|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 10:37:55 GMT
One wonders why this country is going to the dogs and why such stupid managerial decisions are made from council departments, to central government to large corporations. I think we view this through a lens too narrow and that is why we can't see the problem. The problem essentially is women's lib. To be precise it is the problem of the psychology of men in the modern Britain and how they interact with women in decision making. It takes two to tango, so lets see how this works in practice.
It is no surprise that in the modern world there is a huge amount of brainwashing going on. This is psychological manipulation. If we took a look at how men would come to a decision before political correctness, lets say on the board of a company, the primary method of argument would be logic and material reasoning. The idea of all-women governing boards just did not exist in traditional Britain but marriages certainly did and in a marriage the man and woman would often discuss things and come to decisions regarding the family.
The idea was accepted that the man was the head of the family and had the veto over the financial decisions and other big decisions. However that power was balanced by the woman's skill in psychological manipulation. She would manipulate the man to some extent even if he were unaware of it and never admitted he was manipulated. Where the man had the official power, the woman got her share via this approach, and she would use sex to manipulate him so he always cared for her and provided what she wanted. She on the other hand would be sacrificial in giving what she had to her children. This is a natural trait and is clearly geared towards survival of the species.
Now lets move on to the modern age and make a few observations and see how this affects things. Since the 1950s woman have moved into the workplace to a far greater extent. Pre 1950s women's work was often either mass production work in factories, secretarial work or perhaps as cleaners and cooks. None of these except per haps the secretarial work could really exert any influence on how the country operated. Now we find they are becoming big in the industries that suit their powers of manipulation, e.g. marketing, creating works of fiction which often get made into films, producing music and working their way up the corporate ladder into management.
I'd just like you to reflect on the modern psychologies of men and women. Men today are psychologically weak. They wont stand up to things. Women on the other hand have become feminists and are taught to push their weight around. We know about positive discrimination, but the problem is regardless of who has which status, if you have a man and a woman, the man will give into the woman. He might do that via sexual manipulation. He might find the woman goes crazy unless she gets her way. There are a million tricks they can employ, but none of this is honest. Talking of sexual manipulation, you might have wondered why we have so many young manageresses and why the ones with the money are the ones who have the good looks. Young might be sexy, but young is inexperienced and if given the power to run the corporation then all hell may break loose. Blaming the government for every problem is a red herring. You will never find it that way. The malaise is all the way through our society from the smallest charity to the government itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 30, 2024 11:42:42 GMT
It's quite legitimate to blame the government for all these ills since since it is they who have enacted the raft of 'equality' legislation from the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, a Labour innovation, through the Eqaulity Act (a joint venture) to the 'voluntary targets' for female board membership in the FTSE 500 (a proud Conservative achievement).
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 12:26:42 GMT
It's quite legitimate to blame the government for all these ills since since it is they who have enacted the raft of 'equality' legislation from the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, a Labour innovation, through the Eqaulity Act (a joint venture) to the 'voluntary targets' for female board membership in the FTSE 500 (a proud Conservative achievement). Yes by the way our reasoning works, the buck does indeed stop with the government. It was not really the argument I was trying to develop though. This psychology between weak feeble-minded modern man and what they call the assertive woman (see assertiveness training) could just as well be in play at home. The woman watches what the MP does on the telly and then applies her manipulation. It's the psychology of deference in the man. He can not let a decision pass unless he has got the OK from the woman. He lazily opts for a peaceful life to stop the woman going crazy. I've had all this myself many times from women asserting their view onto me. They really do freak out if you stand up to their arguments using your powers of reasoning and perhaps your sense of fair play. It's the sort of thing most men if they really thought about would privately acknowledge but be afraid to admit, again because it could cause an absolute outrage.
