I suppose the apocalypse might bring opposite people together out of necessity. I thought it was a sweet, sad but rather pointless episode. It had nothing to do with the story.
It's odd that it happened so early in the series before the main characters have been developed or any real progress has been made in the series. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think the episode would have been reviewed as the "Best Episode of TV in a Decade" had the couple been straight.
I guess I, who haven't and probably won't watch the show, take home.
Matt Taibbi just wrote an interesting piece about society being in a perpetual panic, and how that's being used by those in power to control the masses. That's also reflected in this series. Over the last couple decades we've seen series after series that take place in a 'dystopian' future, and I'm sure that there's a growing population who actually believe in zombies and vampires. We've traded comedies for graphic horror shows.
It's also another show with gay messaging that, for me, distracts from the story. Can't they just tell a story without pushing an agenda? And can't I ask that question in the context of the barrage of 'wokeness' in our media and not be reflexively judged a homophobe?
While some of this might have been interesting 2-3 decades ago, now it's borderline trite. What, if anything, is new here?
“Sometimes you have to sort of trick the rest of the world into watching these things before they’re like, ‘Oh, my God, it was two guys. I just realised.”
Sorry, but for me I’m more interested in quality writing and acting. If the mentality going into the creation of a series is how to trick straight audiences into watching a gay love story, I have no need to watch the show. Mind you I don’t care about the LGBTQ shit, if it’s good writing I’ll watch it, Modern Family as just one example for a comedy. But just trying to shove a societal narrative down people’s throats, I’m not in favor of that.
I first heard of this show and episode last week on the Timcast IRL podcast. They had an interesting discussion about the ways it highlights our warped modern society. Worth a few minutes to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYtX08fmnYc
I found your link so sad and disheartening. That the young people in the discussion were so unbelievably homophobic. They suggest actors/actresses cannot convincingly portray a love scene without being in love with each other? The host repeats something about two “bearded” men loving each other just doesn’t do it for him. He remarks that the one straight guy “turns into” a gay guy. That two elderly people living in a dystopian world, who totally depended on each other to survive, one now terminally ill, decide to end their lives together is so unbelievable? That this is somehow woke propaganda that threatens our civil society? Promotes homosexuality and forced/coerced suicide by the evil left fascists?
I suggest that it is their own fear of what they do not comprehend, their personal biased knee jerk discomfort watching two men love each other and their ignorance of what it’s like to grow old, to be so detached from realty. Their positions and rationales were so thoughtless and weak.
I’m a straight grandmother nearing 70, with two grown sons, had grandparents and parents who lived through WWI and/or WWII, have personally experienced the Viet Nam era and all the wars and global unrest since. Yes, it is sad and disheartening to see how irrational fear and conspiracy theory has so deeply infiltrated and divided our country, especially our youth.
That a story, fiction at that, about survival and love is somehow threatening our society? Gosh it’s time for people to take a step back and chill out.
Perhaps if there wasn't so much of it? It's a small percentage of the population, but if you were an extraterrestrial analyzing what humans are all about by monitoring our movie transmissions you'd think half the population was gay, ninety percent of it in the western world what are actually also small minorities, and that the white majority is this weird mix of intrepid ninja warrior women who nevertheless can't seem to overcome except occasionally the evil empire of male overlords whose greatest pleasure in life treading on the lives of others - except for the also large percentage of the straight male population that is just hapless, unbelievably stupid and/or bigoted. That's my reason for not being willing to watch this kind of thing anymore. I used to have no problem with pretty much anything. But it's just this relentless hammering at us that's going on.
Yes. Same reason I can’t listen to NPR anymore and precisely why I’m a Free Press subscriber. Can I please get a run down on word events without the propagandizing? And no, I don’t need to have a story reported by a person from the community of the storyline. Anyone who can read copy will do just fine. I had hoped the arts and sports would remain the last meritocracies. Free Press’s recent article on American Contemporary Ballet’s near cancellation over keeping its mission excellence in….ballet…shows the last frontier has been toppled.
No, you'd think that a tiny minority was heterosexual. Trust me, by the time they get here, the quantitative calculatory capacities of the Extra-terrestrials shall put us to shame--assuming we have any shame left by then.
A gay couple. Of course! It's 2023! where the 96% are ashamed not to pander to the conceited pride of the 4%.
There's a reason that, from its inception until only recently, mass-media broadcast entertainment did _not_ disproportionately focus on gay or lesbian culture--which has always existed: the culture and its creative leaders, writers, directors, producers, had not been unduly ashamed of heterosexuality's place in society.
My single most-often repeated phrase for years now: "Goddamn this (expletiv-ing) world!"
Most of this clip was a conversation focused on assisted suicide, so I'm a bit surprised that your takeaway was all about homophobia.
But I guess we have very different ideas of what that looks like.
Calling a heterosexual male "homophobic" because he doesn't identify emotionally with the tragic story arc of two gay lovers seems rather over the top to me. Tim Pool has no animus towards homosexuals whatsoever. He's invited many gay and lesbian guests on his show, had many interesting, engaging, and friendly conversations with them on a wide range of topics. None of that is the choice of any truly "phobic" person.
Ok. I will take your word for it, because I had never heard of him before. I may try listening again. But their conversation on that clip was really weird. I admit I didn’t listen to whole clip because they didn’t sound that intelligent or informed. Really, listen to his co-host/guest(?) take on the love scene bit, and example of a person committing suicide after being what amounts to assaulted, if that’s what really happened, years after having a role in a school play. And the host…his tone and statements about gay relationships….I wonder if they would have felt any different if it had been an elderly heterosexual couple that ended their lives.
So I went back and rewatched and I think I understand your dismay in watching with no context. The long-haired guy who spoke about his friend is Ian, kind of a sidekick on the show. He's an extremely tangential/free-thinker type, which can make him hard to follow or appreciate, but he is actually one of the most reflexively empathetic people I've come across online. I think his point about his friend was awkwardly worded and/or positioned, but I think he was suggesting that Tim's lack of feeling moved might have been due to a lack of real chemistry between the actors. And I don't think he's wrong that the presence or lack of such chemistry between two leads can really make or break an intensely dramatic or intimate scene. But yeah, Ian definitely can come across as (and be) out in left field at times, yet I can tell you he's a champion of the "live and let live" credo, a huge defender of letting people be who they are/wish to be.
Also, I do think the point was made elsewhere in the episode (not in the clip I shared) that it would indeed have been different if it had been a heterosexual couple, and I think that's very true and reasonable because the majority of people, being heterosexual, can easily place themselves in that dynamic and so are more naturally moved by it. I think it's rosy-lens utopianism to insist that hetero and homo sexual love and relationships are interchangeable when it comes to the ability of one to relate to the other. And the fact heterosexuals don't get the same "feels" doesn't make them "phobic," hateful, or fear-driven. It simply means they can't imagine themselves as homosexual. And that's because they're not.
Why are you so intolerant? Do you realize the how disgusting is for straight guys to watch 2 men kiss?
Imagine watching your parents having sex. Thats what watching two men kiss feels like. It an instinctual reaction of disgust. Why should I be OK with having that shoved into every single show?
