around it no longer hold significance or value. You know when you lose it, right? If you’re a real #guy you’ve lost it a few times, you know, you do drugs maybe, maybe you don’t, but it’s like, everything is just glowing and pulsing, or everything is devoid of substance/meaning. For Heidegger, this anxiety/depression forces Dasein to look its own existence in the face, and to acknowledge its authorship of its life through being-towards-death. “Dasein finds itself face to face with the ‘nothing’ of the possible impossibility of its existence” (206). The role of Heidegger’s anxiety is a stepping stone that moves Dasein into genuine being-towards-death. And it is the face of this being-towards-death that Dasein is able to see its life as its own. After this fundamental realization, Dasein will focus on a defining project or narrative arc to define its life. This is what I mean why I say being really fucking depressed is good. It makes you stare at death and make your peace, or move on. Sit in it, don’t medicate it, SSRIs are sick. You need death and they want to take it away from you with Fear.
Heidegger’s authenticity does not force Dasein to undergo a massive change in its life, simply to change its relationship with the everdayness of its life. Heidegger is not suggesting that one should immediately discard one’s commitments and become some sort of authentic monk. “There is no reason to think that you would necessarily have to change your career or lifestyle if you became authentic” (207). Rather, he asks the subject to redefine his or her relationship to these daily commitments. To both understand that yourself is not defined by these commitments, and to still return to these roles with a sense of resoluteness and clear-sightedness. You don’t need to go crazy here bucko, just calm down and distance your soul/make peace with God. This is the pseudo-Kierkegaardian movement that is outlined by Heidegger, and its description is precise. “Once one has grasped the finitude of one’s existence, one is snatched back from the endless multiplicity of possibilities which offer themselves as closest to one - those of comfortableness, shirking, and taking things lightly” (207). When you know you’re going to die, a little switch flicks in your mind. You start caring. You give a fuck. You need to fight, grow, learn. Once one has faced one’s being-towards-death, one will understand the finitude of one’s existence within the world. This realization pushes one away from the ‘endless multiplicity of possibilities’ that the anyone presents. Dopamine-Hamster-Wheel-App-World.
These possibilities are similar to Kierkegaard’s present-age confusion: the constant refocusing, redefining, almost obsessive avoidance of commitment. Through the finitude of one’s existence, this avoidance is itself avoided. The subject moves towards authenticity. You’re grooving, you’re surfing, you’re delicately lifting the right masks for the right people, while refining the face underneath. Some masks fit the face you are crafting, some do not. This is very simple. To go into identity of the subject very briefly, child adopts traits/masks/role/language games from parents, start to influence how “face” (personhood, authentic dasein) develops. Then other games are played, school, playdates, and kid tries on masks and discards 90% of them, keeping 10%. (quick aside, this is part of the fundamental sickness of transexual children. kids play with gender roles to understand them, it is play, to force an irreversible medical procedure on a child who is playing is sick and the fact that mainstream GOP politicians are not slamming this shows that Politics is a Game Show) Problem with most people is we stop discarding masks around 18 years of age and never pick it back up.
With this newfound commitment to authoring one’s own story, Dasein also achieves resoluteness. “‘Resoluteness’ signifies letting oneself be summoned out of one’s lostness in the ‘they’” (253). Resoluteness is not a blind total commitment to an overarching goal, but rather a commitment to live one’s life outside of the mummifying influence of the Anyone. Again, resoluteness does not encourage Dasein to completely change its being within the world. In another instance of Heideggerian realism, Heidegger limits resoluteness to the realities of the world that Dasein finds itself inside of. “In resoluteness the issue for Dasein is its ownmost potentiality-for-Being, which, as something thrown, can project itself only upon definite factical possibilities” (253). These definite factical possibilities are the commitments that Dasein finds itself linked to as soon as it enters its world, those of son, American, etc. <— i am leaving this because it shows i can disagree with myself. factical roles are moreso about the real. touching grass. can you make a birdhouse, not are you a carpenter. less language, more about action, google heidegger “at-handedness". Actually a lot to do with randy’s recent article.