So for example if we look at how Reform are playing out regarding racism and how the women media are reacting, we see we have a theory that fits. These crazy media women are often childless career women. All women have an instinctive bias to making self-sacrifice to their children. This instinctive behaviour, but when the woman if childbearing age is childless and a career chaser, she might find herself subjected to brainwashing that redirects her sacrifice to children to some other group, like say starving Ethiopians as it was back in the 70s and charities that support those causes. If they work in the media they might feel a duty to attack those nasty Reform types who are harming their surrogate children.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 30, 2024 13:51:31 GMT
For every decision made by a board led by a 'feeble minded woman' there are fifty made by an asshole fearing social media backlash from anti military, pro gay, pro lesbian, pro queer, pro some other variation of not heterosexual, pro green, pro vegan, and fifty other barking fucking mad agenda peddlers who don't want whatever the company make but want to make sure it can't be made unless it allows itself to be bent over and taken up the shitter by this lot
There was a time all my grandfather had to worry about was 'could he highlight and paint it up until it got shot down'
Now his succeessor needs to worry whether the product can be imbibed nasally,
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 14:56:06 GMT
For every decision made by a board led by a 'feeble minded woman' there are fifty made by an asshole fearing social media backlash from anti military, pro gay, pro lesbian, pro queer, pro some other variation of not heterosexual, pro green, pro vegan, and fifty other barking fucking mad agenda peddlers who don't want whatever the company make but want to make sure it can't be made unless it allows itself to be bent over and taken up the shitter by this lot There was a time all my grandfather had to worry about was 'could he highlight and paint it up until it got shot down' Now his succeessor needs to worry whether the product can be imbibed nasally, You seem to have missed the point I was making. I did not say women are feeble-minded, indeed I'm saying they have a forceful mind and will force their will on feeble man, i.e. men who are too frightened to stand up to their view, even if they know why it is wrong, and even when it is obviously wrong and just come about by some emotional reaction, like a common one is the fear and need for more protection, like more police on the streets. They want protection, but where in a marriage to a strong man, they have the protection they need and feel safe.
This appears to have come about by upsetting the natural male-female balance and especially the traditional patriarchal family structure. It's like many things in nature. You should know this from your studies of biology. You have a system evolved to work which is a fine balance of forces, but change one parameter and it all goes crazy.
I don't even think you can blame anyone today. You might have been able to blame the ones who started these ideas, but they are already dead. It's feeding itself. These women think more brainwashing is the solution, but more brainwashing is making matters worse. You have a kind of positive feedback mechanism.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 30, 2024 15:39:28 GMT
You seem to have missed mine
The lousy state of business today has got sod all to do with women running things and everything to to with those running the show running scared of offending the woke
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 16:29:16 GMT
You seem to have missed mine The lousy state of business today has got sod all to do with women running things and everything to to with those running the show running scared of offending the woke The problem is all you are doing in the first post is transferring it onto these various groups and saying those in positions of power are scared of them, but normally those in positions of power are the strongest and have toppled all the weaker ones. It does not explain how or why these groups came about in the first place. I have never heard a convincing argument that explains all that we observe. My theory might be half-cooked, but it seems to make sense to me. Lets start with the known fact that transgender was being promoted initially by a Jewish professor in Germany in the 1930s and the women's Lib starts back a fair bit before that. Racism dates to the 1930s as well and homosexuality changed from a disease to a non disease in 72 I think it was.
Here, have a little reminder of our history as I believe this was the first sign of trouble.
We're trying to figure out the order of cause and effect here.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2024 19:34:29 GMT
You seem to have missed mine The lousy state of business today has got sod all to do with women running things and everything to to with those running the show running scared of offending the woke The problem is all you are doing in the first post is transferring it onto these various groups and saying those in positions of power are scared of them, but normally those in positions of power are the strongest and have toppled all the weaker ones. It does not explain how or why these groups came about in the first place. I have never heard a convincing argument that explains all that we observe. My theory might be half-cooked, but it seems to make sense to me. Lets start with the known fact that transgender was being promoted initially by a Jewish professor in Germany in the 1930s and the women's Lib starts back a fair bit before that. Racism dates to the 1930s as well and homosexuality changed from a disease to a non disease in 72 I think it was.
Here, have a little reminder of our history as I believe this was the first sign of trouble.
We're trying to figure out the order of cause and effect here.