I am nearing 70, and I’m a straight woman. I was brought up in an era where being gay/lesbian meant anything from staying in the closet your whole life, to living a life scorned and bullied, to losing your life. Since about the ‘70s gays and lesbians have slowing been entering the mainstream of life, being granted the right to love and have families. I remember having initial reactions like yours for short time in my early 20s until I, as a young scientist, began looking at things objectively and without societal bias. My straight male friends and colleagues today have grown and learned right along side most of us to realize homosexuality is just a part of humanity. My grandnieces and grandnephews think nothing of it. Most would tell you to just stop watching if you are troubled, it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say it’s in every show. That instinctual feeling of “disgust” may be something you might work on, but of course no one should make you. As many as 10% of us are homosexuals.
"That instinctual feeling of “disgust” may be something you might work on..."
I think that disgust is a natural response from a very basic level of individual biology. I'm not lesbian, but I'm pretty sure most homosexual people are equally disgusted by the thought of hetero sex. As long as no one is acting on that disgust to harm others, I don't think there is any reason to make people wrong for feeling it.
And now that homosexuality has gained acceptance, the activists among them have pushed "Pride Month" on the schools (my high schooler will have it shoved in her face in a few weeks, whether she's interested or not). They are pushing blatant sexualization of young children -- YOUNG CHILDREN -- in a manner that can only be described as pedophilic. They (and weirdly tolerant parents) hold "trans story hours" at libraries, which for some reason are incredibly open to such inappropriate events while notoriously denying their facilities quite recently to Christians.
They have gone from being quite wrongly oppressed and bullied as you have described, to becoming bullies themselves, getting people fired from their jobs for the slightest inappropriateness such as using the wrong pronouns.
All through my child's religious and secular education starting about 8-9 years ago, approximately during the Obama time in office, there has been a growing trend of everyone rushing to provide their preferred pronouns. Even heterosexual males and females seem to need everyone to know their pronouns, which are the expected traditional ones. This kind of pandering is one thing when among adults, but when children are inundated with this shit every day at school, with the parents only dimly aware, it's having an effect on their psyche and view of themselves.
Children are only dimly aware of genders at age 5-9. They begin to experience puberty around 11-13, and what they need at that time is good guidance from parental figures. Indoctrination from homosexuals, transgenders, etc. will only add to their pain and confusion as they navigate the road to adulthood.
In my opinion, and based on many online comments I have seen in various places, there is a backlash coming.
And based on the description of this show, where Frank and Bill survive some kind of a zombie apocalypse and fall in love, I have not one iota of interest in watching. Call me names if you want.
I guarantee those people still feel disgust and are hiding it because of the social stigma of being labeled a homophobe.
Maybe your intolerance is something you want to work on.
You are actually telling me with a straight face my naturally evolved feeling doesn't count and I should just get over it while maintaining A sense of moral superiority, lol. How tolerant and progressive of you.
You are the intolerant asshole here, not me. You are not a good, moral, or virtuous person white knighting for a privileged group of people and telling us over and over again how understanding you are.
"As many as 10% of us are homosexuals." Absolute clown.
I understand your reaction, but you are jumping to a conclusion. I did not condemn gay men or lesbians. What I stated is an anthropological fact. It takes a certain level of societal wealth to support those lifestyles.
Your sexual preference is none of my business and I believe that you don’t deserve either praise or condemnation for a private act between or among consenting adults.
Examples range from the ancient world to now. The only new thing is the demand that I have adjust my pronouns for certain people to their wishes (and by law in Canada).
Live and let live only works two ways. It’s a give and take thoroughfare. I don’t buy the “We’re gonna take it all” approach.
Well for the record, I’m a straight grandma nearing 70. I don’t think I understand your anthropological take on single sex relationships, but it certainly doesn’t hold today. Two self supporting adults who live together in 2023 are no burden to society. I do admit I too struggle with buying into the whole pronoun thing, although I do keep trying to understand. The other “new thing” being demanded is that we stop persecuting homosexuality and allow everyone to live a full and productive life, as long as they don’t tread on the rights of others. That is a demand I think is just.
Ann22, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree that two self-supporting adults who live together in 2023 are no burden to society. That demand is just. However, million dollar treatments for AIDS patents at government expense -- that's just a boon to the hospitals. AIDS is past, but the burden of cleaning up other peoples' problems remains.
Single sex relationships hold today because we live in a rich society which does not depend upon intergenerational relationships for child rearing, schooling or elder care. We farm that out to paid professionals. Impoverished people don't have that luxury. No knock against homosexuality, just plain fact. I am against persecuting anyone for the sexual proclivities, radical agendas or misplaced virtue signaling. Misplaced virtue signaling is especially tough for me to stomach.
I favor taking responsibility for your own life, and living up to the best vision you have for yourself. I favor being a good neighbor and taking care of the people you care about. It's not easy, and a lot of people, even people who should be friends become enemies because they've decided against the idea of just desserts.
I have a graduate degree in anthropology, and I learned about the extended family structures of people living close to the land or sea in hovels, huts and shacks. If you are the kind who thinks that everyone must memorize six or more new genders and the wide variety of new pronouns from pronoun-choice advocates, you and I probably wouldn't get along. Yet, I am hopeful that it's not the case.
I think the purpose of the pronouns are to keep straight and/or old people silent. No one has to make laws against free speech and rile up the crowd, if they make us afraid to open our mouths. The wisdom of the elders is not as welcome in this day as it was in the days of our grandparents.
The episode makes you imagine that such relationships work as a survival strategy in poverty so you will keep watching. Single sex relationships are a leisure class phenomenon.
And results in the elimination of our species. I’m not concerned per se about this particular fictional love story as it’s not representative in how society as it is will end. But I’m sure it’s an OK story in its own way.
I live in Charlotte County in Florida. We were hit hard by Ian in September. We had no water for approximately 11 days, no power for 3 weeks, no reliable cell service for months. My neighbor boarded up our window with plywood at first light the next day after a terrifying night when the hurricane shutters blew off and it crashed in during the storm. I charged my other neighbor’s phone every other day with a solar powered charger we put out during the day. Once we were able to travel slightly north to stay with my parents, I drove down every day to bring a thermos of hot water to my friend and her 94 year old mother so they could have a cup of coffee and oatmeal.
I’m from Pittsburgh. I lived in Baltimore city for 5 years before we bought our first home here in 2021. Some of us still live pretty connected to our neighbors even though we don’t agree on anything the very online would consider important. My neighbors give me their unsolicited opinions on how I’m growing my fruit trees, they show up to fix my shed while I’m still having coffee and posting to TikTok (I’m an artist who has to use social media), I drop off cookies that I bake and bring extra to the ceramic studio.
We don’t have to wait for the apocalypse to be connected. I roll my eyes at their pickups loaded with flags. I’m sure that they roll their eyes at our remote jobs which sometimes make it seem like we never work. They’re the best people I’ve lived amongst since the growing up in the 1980s.
Thanks for sharing that. Just because we have worked hard to develop a society of surplus doesn't mean we aren't capable of helping each other in need. Similar post-Hurricane experiences here (that was Hugo, 1989).