Returning to Mr. Park’s work, specifically Maya 9782, there is a certain figure that fully illuminates these concepts of authenticity and resoluteness within anyone roles. While all the other figures that appear in the work have patterned shirts, this figure is portrayed with white shirt. Because of the medium of the piece is cut wire against a white backing, the white of the figure’s shirt is actually the absence of wire. The white of the shirt, the image that the figure cuts, is the result of what is behind it appearing to the viewer’s eye. This reliance upon the factical world around the figure to define it is emblematic of the inherent limitations that Dasein finds imposed upon it. This is the factical reality that Heidegger references in his discussion of both authenticity and resoluteness. “The resolution is precisely the disclosive projection and determination of what is factically possible at the time” (253). The factical reality of our lives is the situation that we find ourselves born into, as sons, Westerners, etc. <— see there we go
In the center of this figure’s shirt, however, is clump of wire. I would argue that this clump of wire is the figure’s heart, or its hold upon its own authenticity. Even within the reliance upon the background to define its appearance, the figure has the constant resolution within its heart. Furthermore, this figure is one of the few that is not in motion. The figure’s ability to stand and observe, without a need to move away or readjust, is representative of resoluteness. The figure embraces its reliance upon reality to define it, and does so with its own unique hold upon the whiteness of the Anyone’s possibilities. This unique hold is both the heart, and the outline that the figure cuts out of the wire. The story of this figure was made by carving it free of the material that all the other figures were also carved out of, but its carving is uniquely and purely its. It is this hold upon one’s own life through the fabric of Anyone-mediated possibilities that Heidegger encourages through his concepts of authenticity, the Anyone, and resoluteness.
ok turn on ur baby music and get comfy for the TLDR (Too Long Didn’t Read)
“From this basic assertion of the human being as the action/activity of always-already being, Heidegger constructs a remarkably complex analytical structure of how one can be involved in one’s life as Dasein. Within this framework are three important concepts: authenticity, resoluteness, and the Anyone. Through these concepts, Heidegger sets up his framework of Dasein’s being-within the world.”
H says humans are Dasein, Dasein is the activity of already being. Haha. Sounds recursive, read the essay if you’re angry about it.
1) Authenticity: Inhabiting the roles of your life, while ensuring the these roles continue to expand your worldview (change the subject fundamentally) and aid in the achievement of your goals in the physical world.
2) Resoluteness: You are going to die. Death is coming for you. Every day. Holding that in your mind, 24/7, is Resoluteness.
3) The Anyone: This is the “mob,” the faceless characters on Spirited Away’s train. This is essentially the “what will people think” that plays in your head when you want to yell really loud.
There, now you can pretend you understand it. Just like me.
:-)
——————————————————————————————————————
Subject: Travel Girls
To open, a brief reading of “Travel,” by Twitter user Emily Dicknballs.
Check it out, if you’ve woken up one day to find that you are 25 and have had 87 sexual partners, you can be a #TravelGirl. You can don this mask, and just let the mask be the whole reason you get up in the morning. Why do you have an OnlyFans. For travelling. Why do you have a shit job. To afford travel. Why don’t you have any skills. Too busy travelling. What’s a bronze calf, who would sacrifice their children's to an idol, that’s stupid. Sorry, can’t carry your child to term because my flight leaves in two weeks. Too busy ensuring that when you say “I am a Travel Girl (tm)” you have enough content anecdotes to fill out The Scary Thought of the Unknown. To prove to the person you’re talking to that you are a #Full and #Fulfilled Girlboss, even though you cry yourself to sleep every night.
Check it out, if you’ve woken up one day after working for a corporation at the detriment of your personal life, single and 45, in a city with no peers but your “professional connections,” you can become a travel girl. You can write #blogs for wearetravelgirls.com , you can push ad metrics around, you can empower women to keep spending money to keep the big flying tubes going around the globe all the time so you can get another story from #Lebanon.
Cappadocia is an incredible place. I’ve been there. But Travel Girls are not about Cappadocia-as-experienced they want Cappadocia-as-commodity. They want it digestible, easy to distribute, no complicated history. Yeah, there were ancient Christians that made houses in the stone, vast networks of caves for believers to hide and pray, but whatever. Take some pics of the balloons with your $3,500 #Sponsored #Nokia camera and show it off at the next wine spritzer luncheon, because you aren’t ready for death. Sorry, jumped a few steps there.