In terms of cause and effect I think John hit the nail on the head. The woke agenda is killing business because they are all shit scared of being cancelled in some way as a business. The ethical stance is now the be all and end all and whether a woman makes that decision or a man they are operating within a narrow band decided by undemocratic, unaccountable bodies that seem to wield immense power. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 20:55:39 GMT
The problem is all you are doing in the first post is transferring it onto these various groups and saying those in positions of power are scared of them, but normally those in positions of power are the strongest and have toppled all the weaker ones. It does not explain how or why these groups came about in the first place. I have never heard a convincing argument that explains all that we observe. My theory might be half-cooked, but it seems to make sense to me. Lets start with the known fact that transgender was being promoted initially by a Jewish professor in Germany in the 1930s and the women's Lib starts back a fair bit before that. Racism dates to the 1930s as well and homosexuality changed from a disease to a non disease in 72 I think it was.
Here, have a little reminder of our history as I believe this was the first sign of trouble.
We're trying to figure out the order of cause and effect here.
In terms of cause and effect I think John hit the nail on the head. The woke agenda is killing business because they are all shit scared of being cancelled in some way as a business. The ethical stance is now the be all and end all and whether a woman makes that decision or a man they are operating within a narrow band decided by undemocratic, unaccountable bodies that seem to wield immense power. OK see what you make of this. BBC Radio 4 earlier on had one of these young career/politics types women working her way up the media industry no doubt. She was philosophising about politics, and in particular the way politics is communicated to the public. Her view was that comedians were a really good way of communicating an understanding of politics. She justified this by the way she considered that they think. Now if it were me talking about how best to communicate politics, I would probably say an intelligent and well mannered debate such as your Robin Day style of interview would be about the best way. It is also worth pointing out that all around the world people on social media comment on our politicians and the most common by far metaphor used is clowns or bunch of clowns, and most especially since Johnson took office, since the world regard him as chief of clowns.
It's not a far stretch from say Radio 4 featuring comedians to do their political coverage and communicating politics as jokes, to the politicians themselves adopting this style. To think this woman thinks Johnson's approach was effective is rather mind boggling. Most picture the man laughing at us as our elderly relatives were dying in their thousands as he was partying and drunk at Number 10 during covid.
You see in my mind this is the problem. No one scared this woman. She came out with this idea under her own volition. We have people who most likely got top marks at school, went to university, then joined the BBC as some intern and eventually made a career and yet they are stupider than children. The problem is a psychological one. Why? I'm guessing there is some sort of group think going on and that group think has not kept track with reality. It's back to what I was saying earlier, that now it is feeding itself. You don't need some elite to threaten them. They come out with this crap on their own accord. It's not even working for the elite as they have totally ballesd this election up and allowed Reform to get ahead of their number two runner.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 30, 2024 21:15:31 GMT
One wonders why this country is going to the dogs and why such stupid managerial decisions are made from council departments, to central government to large corporations. I think we view this through a lens too narrow and that is why we can't see the problem. The problem essentially is women's lib. To be precise it is the problem of the psychology of men in the modern Britain and how they interact with women in decision making. It takes two to tango, so lets see how this works in practice.
It is no surprise that in the modern world there is a huge amount of brainwashing going on. This is psychological manipulation. If we took a look at how men would come to a decision before political correctness, lets say on the board of a company, the primary method of argument would be logic and material reasoning. The idea of all-women governing boards just did not exist in traditional Britain but marriages certainly did and in a marriage the man and woman would often discuss things and come to decisions regarding the family.
The idea was accepted that the man was the head of the family and had the veto over the financial decisions and other big decisions. However that power was balanced by the woman's skill in psychological manipulation. She would manipulate the man to some extent even if he were unaware of it and never admitted he was manipulated. Where the man had the official power, the woman got her share via this approach, and she would use sex to manipulate him so he always cared for her and provided what she wanted. She on the other hand would be sacrificial in giving what she had to her children. This is a natural trait and is clearly geared towards survival of the species.
Now lets move on to the modern age and make a few observations and see how this affects things. Since the 1950s woman have moved into the workplace to a far greater extent. Pre 1950s women's work was often either mass production work in factories, secretarial work or perhaps as cleaners and cooks. None of these except per haps the secretarial work could really exert any influence on how the country operated. Now we find they are becoming big in the industries that suit their powers of manipulation, e.g. marketing, creating works of fiction which often get made into films, producing music and working their way up the corporate ladder into management.