I think that for millions of us who either served or worked as contractors and earned security clearances were gobsmacked on 5 July 2016 when FBI Director Comey gave the most quixotic press conference in which, after reading off a litany of potential crimes found in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a private server, he announced that "no reasonable prosecutor would make a case" against her or her staff. At that moment, millions of us knew that was a blatant lie and that there really is a Deep State (aka Friends in High Places) and that it is thoroughly rotten and polluted with malfeasance, misfeasance, duplicity, and corruption. In my opinion, that was the crack that gave way to The Fall. The totality of the maelstrom of lies and deceptions that followed from Alfa Bank to Russiagate to BLM to Woke to COVID to the 2020 election to J6 to Ukraine, etc., served as a quickening to where we are now. A broken republic, a fractured nation, a demoralized people. I don't know how we heal this rupture in the compact with our government and with each other. Perhaps it does begin with small acts of kindness with our neighbor, but how does this extend to the privileged elitists of our political/cultural nomenklatura?
You make vety valid points and I appreciate your doing so. I think it was cracked before that though. FDR took gold from the American citizens at a set price, then days later the price of gold was substantially increased thereby enriching the federal coffers. Then we were sold Social Security and somebody please explain to me how that is not a Ponzi scheme. Throw in creation of the OSS to conduct foreign surveillance. The wolf in sheep's clothing has grown by leaps and bounds since those days. Then create the Department of Himeland Security which tore down the wall between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement and we have the swamp. Oddly enough defaulting on all that debt would topple the regime of the "elites".
'A broken republic, a fractured nation, a demoralized people.'
That's rather apocalyptic all by itself, Jeff. Is it really that bad? If we insist that we need, as Americans, to define and separate ourselves by the political party we follow, the religion we believe in, the cable news we watch, the Presidents we hate, the state in which we live, the rights of which we should enjoy - then you might be right. Opposites abound.
But I would hazard a guess that you, if you found someone in real need, a stranger or a neighbour, not knowing anything about them - would lend a hand, would give your time, and be the recipient of a heartfelt thanks from someone who might think completely and utterly different from you. And I would too. It happens everyday, and goes unnoticed. A red Republican will help a Blue Democrat, and vice versa - especially if neither has defined the other.
I believe, and will continue to do so, that this country thrives on our commonalities. And if we let it, what we have in common as decent people (because as Americans, that is who we are..) will vastly overcome the differences that have taken center stage in this hyper social media world, where we all do is metaphorically battle in anger.
The more we see of what we have in common, the more we can understand and appreciate our differences, and perhaps resolve them with less rancour.
We have to claw back from the edge Jeff, the America your post tells us about is not America. We are really sick, and so far the start to 2023 has bought a devastating earthquake to Turkey I’m praying this doesn’t transport to America.
"A study from Pew reports that 'most young adults in the U.S. see others as selfish, exploitative, and untrustworthy.' "
People usually perceive others as they themselves are. Get out of yourselves and serve others...maybe your perception of the world will change! The best way to find yourself is to be in service to others.
Join a church. If you want to feel needed, they can help you with that. And you will see people way worse off than you living their lives in grace and acceptance.
This. So, so, so much this! When you live in a society where the poverty level would have been considered EXTREME wealth just three generations ago, developing real self-esteem is almost impossible - there is nothing to overcome making the development of real self-esteem almost impossible. There are a few exceptions to this and the major exception is service. If we could get anything right in society, it would be illustrating how valuable service is to both those you serve, and those doing the serving.
There are a million reasons why service has declined (taxes are the primary driver, right next to parents who believe pre-determining their children's outcome is "good" parenting) but fixing this problem would fix so many of our societal ills. This, and jobs that actually create demonstrable value - that is the other way real self-esteem can be developed - and de-globalization may just give us that gift.
I frequently wonder if part of the whole homeless-drug-addict-checked-out culture isn't a phenomenon that's arisen because of this sense of hopelessness you are describing. Kids who have been raised getting a prize for every stupid thing they do (as well as the smart things), being told they can be anything they want to be. It actually puts a huge burden on them to be something _important_ , something that stands out to everybody. Well, by definition, only a few can stand out in each arena, and if you were dealt a genetic/nurture/peers hand of cards that doesn't get you there - doesn't get you even remotely, serviceably in the ballpark of there, what are you going to do with your life? They weren't being taught that life is worthwhile unless you are a prince/ss. Well, we're mostly technopeasants now.
I agree. But I think too many are conditioned to believe that the government can, and, will fix whatever ails them. What we are witnessing is the failure to deliver on that. Ever growing taxation, ever-growing governmental spending, ever-shrinking satisfaction. Just think what it will be like when the debt created by that ever-growing spending is defaulted on.
We've certainly discussed this before, but when an entire generation decides that wealth and status are all that matter (hi boomers), and then builds train tracks to drive their children directly into that same system, whether they earned their way there or not, what else do we expect? We have generations that were told they "could be anything they wanted to be," and when things got hard were told to blame others, or that their parents would do the work for them, but that "nothing could stand in their way." Then, turns out they can't do whatever they want (welcome to life), never learned hard work OR how to overcome obstacles, and now are sitting around waiting for their parents (in the form of government after their actual parents blew all their money on face implants and cars they couldn't afford) to rescue them again as they've done throughout their life.
And it all starts with taxes. When your first dollar goes to the government, you SHOULD expect them to take care of everything. But your first dollar SHOULD NEVER GO TO THE GOVERNMENT. You want to buy things, great, you should pay to facilitate that exchange in the form of government. You want to own a home and have it supported by good schools, and waste treatment plants, etc... great, you should pay to for those common goods. You want to work hard and create value for yourself and others, YOU SHOULD KEEP THAT VALUE!!!
And here I was trying not to go on a rant about taxes :)
I had to take a few minutes to prepare a measured response because I find your comment quite off-putting. With regard to your first paragraph's tirade against boomers I do not know the source of your opinion but it is extreme stereotyping. The Boomer generation spanned roughly 20 years of births. It is marked by being a very large population as compared to those before and immediately after. A large population would logically acquire a larger measure of wealth, especially in relatively peaceful and prosperous times. Also the Boomer generation was the first generation with a significant number of women who entered the work force outside the home. Thus a significant portion of two-earner families came to be. Two-earner families were able to accumulate wealth at a greater and faster pace. I am surprised someone who prides themselves about being about the data missed that one. Also you are aware that the drive for wealth accumulation is largely a product of the so-called Golden Age of the late 1890s? You know the Wall Street types. So if you need to cast blame I suggest you look there.
Now for the specifics. I am a Boomer although I am a late Boomer. I am not and have never been of the opinion that wealth and status are all that matter. I do not worship at the altar of the almighty dollar nor do most of the folks I know. The ones who do are viewed with pity by the rest of us because that path is not only a road to hell it is driven by either character defects or mental illness. I do not blame others for any personal misfortune I have incurred but rather always try to deduce what I did wrong. I also diligently tried to instill that in my offspring, as my parents instilled it in me and my husband's in him.