—————————————————————————————————————
Application:
1) Authenticity: Authentic travel is possible. The Book Club from Youtube, (q), is travelling to Cairo on foot. Taking him a few years. Growing, changing, fighting, learning, that’s authentic travel. Travel for self, not to appease the fear you feel, to feed away the hours of the day until you curl up and die alone in your apartment. The Travel Girls are not authentic, because the blogs aren’t about travel, they are about producing travel content effectively so you can prove to others that you are a Girl Traveler. The picture is more important than the object, signifier over signified, not good folks.
2) Resoluteness: You think they are thinking about death? No. They are running from it. They are running from death, taking photos instead of looking, because looking at the Beauty of God’s creation creates wonder, anxiety, deep-seated terror at our own insignificance. And that sort of stuff kills the #CoWorking #Vibe of this corporate retreat, so let’s grab mimosas. The whole reason they travel is so they don’t have to think about themselves honestly because that sort of thinking leads to death, and death is scary, and anything that is scary is bad. They never left kindergarten.
3) The Anyone: These are the people for whom the blogs are written, for whom the photos are taken, for whom the star photos are brutally filtered to death. Maybe in the early 2000s, it was possible to make content at this scale and still be connected to something real. I don’t know. Now the Anyone is just the Algorithm. Managers ask you to leave good google reviews, after you spoke with them and gave them a good review in Meat Space. Because meatspace is Cringe now. It’s the mentality that real life is some sort of “foreign planet” that one “ascends to,” “mines out content,” and then “descends with the results of the hunt.” The Anyone isn’t even a faceless suited man, it’s a series of zeroes, ones, and limpwristed silicon valley goblins.
Oh darn, we had a prompt didn’t we? What was it?
“…tribes, identities, and the different selves that they bring out…the different ways people channel this today and what’s productive/toxic IYO. Sports teams, political parties, KETO/CrossFit/MLM/JBP/culty type groups”
My take is if a cult makes you achieve the goals you genuinely desire, join dat. If you wanna be weak and look good, do Crossfit. Keto is a meme for caloric deficits, but it works. You put on the mask, you adopt what you want, you discard it. JBP? Take some, leave the rest. You know what I’m talking about. MLM? Just leave that shit alone, it’s a narrative sold to someone, and if they buy it, they are fully the mask. If your work makes you use your Facebook, that’s evil.
Sorry for the long post, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Yeah this is all basically what I mean with sentience is death-awareness, death of death (I just claim it has a direct material cause, which is trench warfare → industry → the industrial burning of coal → a global permanent pagan ritual sacrifice (burning of coal → dead animals and trees and shit, oil dinos), a bonfire that has been burning for 200 years in a literal attempt at black magic, to closing off the world to God by darkening the sky. I am the only serious materialist philosopher working today.
and The Other’s other (the anyone), lots of literal terminology I could save a lot of time and effort by just picking up, instead of trying to reinvent it all myself with scraps in cave.
a common thing in writers like nietzche and kierkegaard and bukowsky (supposedly Ive never read him), all the way back to plato and sheet, is there’s this contempt for the ”common man” of the age, who for one reason or another is a herd animal and not sentient. In further matrix metaphor, they are unconscious and they are potential agents (enemies) of the Anyone, of the Herd, in which the Cause and Origin of Bad Shit is, presumably, located. The chubby, consoomer of today, the ”middle class” of kierkegaard. Takes various forms and names but it’s usually identified as the mass of people, of which we, artists and intellectuals are apart. "Normies" "petite bourgeoisie". Bap does this too. I think this is big mistake, and also a point on which bap is often incoherent. We need to save middle class with strong leadership etc, while also holding it in contempt. These two concept are at odds and while untangling them is not too hard, it is absolutely necessary to do if you want to get anything done (intellectually, in mind craft)
I think very few are capable of divorcing their own personal animosity, and for lack of better terminology, ”psychology”, from these kinds of judgments. I think there is tendency in writer-brain-man to REJEC “the mob” “the common man”, but this tendency or instinct is not good, or rather it is not the best possible option. Best possible option is, integrating your own “anyone” in a stable relationship with ego. This is I believe Jungian integration of anima and that kind of thing
In my case I don’t resent the common man. I might, on a surface level, in an interaction with one. But even that is really only very rarely. Usually the way it happens, is I resent my own psychological construction of the common man in my head while I think about some actual common man I have to interact with at a later date – upon the actual interaction I find that I usually have a reasonably good time. Usually the people I really resent are not common men at all, but very particular men – you might be able to make a case that these men, usually status strivers and amoral people wh you just sense nothing behind their eyes except hunger and maybe a scared child or something. You could make a case that these people are perhaps, hyper-socialised, and have become earthly material manifestations of the Anyone, having given up their souls entirely. Which I would, probably. It seems like a fun case to make.