I'd just like you to reflect on the modern psychologies of men and women. Men today are psychologically weak. They wont stand up to things. Women on the other hand have become feminists and are taught to push their weight around. We know about positive discrimination, but the problem is regardless of who has which status, if you have a man and a woman, the man will give into the woman. He might do that via sexual manipulation. He might find the woman goes crazy unless she gets her way. There are a million tricks they can employ, but none of this is honest. Talking of sexual manipulation, you might have wondered why we have so many young manageresses and why the ones with the money are the ones who have the good looks. Young might be sexy, but young is inexperienced and if given the power to run the corporation then all hell may break loose. Blaming the government for every problem is a red herring. You will never find it that way. The malaise is all the way through our society from the smallest charity to the government itself.
Only men who feel their masculinity is challenged by being subordinate to a woman in the workplace. My first 3 bosses were male, only one of them was even remotely competent. My last boss was a woman, my current boss is a woman; both are much more competent (and tough in the business sense) than all of the male bosses I have worked for. Primarily because for a woman to reach "the bosses seat" she has typically had to work harder and perform better than the men she was competing with for that position. That's not to say all women who reach the top of their professional ladder are great - Thatcher was fucking cunt, and ruined the country. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2024 21:18:11 GMT
In terms of cause and effect I think John hit the nail on the head. The woke agenda is killing business because they are all shit scared of being cancelled in some way as a business. The ethical stance is now the be all and end all and whether a woman makes that decision or a man they are operating within a narrow band decided by undemocratic, unaccountable bodies that seem to wield immense power. OK see what you make of this. BBC Radio 4 earlier on had one of these young career/politics types women working her way up the media industry no doubt. She was philosophising about politics, and in particular the way politics is communicated to the public. Her view was that comedians were a really good way of communicating an understanding of politics. She justified this by the way she considered that they think. Now if it were me talking about how best to communicate politics, I would probably say an intelligent and well mannered debate such as your Robin Day style of interview would be about the best way. It is also worth pointing out that all around the world people on social media comment on our politicians and the most common by far metaphor used is clowns or bunch of clowns, and most especially since Johnson took office, since the world regard him as chief of clowns.
It's not a far stretch from say Radio 4 featuring comedians to do their political coverage and communicating politics as jokes, to the politicians themselves adopting this style. To think this woman thinks Johnson's approach was effective is rather mind boggling. Most picture the man laughing at us as our elderly relatives were dying in their thousands as he was partying and drunk at Number 10 during covid.
You see in my mind this is the problem. No one scared this woman. She came out with this idea under her own volition. We have people who most likely got top marks at school, went to university, then joined the BBC as some intern and eventually made a career and yet they are stupider than children. The problem is a psychological one. Why? I'm guessing there is some sort of group think going on and that group think has not kept track with reality. It's back to what I was saying earlier, that now it is feeding itself. You don't need some elite to threaten them. They come out with this crap on their own accord. It's not even working for the elite as they have totally ballesd this election up and allowed Reform to get ahead of their number two runner.
See you blame what was said on the woman, but because of wokeism that woman may have been placed into a position for which she is unsuited because the BBC were desperate to have a woman to tick boxes in their Quality Manual under DIE. Companies, and especially public companies that can afford to, are no longer seeking the best for any position they are seeking the best fit and the best fit is now often not the best. I think the woman is not necessarily being different from a man in the views promoted as that now seems the new way of viewing politics and a man in that position may have said exactly the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 30, 2024 21:26:34 GMT
You seem to have missed mine The lousy state of business today has got sod all to do with women running things and everything to to with those running the show running scared of offending the woke The problem is all you are doing in the first post is transferring it onto these various groups and saying those in positions of power are scared of them, but normally those in positions of power are the strongest and have toppled all the weaker ones. It does not explain how or why these groups came about in the first place. I have never heard a convincing argument that explains all that we observe. My theory might be half-cooked, but it seems to make sense to me. Lets start with the known fact that transgender was being promoted initially by a Jewish professor in Germany in the 1930s and the women's Lib starts back a fair bit before that. Racism dates to the 1930s as well and homosexuality changed from a disease to a non disease in 72 I think it was.
Here, have a little reminder of our history as I believe this was the first sign of trouble.
We're trying to figure out the order of cause and effect here.