Many if not most of my generation realize that overdoing for your offspring retards their growth, thus we expect them to leave the nest and spread their own wings. No boomerang kids around here. Those offspring you seem to be describing were the result of helicopter parenting created by Millenials or Gen X depending on your sources and are an anathema to most Boomers. At least the ones I know but to be fair I am a southerner, a ruralite, a conservative and all of that is informed by being a Christian. I have an estate largely because I came of age in a former feckless Democrat administration, Carter, and know what an economic downturn means. No jobs, high inflation and all that flows from that. It was scary. I found a man with common values, married him, we both worked hard, avoided debt (to this day every time I pull out a credit card I hear my Daddy's voice saying "if you can't pay for it, you don't need it" so I then go online a pay the credit card balance); and lived below my means. Never had a mortgage, paid cash for my land, paid to build the house in stages, paid cash for and drove beater cars. Never had cosmetic surgery., not thankfully any other kind except oral surgery. It worked. I have a modest estate if the federal government does not destroy it in its not so subtle effort to redistribute wealth. Fueled by the ignorance of people like you who seem.to think I am not justified in having what I have. If my estate does survive it will not go to my offspring. My husband and I sacrificed to give them a firm foundation. What they make of it is up to them.
As for your second paragraph your first sentence illustrates a stunning level of ignorance. The federal government at this stage is not even adequately managing its Constitutional mandates - a secure border and a standing military. Or its subsequently created bureaucracies, for example the Department of Transportation with its across the board ineptitude. Yet it takes and takes and takes and spends, and spends, and spends in the name of whatever trendy term it can sell to the gullible - currently social/justice/equity, green energy, and covid relief. All of which are based on questionable evidence. I do not even understand the rest of your second paragraph. If you are saying I do not want to pay taxes you are once again woefully uninformed or deliberately obtuse. What I want is for my taxes to function effectively. I want most of my taxes to be paid locally not seized by a behemoth federal government that is intent on dictating the minutiae of the life of every American citizen through a system of ever-burgeoning bureaucracies and bureaucrats. And non-citizen resident. You can imagine what I think of that. I want to pay for schools that teach children how to think, not what to think. And I want those schools funded and governed locally. I want my taxes to be paid locally to fund police who are actually allowed to enforce the law. I want stable infrastructure (roads/bridges, sewage plants, etc.) and a functioning electrical grid (by that I mean one powered by proven technology not pie-in-the-sky technology being funded by federal programs which are nothing more than ways for politicians and bureaucrats to line their pockets). And what functions best is going to vary across the country. They have coal.in West Virginia so let them use coal. They have rivers in the east and Pacific Northwest so let them use hydroelectric. They have wind off the coast of California and Massachusetts so let the..use wind. They have solar in the desert southwest so let them.use solar. This is not rocket science. Change will come. Just not by government fiat, at least not effectively. Take the gas stove debaucle for example. I want to pay federal taxes for border enforcement, a functioning military. Other than that I think most federal departments and agencies need to be scaled back considerably and their needs for tax dollars re-evaluated. Mostly I want accountability for tax dollars, particularly at the federal level. It is the only way to give the American citizen the respect, power, and control to which they are entitled.
In closing you and all the other know-it-all Boomer haters need to pull your heads out of your arses and decide if you want to continue to be part of the problem or part of the solution.
We're badly missing each other here, but that is entirely my fault.
of what generation would you consider Bush, Biden, Clinton, Trump, Pelosi, etc...? The burden the Boomers must carry is that they broke the sacred agreement with the American people forever in the form of debt. That is, in no way, to blame EVERY Boomer, but that generations "leadership" must carry the weight of this failure. The "gilded" age carries the failure of implementing income taxes (the worst thing ever done to this nation, with the fed right behind it) and the Boomers carry the failure of "leading" us into debt that is so large almost no one can actually fathom what it means. That excess wasn't created by the golden age. The golden age may have ripped people off, they may have lied, cheated, and stolen, I honestly have no idea (they did rig rules and regulations to concentrate power - the All In podcast just did a great tiny throwaway segment on this when talking about the potential corruption going on in India right now as public/private partnerships slush money around to build badly needed infrastructure), but I know they didn't steal people's money in the form of mass taxation AND steal people's money again in the form of borrowing against that taxation.
I am a millennial. I certainly carry the weight of my generations failure to accept life for what really is and instead try to manufacture a virtual façade to be placed on top of their lives. But we haven't "lead" anything yet, and so our generation doesn't actually have legacy. The Boomers do, and that is not calling EVERY boomer, or even most boomers, anything other than wonderful people - but it is to call out that this generations leadership has amounted to what we see around us today - the war machine, the debt machine, the pharma machine, the failed education system, and I could go on and on.
On the tax thing I was in no way indicating YOU don't want to pay taxes, I was saying I don't want to pay income taxes and I firmly believe NO ONE should pay income taxes. Income taxes were the moral failure (believing the government, and not God or Man deserved the first piece of value of your labor) that lead to every single thing that came after it.
My statement regarding the "dependent" class is that it isn't weird, given the system, that they believe the government is there to take care of them. Fundamentally, if you give your first dollar to someone (before you even keep one for yourself) you should expect everything from them. The issue isn't with the expectation - it's with the system. if your first dollar went to God you'd lean on God (as was the old, and much more desirable way). If your first dollar went to yourself, you'd lean on yourself. But if your first dollar goes to the federal government, well then... this is exactly what we should expect.
I should have read further before I typed up basically the same comment - at least up to the taxes part. Not sure I'd blame it all on us boomers but an unfortunate succession of forces.
Federal income taxes are at their lowest levels ever. State and local taxes may be high, but it’s very site specific. What do you make of the outrageous concentration of wealth in our top 1 to 5% percent? Somewhere along the way, since Reagan, the middle class lost and the CEO class won. It isn’t the size of government but what our tax dollars are used for…which forces more people to turn to the government for help. Right and left played along.
You seem to be missing the whole "we didn't have federal income taxes for the first 150 years of this country" thing when saying they're at the "lowest levels ever." Lowest levels SINCE the government started robbing from the people you mean?
The concentration of wealth in this country has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with CEO's. There are infinitely less CEO's today, as a percentage of the population than there were 70 years ago. As government concentrated, so did business. Not the other way around.
CEO's have become powerful BECAUSE the government not only takes money they don't deserve/haven't earned, but then ALSO borrow against that money (to the tune of spending twice as much as they "make") so they have even more money that they hand pick who they give that money too. Taxes are, by definition, the process of giving the government the power to pick the winners and losers... If thats the kind of system you want to live in, we want to live in VERY different systems.
But you are correct, the right, left, and everyone else, went along.
That penultimate president whose-name-we-cannot-mention simplified and lowered taxes below where they are now also. They've gone up since Biden took office. I know a tax accountant who handles a wide variety people's taxes in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Many of these are very well off, he says. The majority of his clients were panicked when the 2018 tax season arrived. They had all heard they were going to get crucified because of the elimination/simplification of many of their habitual loopholes. He said the taxes for all of his clients except one went down after those changes. And the one that didn't was peculiar for reasons, but he didn't elaborate.