Anyways I think that’s a weak point in most all theory and we should solve this resentment through universal forgiveness and accepting the Holy Mystery, letting ourselves be forgiven, and that most people of a writing-temperement probably don’t want to forgive the middle class/normals because they are unwilling on a, Allah forgive me for using the word, psychological level, to accept being forgiven themselves.
I like >anxiety is good, I am always saying this. Or, I say, shame is good, because it tells you what you need to do, it’s like a big spotlight that tells you whats important, what’s the best next move to deal with. “You should always do whatever it is you don’t want to do”.
You will not make a big angry crowd of girls get mad online :^) because you opened with all the good stuff, all the long text. For purpose of making big internet controversy in future, I recommend front lining the attaque
I like reading a letter that my natural instinct is to write notes to while reading because I don’t trust myself to have a coherent overview once I finish
I’m sorry but I dont like the picture much, I don’t like photographers. I only like german theory. Also I can’t concentrate on reading if I listen to music I’m sorry I’m reading it wrong. I have brain problems
in terms of internet writing I think you could easily have done this without the introduction of theory, and achieved success (controversy). Be warned however that by doing so, you may just get what you want (this is bad. You don’t want this)
I think an slight oversight in the analysis of the travel girl is taking the authors at their word. The analysis is on the Thing-As-Presented, the picture of the woman the author wants the reader to see. I believe we can cause more dasein by deliberately not taking her at her word, but pathologizing her and psychologizing her.
There are three women in any travel girl internet meme. One is the author, one is the reader, and the third is the image, which is empty and simultaneously a reflection of both the reader and the author, a faceless thing they can project onto in degrees. When we call them inauthentic, we must remember that they are *actually inauthentic*: the third woman is a fake. the successful marketer/author knows this – perhaps not in language – it is very likely she knows literally nothing in language – but in action-skill-craft. at-hand.
Reversely where I say we should not resent the Mob and the common man, I say for all successful bloggers, that they should not be pitied “for they know not what they do”, but rather held in contempt and held responsible for their knowingly done misdeeds. In this case being, willingly consorting with marketing gimmicks, advertisement, clickbait, commercialisation of one of the few available paths left in this world, etc. I think every time something you see online that makes you go “aaah this is so annoying/terrible it makes me depressed and sad for them, how can they be like this, I want to save them”, what one should do is instead to actively resent them for knowingly engaging in evil behavior, spreading evil.
My proposal is this: women are sentient. This is not a pleasant thing to think about and it is much nicer to make excuses for them. I propose that the author very well knows that she is an author, and that the reader very well knows that she is a reader, and that neither is being "had". and that these revelations – despite being absolutely true and accurate – if presented to either, their reaction would not be the desired “oh no I’ve been found out!” that we would like to provoke, to provoke introspection and change. But rather a “well duh, we know” - at best, a “why must we suffer the indignity of being revealed/uncovered/found out, while we are already broken/miserable – GET HIM!”.
If it was the case that neither party “knew” what they were doing, this fantasy we (the critics) have of causing internet outrage by dismantling their fantasy, would not be conceivable. We would not worry about it, we would not imagine little story about how someone reads this and gets mad, in our head. It is a good example and a good explanation but I dont think it’s a good provocation
You can take people to the top of the mountain and show them the peak, but you can’t make them take the leap of faith, and taking people to leap-of-faith point while also not freaking them out and going fight/flight is difficult. But I believe in going “you’re too chicken, nah nah, you don’t got the guts, hahaha”
Anyways to summarise guys rule girls drool. Thank you I really enjoyed it and honestly much of my critique is a product of my own resentment that I dont have the #mindset to actually incorporate theory and make it look all nice and proper-like. You know what I mean. And I envy you being able to do that.
excellent work, truly good, i have had these exact kind of thoughts banging around in my head for literally months except i dont have the theory (except for nietzsche). really put the problem to paper as it were. i am inspired to write a little something similar