But you are fixated on the problem being the women you clearly hate for having the balls to sever the chains to the kitchen sink, whereas I know from observation of the real world the problem is fear of being cancelled by the twatterati |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 21:34:10 GMT
One wonders why this country is going to the dogs and why such stupid managerial decisions are made from council departments, to central government to large corporations. I think we view this through a lens too narrow and that is why we can't see the problem. The problem essentially is women's lib. To be precise it is the problem of the psychology of men in the modern Britain and how they interact with women in decision making. It takes two to tango, so lets see how this works in practice.
It is no surprise that in the modern world there is a huge amount of brainwashing going on. This is psychological manipulation. If we took a look at how men would come to a decision before political correctness, lets say on the board of a company, the primary method of argument would be logic and material reasoning. The idea of all-women governing boards just did not exist in traditional Britain but marriages certainly did and in a marriage the man and woman would often discuss things and come to decisions regarding the family.
The idea was accepted that the man was the head of the family and had the veto over the financial decisions and other big decisions. However that power was balanced by the woman's skill in psychological manipulation. She would manipulate the man to some extent even if he were unaware of it and never admitted he was manipulated. Where the man had the official power, the woman got her share via this approach, and she would use sex to manipulate him so he always cared for her and provided what she wanted. She on the other hand would be sacrificial in giving what she had to her children. This is a natural trait and is clearly geared towards survival of the species.
Now lets move on to the modern age and make a few observations and see how this affects things. Since the 1950s woman have moved into the workplace to a far greater extent. Pre 1950s women's work was often either mass production work in factories, secretarial work or perhaps as cleaners and cooks. None of these except per haps the secretarial work could really exert any influence on how the country operated. Now we find they are becoming big in the industries that suit their powers of manipulation, e.g. marketing, creating works of fiction which often get made into films, producing music and working their way up the corporate ladder into management.
I'd just like you to reflect on the modern psychologies of men and women. Men today are psychologically weak. They wont stand up to things. Women on the other hand have become feminists and are taught to push their weight around. We know about positive discrimination, but the problem is regardless of who has which status, if you have a man and a woman, the man will give into the woman. He might do that via sexual manipulation. He might find the woman goes crazy unless she gets her way. There are a million tricks they can employ, but none of this is honest. Talking of sexual manipulation, you might have wondered why we have so many young manageresses and why the ones with the money are the ones who have the good looks. Young might be sexy, but young is inexperienced and if given the power to run the corporation then all hell may break loose. Blaming the government for every problem is a red herring. You will never find it that way. The malaise is all the way through our society from the smallest charity to the government itself.
Only men who feel their masculinity is challenged by being subordinate to a woman in the workplace. My first 3 bosses were male, only one of them was even remotely competent. My last boss was a woman, my current boss is a woman; both are much more competent (and tough in the business sense) than all of the male bosses I have worked for. Primarily because for a woman to reach "the bosses seat" she has typically had to work harder and perform better than the men she was competing with for that position. That's not to say all women who reach the top of their professional ladder are great - Thatcher was fucking cunt, and ruined the country. All The Best I meant in the overall sense, not something specific like that. I often see them being pushed around by their wife and not stand up to the bullshit. I don't want to get into the similar psychological arguments that is used by proponents of homosexuals that a man only dislikes it due to worrying that he is one. It seems quite close to your argument there. It makes it impossible to argue. Rather what I think is women confer with other women and often will not take a man's view seriously if they are inclined towards feminist thinking. This is in contrast to the traditional patriarchal arrangement where a woman will confer with her husband so she get a logical perspective on matters, just as a man might ask his wife something more in line with social issues, e.g. the kind of, do you think Mrs so and so would mind if I did this or that, where a woman is often in need of a man's more deductive thinking. If you don't have that balance then shit can happen. I mean an all male group might develop into fighting and argument without the softer feminine influence. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 21:59:42 GMT
OK see what you make of this. BBC Radio 4 earlier on had one of these young career/politics types women working her way up the media industry no doubt. She was philosophising about politics, and in particular the way politics is communicated to the public. Her view was that comedians were a really good way of communicating an understanding of politics. She justified this by the way she considered that they think. Now if it were me talking about how best to communicate politics, I would probably say an intelligent and well mannered debate such as your Robin Day style of interview would be about the best way. It is also worth pointing out that all around the world people on social media comment on our politicians and the most common by far metaphor used is clowns or bunch of clowns, and most especially since Johnson took office, since the world regard him as chief of clowns.