Regarding federal income taxes being at their lowest level I second what BTDS said. ( And income tax is not the only source of federal revenue.) As for the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, I am a staunch capitalist. But I think the current over-reliance on corporations needs a course correction. I think that reliance creates that concentration of wealth you find so outrageous. Those people who have significant wealth can wager larger in the stock market(s) and thus win larger. They should face larger risk too but that seems to not happen as often as it should, likely because of advanced knowledge or awareness of moves in the market. Lobbying dollars go a long way. Giving corporations the power to influence, oh hell, I mean control, elections, through political donations is what I find outrageous. It Lso probably impacts that concentration of wealth you find outrageous. But many ordinary Americans, and foreigners for that matter, have gained wealth on smaller scale by investing in those same markets. Not my cup of tea but many partake. As for state and local taxes my preference is as much state and local control as possible and as little federal as possible. And yes it is absolutely about the size of government. If for no other reason than for all the bureaucrats salaries, benefits, and perks. In 2016 compensation for federal civilian employees was $215 billion. And that does not take into account the costs of running and supplying the offices to house them or vehicles to transport many of them. That was for 2.2 million civilian workers or 1.5 percent of the US workforce spread among 100 agencies. The federal government also generates tons of waste that apparently no one can account for. That is Congress' job but they have abandoned their responsibility to do so. And the fraud is staggering - $5.4 billion in identity fraud associated with Covid PPP aid, and estimates as high as $100 billion of the $5 trillion appropriated Covid funds, Medicare fraud estimated to cost $65 billion a year, we do not even know what the fraud and graft involved in the green energy programs amounts to. But you get my drift and this is largely because the federal government is a massive, bloated bureaucracy that is incapable of efficient administration. In other words too big. Then bear in mind $32,000,000,000,000 dollars of federal debt. In the fourth quarter of 2022 the US spent $213 billion on interest payments on that debt. In one quarter so times 4 for the year. That was up $63 billion from a year earlier. And it was a jump of almost $30 billion over the 3rd quarter; the biggest quarterly jump on record. This is because the Fed raised interest to 4.25 percent in December and just raised them again in January. Every time the Fed powers up the printing press it devalues the dollar - yours, mine and the federal governments. So the federal government has to spend more for less, which means increasing debt and increasing debt service. It is a vicious, vicious cycle and it cannot continue indefinitely. When it finally crashes the wealthy will flee like rats leaving a sinking ship and average American citizens will be left to suffer the consequences. So be very, very careful who and what you vote for.
Great post! I agree with more than half of what you said here. I believe during the Bush and then Obama years the federal government was reduced and was smaller than in previous decades. I worked in the federal govt then, it was difficult, stressful. But I think that if there is one federal worker (1.5) for every 100 workers we are well served. That’s a lot of clientele for one fed, esp when you consider all those people and children not in the workforce also being affected by federal programs. (Did that stat include military as well? ) That said, I agree about the unwieldy nature of administering that amount of money and programs. But the grift and fraud is not all a problem of the number of government employees, or maybe it is. The private sector is milking the system and regarding the corporations…..I’m totally with you. Too few, too large. It comes down to big money, starting with its political and financial influence in Congress, who hold the purse strings. Gaining control of the beast takes oversight of dare I say it, regulators, an enforcement arm and finally a functional, well staffed judicial system. I agree, some agencies and programs could use fewer people but many others could use more and more expert employees (ie SEC). I don’t see state or local control over many federal programs because of these governments are also poorly administered and/ or subject to the same greed, grift and fraud. Maybe that’s the nature and continual struggle of a capitalist democracy. I firmly believe the beginning of any solution, as difficult as it will be, is to get money out of politics. Pretty complicated, I’m far from an expert in any of it.
It makes me happy that when we discuss what at first blush are opposing views we find much to agree on. My dad was a federal civil servant for years so I am not anti-govrrnment worker. The figure I used did not include the military. I do have more faith in state and local governments because I feel I have greater access to them and thus can demand greater accountability.
I think the corporate influence should be limited by overturning Citizen's United. And I think term limits are a must for Congress. No more McConnells or Pelosis.
Crazy Hair what planet are you living on. Perhaps the older generations might be a more giving society, our youngsters today generally I might add don’t give a shit, for them it’s about how many likes did I get today on Instagram and Facebook or even worse how badly was my look criticized to the point of I feel soooo bad there is not much left to live for. Sadly
I'm guessing you don't have kids? This isn't what MOST kids/young people are like. This is what old people portray children as looking like to make themselves feel better about how badly they messed up both their, and the generations after theirs', priorities. Oh, and because it's important to illustrate they're dumb (unless they're celebrities who can help you get votes) so old people never have to give up the wealth and power they've spent their entire life chasing at the expense of their children (we're generalizing here right!?)
It is true that if you give a child, who hasn't yet developed self-esteem, this kind of self-critique tool and societal bent toward self-critique (you know who pays to have the most chemicals injected into their face? It isn't children...) they're going to be messed up. No way around it. That WE, as a society, valued the power of celebrity and status over decency, hard work and kindness isn't the child's fault. The boomers turned all of life into chasing money and power (and they're still doing it today), and that our children are paying for it should make us sad for them first, mad at their parents second, and then, finally, lead us to tell them to sack up and overcome the sh*tty hand they were dealt.
But let's not start with overgeneralized defeatism
I grew up on a farm in Iowa. The last thing most farmers chased was money, power, celebrity and status. They were happy to have enough money to put food on the table for six, and saved to pay cash for tractors and the next harvest's seeds so they never had to borrow money. We were taught, first and foremost, decency, hard work and kindness. At the heart of the community were Quaker and Lutheran churches.
We instilled the same ideals in our children (who are in their 30's). All four are gainfully employed and value family. I would venture to say there are many, many more families out there who carry the same values.
But this mass attitude of victimhood penetrating our society will be our ruin. Blame is so easy and childish.
Yes, I dream about injecting some of those chemicals in my face or even getting a face lift. But financially it's not gonna happen in this lifetime. Thank goodness for Photoshop.
Excellent reply only thing wrong I do have kids and great kids I might add, plus lots of grandchildren. My kids missed all the nonsense of Fakebook and Instagram thank God. My grandchildren unfortunately not. They are gorgeous, but I fear for them growing up especially in today’s America, hopefully common sense will prevail and they will grow up with some sense of normality. Watching the state of the Nation tonight although I’m not expecting anything from HIS speech. I don’t think you can blame all their ills on our generation. When I look at the oligarchs they are just over 40 eg Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Google mob. I’m not sure what you call that generation I know I call them the Triple D’s Distract, Disrupt and then Destroy. Mark Zuckerberg poured $430mil into the 2020 election which destroyed our election integrity, those kids are not exactly kosher.
Not going to watch, but to those who are, a question--are there any women left? Does mankind survive or does it all end with two gay guys falling in love?
A woman is key to saving the world. The episode reflected the best of humanity irregardless of the protagonists sexual orientation. The show is based on a video game. I don’t know if this couple is part of the game or was specifically added to be inclusive, but they reflected love, trust, cooperation and the idea of living a full life.
and selfishness, paranoia, and disregard for anyone outside their carefully walled off and booby trap laden compound. I mean...come on...don't just knee-jerk to all this tripe because they were a gay couple.
Wonder who is going to offer a uterus? Or better still can they not produce a fetus in a Petri dish and after 2 months transfer it to a incubator and feed it till it’s full term. I sound deranged today all this shit is getting to me, must be post Covid😂😂😂 I just realized they going to need an egg to fertilize!
Going to be contrarian and say even this POV of this article is first-world self-indulgence. You live in a modernized society with comfort and convenience at your fingertip and you look at third-world countries with rose-tinted glasses idealizing their way of life as if living on the edge of death makes for better society with more trust? You hold up Malaysia as an example like that's how it is everywhere when people don't have all our first world conveniences? Sorry I don't think so. Look at Afghanistan and tell me how much trust toward strangers people can have especially the women? Or Iran? Or North Korea? Ok don't even look at the worst of the worst but look at Muslims in Indonesia where a neighbor might rat you out for adultery and next thing you know you're getting 100 lashes. What about all those Nigerian princes? You think they're only playing on our naivete when they promise us millions $$$? You think their fellow countrymen trust each other?
Most countries on earth today wouldn't trust people enough for companies to have liberal return policies like we do. (Thats liberal not in the political sense btw for those who might be triggered.) In most countries where people are poor the first thing they assume about strangers is the strangers are trying to scam them.
Sorry but I've traveled around the world and the author's worldview is horseshit. I get the point he wants to make but his fantasy that people in less well-to-do places trusting other people more is simply fantasy. When people live on the edge of death, they distrust other people much much more because you might be killed.
Yes we're rapidly losing our sense of trust toward each other but our trust didn't come from modernization and we're not losing them because it. It came from our culture and we're losing it because of deterioration of our culture.
I can’t believe the author just watched a fictional TV show and then wrote an article about how it informed his view of human nature--as if he were observing the actual world instead of made-up entertainment.
In all the examples you use there is a violent and tyrannical government involved. How much of the lack of trust is due to poverty and how much is due to state sponsored violence? I know people who have gone on mission trips to very poor places, and they say the same thing the author does. The people they met in places like Haiti were more willing to share what they had, even though it was very little, than people they knew in the States.
We have no idea how much lack of trust in poor countries is due to poverty and how much is due to state sponsored violence. Possibly one or the other; possibly both. Possibly neither and depending on particular culture. Or possibly inconsistent within a country depending on regions. Maybe someone will do a research on it. But that's my point. The author picked out one example he could idealize to try to make an indictment on ourselves. But reality is not that simple.
Also, Indonesia does not have a violent and tyrannical government. You can book a vacation to Bali today and bask in a resort villa with your private pool or backpack to see all the local arts in Ubud. You can arguably say that the strand of government enforcing Sharia law on Indonesian Muslim in backward villages is tyrannical. But it's not all so straight-forward. The backwardness is due to poverty. The poverty and backward local rule reinforce each other. It's no different than backward villages in the West that burned witches once upon a time. I would argue witch burning wasn't straight-forward tyrannical government.
Again, my point is, the author is self-indulgent in idealizing poor third world using selective examples for some self-shaming while ignoring many many poor countries where that idealized version isn't true. It's really insensitive TBH. I've been to Malaysia. I can guarantee those poor families living in huts would jump at a chance to live in the fancy high rises in Kuala Lumpur in a heartbeat.
Of course no one would choose to be poor. No one is arguing that. And poverty and Totalitarianism aren't always interwoven. You can argue that the USSR and Nazi Germany were experiencing economic hardship, but you can't really argue at they were developing or underdeveloped nations. I mean, our government is increasingly authoritarian and it's not because we're a poor nation.
II didn't argue that poverty and totalitarianism are always interwoven. I don't see how the points you made contradicts my comments about the author's romanticizing poorer countries solely to make some points about our own country and societies. And it's quite insensitive in the most first world indulgent way because he can afford to romanticize people living in huts. The people he's idealizing have no choice.
As for them living in a more trusting environment because of it? I don't think he can make a blanket statement like that because in many cases it's also not true, whether because of reasons of political regimes or something else. And for that matter, I live in the US. Luckily I live in a nice neighborhood. My neighbor's teenage kids always shovel the driveway of the house of one of our elderly neighbors when we have a snowstorm, even though they don't get paid for it. During the Christmas seasons, another neighbor leaves little gift in the mailboxes of the houses near his. So then everyone also leave small gifts for each other in return. Some of us even leave treats for the postal workers. None of us are living in poverty. In my neighborhood you can still forget to lock the door and be ok. And no I don't live in some gated community of millionaires. I live around regular working folks. So what gives?
But I'm also familiar with run down slum neighborhoods in the US and I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of trust in these poor neighborhoods where people are on food stamps and can't afford to buy stuff on Amazon or have multiple computers and latest versions of smartphones or even internet. If being poor is how people would have more trust, then why isn't it the case in our own backyard? The author's premise is a fallacy.
“Many people are aware that Americans’ trust in scientists, police officers, the media, and institutions in general has declined. This is true especially among the young. Seventy-three percent of Americans under 30 believe people “just look out for themselves””
—————————————————————-
This is three different things:
1) young people believe other people are selfish because people their age are exceptionally selfish because they have been trained to be prideful self-esteeming narcissists by the psychopaths who run our government schools
2) people don’t trust the police because race hustling shysters have propagandized them into believing a variety of lies which are all part of an overarching program aimed at nudging us towards communism with a federal police force run by Peter Strzok and Klaus Schwab probably
3) trust in everything else has declined because the aforementioned nudging towards communism has been very effective and all of the major institutions are run by Democrats who are by nature bloodthirsty pagan collectivists who lie 100% of the time because they are possessed by Satan
Currently visiting Thailand and people are wonderful and polite. We live outside the city back home and neighbors are all good and considerate.
I would suggest the polls mentioned have more of the urban swing where everyone is closed door and getting worse thanks to the law and order haters and social justice idiots efforts it will get worse.
Should things go South, I still think those of us who know how to defend ourselves and band with like minded individuals will prevail. It would require turning away the same said justice warriors to fend for themselves. But I am sure they can live on CRT.
I live in two states. Both neighborhoods are working class. Corporate media broadcast from the big cities on the coasts would have you believe going out for a walk with the dog is perilous and should be avoided. The horrible things featured on the news every day--murders, store thefts, racial violence, burning, looting, etc...are rarely if ever experienced, except of course during the summer of 2020 up north. They can’t peddle enough fear. Our local mayor in my northern state is a Democrat in a red state and like the mayors of other large cities there has bowed to the anti police rhetoric emanating from the white upper class. He has made a point to criticize law enforcement every chance he gets and harps on racism as the cause for every social ill. He has sown an atmosphere of distrust and divisiveness unlike the red southern state where neighbors are multitudes more friendly and trusting. Strangers wave at strangers and even stop to chat rather than cross the street and avoid eye contact. Up north this is somehow touted as progress. Down south they know better.
Costa Rica is lovely too. They live by a code of "Pure Vida" or simple life. I know folks living on ocean front property worth millions in today's market who have simple homes with dirt floors. By choice.
Remember when social media first came out (I know, I’m old) and the promise was that, not only would you have your IRL community, but you would be able to form new communities with people thousands of miles away because of your love of art, books or The Office.
Well, as Rob points out, we now have the worst of all worlds. For many people IRL doesn’t even exist and the people you thought you would form Office fandoms around, are all woke-scolds who will, at best, virtually finger wag at you if you say you liked the Benihana episode, or at worst, call you out to your employer if you say the Michael Scott/Oscar kiss was kind of hot (that’s not me, of course...anyway).
Maybe we should get back to living on the edge of annihilation.
And certainly get rid of LinkedIn, because it’s the manifestation of all that sucks.
HBO so you can’t make a show about trust unless the characters are gay. If they had made one transgender and the guy with the gun asked about his pronouns, it would have been “best in the century. Garbage.