It's not a far stretch from say Radio 4 featuring comedians to do their political coverage and communicating politics as jokes, to the politicians themselves adopting this style. To think this woman thinks Johnson's approach was effective is rather mind boggling. Most picture the man laughing at us as our elderly relatives were dying in their thousands as he was partying and drunk at Number 10 during covid.
You see in my mind this is the problem. No one scared this woman. She came out with this idea under her own volition. We have people who most likely got top marks at school, went to university, then joined the BBC as some intern and eventually made a career and yet they are stupider than children. The problem is a psychological one. Why? I'm guessing there is some sort of group think going on and that group think has not kept track with reality. It's back to what I was saying earlier, that now it is feeding itself. You don't need some elite to threaten them. They come out with this crap on their own accord. It's not even working for the elite as they have totally ballesd this election up and allowed Reform to get ahead of their number two runner.
See you blame what was said on the woman, but because of wokeism that woman may have been placed into a position for which she is unsuited because the BBC were desperate to have a woman to tick boxes in their Quality Manual under DIE. Companies, and especially public companies that can afford to, are no longer seeking the best for any position they are seeking the best fit and the best fit is now often not the best. I think the woman is not necessarily being different from a man in the views promoted as that now seems the new way of viewing politics and a man in that position may have said exactly the same thing. I'm almost with you there, but don't fall in the trap of thinking this manifests because of one reason or another. Things generally manifest from a multitude of causes, and to make matters complicated to analyse, things interact with one another. It's like the planetary system. Each planet orbits the sun, but it does not go round the sun as it would if there were only the only planet, because each planet's gravity affects all the other planets, so you actually get a chaotic system with no regular discernable pattern. We tend to simplify things for the sake of political argument, but I'm convinced here there is a lot of chaotic interaction which is producing really wild results.
I think even the school curriculum has been feminised so it relates better to how the female mind thinks, and this is why we see these girls get these straight A's, then go off to Oxford and study PPE and then end up talking total nonsense, leaving us wondering how on earth did she get accepted. The system from the word go is stacked agaisnt the boys and so you get the girls with higher marks, but you often get the boys in jobs where they might be more intelligent than the women boss. It's difficult for me to imagine the mind of such a woman, but there is this thing known as imposter syndrome. She knows she is not up to the job, but she has to fake it, although all the time unsure. Furthermore you have the possibility that someone might come into the firm who is really smart, work under her and suss her out and expose her as a fake, so she becomes fearful of really smart people and would rather keep them out. It gets rather perverse, and in the end our industry crashes and burns, since nothing is quite what it is labelled as. Think of how the post office was run. That inquiry is a goldmine into the psychology of what we talk of. The language they use is especially interesting, and I've gained a lot of insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 30, 2024 22:22:33 GMT
The problem is all you are doing in the first post is transferring it onto these various groups and saying those in positions of power are scared of them, but normally those in positions of power are the strongest and have toppled all the weaker ones. It does not explain how or why these groups came about in the first place. I have never heard a convincing argument that explains all that we observe. My theory might be half-cooked, but it seems to make sense to me. Lets start with the known fact that transgender was being promoted initially by a Jewish professor in Germany in the 1930s and the women's Lib starts back a fair bit before that. Racism dates to the 1930s as well and homosexuality changed from a disease to a non disease in 72 I think it was.
Here, have a little reminder of our history as I believe this was the first sign of trouble.
We're trying to figure out the order of cause and effect here.
But you are fixated on the problem being the women you clearly hate for having the balls to sever the chains to the kitchen sink, whereas I know from observation of the real world the problem is fear of being cancelled by the twatterati I don't think you are analysing the problem. I see this a lot. Each thing is thought to have a simple answer to it. Now you are telling me it is the twatterati as well as deflecting the conversation onto my personal psychology, which of course is such a lazy troll trick that I will not bother to entertain it. My motive is simply to understand why things have gone so crazy in the last 50 years. It's getting obvious there is a serious mental problem in this country. It's not one or two departments, but system wide psychological failure. A little stat to consider: I heard 8.7 million Brits are being prescribed antidepressants. |
|