I believe I read a criticism in the NYTs that the couple were “too conservative.” I kid you not. I thought it was a good story, irregardless of the focus on identity.
I disregarded your entire last comment and missed your whole point when I saw "irregardless" in there. The grammar police are here for a reason. To help you make your point, not to offend or control you, irrespective - or regardless - of what you think. I simply can't take someone seriously when they use that word.
Jeez! Maybe there should be a feature in this forum to sort responses by correct use of grammar and punctuation? I’m sorry I wasted your time with my poorly written praise for the endearing relationship.
I love you, Jean. Thank you for getting me. My correction was meant as an act of kindness to help JTaylor. I hope he can get past his defensiveness to realize that.
I am a "card-carrying", knuckle-dragging, conservative troglodyte, but I found that episode to be touching, to a point, but totally extraneous as far as the story is concerned.
And "irregardless" is not a real word. Just saying...
"The Last of Us" is a fabulous show, but this is a RIDICULOUS review.
I am not jealous of the Americans who live in HBO's post-apocalyptic dystopia. Nobody I know is jealous of the Americans who live in HBO's post-apocalyptic dystopia. If it turns out that the majority of people in this comment section are jealous of the Americans who live in HBO's post-apocalyptic dystopia, I will probably terminate my "Free Press" subscription.
I also find the subsequent "And just LOOK at those happy Malaysians!" deeply... well. Not "offensive" exactly though it does bong those Rosseauian "happy savages" notes with a well-nigh Kipling-esque enthusiasm. Let's just say "uninformed." Malaysia is one of those places where the ethnic majority has been degrading, humiliating, assassinating etc the non-ethnic minorities for quite a while now.
I _will_ say that Bill and Frank knew how to keep busy, and industry probably _is_ the key to human happiness. And also that HBO didn't show us all those times when Bill farted in bed and Frank thought, "I can't stand this ONE MORE MINUTE."
Also, this note from my son, the mycologist: "Cordyceps are our FRIENDS! Cordyceps-like fungi are our best bet for replacing the majority of chemical insecticides with an ecologically rational and economically scalable solution."
Thank you. I'm starting to see the terrible tendency to policitize this show, and twist it to whatever agenda the author is slinging. Here "The Last of Us" is about that special kind of community we apparently need an apocalypse or extreme deprivation to experience ;P In the NY Times, Michelle Goldberg feels this is a pretty "conservative" show because it is valorzing and vindicating the "preppers" and validating beliefs in a fascistic pandemic government and state. Elsewhere, it is "woke" because it featured an LGTQ love story (which many now are stating as a reason to refuse to watch). I'm sure I'm leaving out some other bad takes.
Folks. It's a show based on a video game. So far a well made and intriguing show with a new twist on the typical zombie theme (this is actually based on a real fungus that has this capability, albeit mostly over lower order brains like ants, but still!). But it's not a vehicle to whip your favorite hobby horse on. Sheesh. Can't we just enjoy stuff without having to mine it for politics??
Certainly not jealous! I just thought the episode posited that even in hell, you can find relative happiness. Without Bill, the couple would have died, however both men benefitted from their relationship.
Precisely! Symbiosis (i.e. mutual cooperation) is good, and as Abraham Lincoln once remarked, "Most people are exactly as happy as they want to be." (Words to that effect: I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote.)
I often say that I'm the most Christian-and-Jewish friendly atheist on the planet. Extend that to the most gay-friendly straight guy, too, but I am soooooooo tired of having it all shoved down my throat and up other orifices everywhere I turn. So tired. So very tired.
I can't stand political correctness/wokeness, but for me the episode was utterly fantastic. I think developing the trust between the two people had to feature two men because a woman turning up would have been a completely different scenario - because Frank was a man I was worried when watching that he was going to try to kill Bill (haha) and steal his set up. When that didn't happen it was wonderful. I averted my eyes when they started kissing and was glad that there was no graphic sex as I'm not used to watching gay sex and don't really want to, but the relationship was so touching it moved me enormously and I liked it way more than episodes 1 and 2! My heterosexual 25 year old son who is a fan of the game and a big fan of the show, was raving about the brilliance of the episode, but said that IMBD was full of comments by homophobes complaining about the gay story line. I told him I couldn't stand it when gay storylines were crowbarred into dramas to make them more diverse etc, but that here, I had absolutely LOVED the episode as it was about being a good human. My son told me that in the game there is no love affair and Frank's a bit weird and kills himself in the end. So I'm glad HBO rewrote it, as it was a fascinating look at prepping and what you might theoretically achieve in a dystopian world, but more than anything it was about the trust, love and interdependence between a married couple (irrespective of sex). Great stuff!
"the advent of modern technology, relative material abundance, stable governance, and social services, which have allowed people to live longer, more prosperous lives" - This is really the story of every human relationship - you get lazy and take things for granted and then you become disgruntled that it is not more about YOU. Civility dies in direct proportion to selfishness. Maybe we can learn to "love others as we love ourselves" again but it does make me wonder if only really hard times will bring us back from the edge of the "me, me" precipice.
Really well put. I have been watching the show recently and my draw to post-apocalyptic narratives, which has been considerable throughout my life, has always been to see how people survive and what survives of us from before (culture, art, etc.). Henderson makes a beautiful, poignant statement here - that when we face a world of dangers and uncertainty, we must come to rely more on each other and get drawn back into the habits of our ancestors and this is something we have lost in modernity. I am an avid reader of fiction in this genre and at one point, tried to go to grad school to write a thesis on it, but I hadn't dug into Henderson's point as much as I dug into the thinking that such circumstances as catastrophe, pushes humans beyond limits through creativity and adaptability. But Henderson hones in on something that Yuval Noah Harari speaks to in "Homo Deus," it's human cooperation and, therefore, trust that sets us apart as a species and allows us to weather unbelievable circumstances. Our edge isn't the most violent things we are capable of doing to survive - it's the relationships and cycles of reciprocity we weave with those around us.
In the hunter/gatherer days hunting required cooperation. Survival required hunting. It also required gathering when the hunting was not so good. Which meant increased cooperation. People began to live in groups to facilitate both. That is the root of civilization.
Yuval wrote in the same book “humans are becoming redundant.״ As we move on through the 21st century that is clearly what’s happening there is going to be a major problem with resources. Food and shelter are going to become scarce. Think we will probably land up killing each, before getting to a place where we will be falling over each other with kindness. Watch the Hunger Games it’s 3 parts it’s very interesting.
Of course people will raid and murder when things go to hell. But again, groups will form. We are tribal and that’s hard to shake. We survive better with cooperation among a group rather than alone.
There's an elephant in this room. Are we not allowed to notice anymore? Or do we simply have to keep our mouths shut? Maybe, it's best if we all just keep saying "How brave!" to let everyone know you're onboard with the trend and/or plan.
Apparently, fans of this video game noticed some extreme liberties taken with the plot. If you know, you know. If you see it, keep seeing it. There's plenty of raised eyebrows out there. Who will not opine explicitly.
I suppose the apocalypse might bring opposite people together out of necessity. I thought it was a sweet, sad but rather pointless episode. It had nothing to do with the story.
It's odd that it happened so early in the series before the main characters have been developed or any real progress has been made in the series. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think the episode would have been reviewed as the "Best Episode of TV in a Decade" had the couple been straight.
I guess I, who haven't and probably won't watch the show, take home.
Matt Taibbi just wrote an interesting piece about society being in a perpetual panic, and how that's being used by those in power to control the masses. That's also reflected in this series. Over the last couple decades we've seen series after series that take place in a 'dystopian' future, and I'm sure that there's a growing population who actually believe in zombies and vampires. We've traded comedies for graphic horror shows.
It's also another show with gay messaging that, for me, distracts from the story. Can't they just tell a story without pushing an agenda? And can't I ask that question in the context of the barrage of 'wokeness' in our media and not be reflexively judged a homophobe?
While some of this might have been interesting 2-3 decades ago, now it's borderline trite. What, if anything, is new here?
The episode is a love story that we could all benefit from - I think you should watch and see for yourself.
The director said in an interview
“Sometimes you have to sort of trick the rest of the world into watching these things before they’re like, ‘Oh, my God, it was two guys. I just realised.”
Sorry, but for me I’m more interested in quality writing and acting. If the mentality going into the creation of a series is how to trick straight audiences into watching a gay love story, I have no need to watch the show. Mind you I don’t care about the LGBTQ shit, if it’s good writing I’ll watch it, Modern Family as just one example for a comedy. But just trying to shove a societal narrative down people’s throats, I’m not in favor of that.
Into the creation of a number of episode’s... I should correct that part of my original comment.
Rather watch the old fashioned “Love Story” with Ryan O’Neal and Ali McGraw if you’re looking for a real love story!
Gross RT I am out on this series I’d rather watch Fauda!
I first heard of this show and episode last week on the Timcast IRL podcast. They had an interesting discussion about the ways it highlights our warped modern society. Worth a few minutes to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYtX08fmnYc
I found your link so sad and disheartening. That the young people in the discussion were so unbelievably homophobic. They suggest actors/actresses cannot convincingly portray a love scene without being in love with each other? The host repeats something about two “bearded” men loving each other just doesn’t do it for him. He remarks that the one straight guy “turns into” a gay guy. That two elderly people living in a dystopian world, who totally depended on each other to survive, one now terminally ill, decide to end their lives together is so unbelievable? That this is somehow woke propaganda that threatens our civil society? Promotes homosexuality and forced/coerced suicide by the evil left fascists?
I suggest that it is their own fear of what they do not comprehend, their personal biased knee jerk discomfort watching two men love each other and their ignorance of what it’s like to grow old, to be so detached from realty. Their positions and rationales were so thoughtless and weak.
I’m a straight grandmother nearing 70, with two grown sons, had grandparents and parents who lived through WWI and/or WWII, have personally experienced the Viet Nam era and all the wars and global unrest since. Yes, it is sad and disheartening to see how irrational fear and conspiracy theory has so deeply infiltrated and divided our country, especially our youth.
That a story, fiction at that, about survival and love is somehow threatening our society? Gosh it’s time for people to take a step back and chill out.
Perhaps if there wasn't so much of it? It's a small percentage of the population, but if you were an extraterrestrial analyzing what humans are all about by monitoring our movie transmissions you'd think half the population was gay, ninety percent of it in the western world what are actually also small minorities, and that the white majority is this weird mix of intrepid ninja warrior women who nevertheless can't seem to overcome except occasionally the evil empire of male overlords whose greatest pleasure in life treading on the lives of others - except for the also large percentage of the straight male population that is just hapless, unbelievably stupid and/or bigoted. That's my reason for not being willing to watch this kind of thing anymore. I used to have no problem with pretty much anything. But it's just this relentless hammering at us that's going on.
Yep. I think that's in part where Tim Pool is coming from. Certainly isn't phobic by any reasonable definition of the word.
Yes. Same reason I can’t listen to NPR anymore and precisely why I’m a Free Press subscriber. Can I please get a run down on word events without the propagandizing? And no, I don’t need to have a story reported by a person from the community of the storyline. Anyone who can read copy will do just fine. I had hoped the arts and sports would remain the last meritocracies. Free Press’s recent article on American Contemporary Ballet’s near cancellation over keeping its mission excellence in….ballet…shows the last frontier has been toppled.
No, you'd think that a tiny minority was heterosexual. Trust me, by the time they get here, the quantitative calculatory capacities of the Extra-terrestrials shall put us to shame--assuming we have any shame left by then.
A gay couple. Of course! It's 2023! where the 96% are ashamed not to pander to the conceited pride of the 4%.
There's a reason that, from its inception until only recently, mass-media broadcast entertainment did _not_ disproportionately focus on gay or lesbian culture--which has always existed: the culture and its creative leaders, writers, directors, producers, had not been unduly ashamed of heterosexuality's place in society.
My single most-often repeated phrase for years now: "Goddamn this (expletiv-ing) world!"
Most of this clip was a conversation focused on assisted suicide, so I'm a bit surprised that your takeaway was all about homophobia.
But I guess we have very different ideas of what that looks like.
Calling a heterosexual male "homophobic" because he doesn't identify emotionally with the tragic story arc of two gay lovers seems rather over the top to me. Tim Pool has no animus towards homosexuals whatsoever. He's invited many gay and lesbian guests on his show, had many interesting, engaging, and friendly conversations with them on a wide range of topics. None of that is the choice of any truly "phobic" person.
Ok. I will take your word for it, because I had never heard of him before. I may try listening again. But their conversation on that clip was really weird. I admit I didn’t listen to whole clip because they didn’t sound that intelligent or informed. Really, listen to his co-host/guest(?) take on the love scene bit, and example of a person committing suicide after being what amounts to assaulted, if that’s what really happened, years after having a role in a school play. And the host…his tone and statements about gay relationships….I wonder if they would have felt any different if it had been an elderly heterosexual couple that ended their lives.
So I went back and rewatched and I think I understand your dismay in watching with no context. The long-haired guy who spoke about his friend is Ian, kind of a sidekick on the show. He's an extremely tangential/free-thinker type, which can make him hard to follow or appreciate, but he is actually one of the most reflexively empathetic people I've come across online. I think his point about his friend was awkwardly worded and/or positioned, but I think he was suggesting that Tim's lack of feeling moved might have been due to a lack of real chemistry between the actors. And I don't think he's wrong that the presence or lack of such chemistry between two leads can really make or break an intensely dramatic or intimate scene. But yeah, Ian definitely can come across as (and be) out in left field at times, yet I can tell you he's a champion of the "live and let live" credo, a huge defender of letting people be who they are/wish to be.
Also, I do think the point was made elsewhere in the episode (not in the clip I shared) that it would indeed have been different if it had been a heterosexual couple, and I think that's very true and reasonable because the majority of people, being heterosexual, can easily place themselves in that dynamic and so are more naturally moved by it. I think it's rosy-lens utopianism to insist that hetero and homo sexual love and relationships are interchangeable when it comes to the ability of one to relate to the other. And the fact heterosexuals don't get the same "feels" doesn't make them "phobic," hateful, or fear-driven. It simply means they can't imagine themselves as homosexual. And that's because they're not.
Why are you so intolerant? Do you realize the how disgusting is for straight guys to watch 2 men kiss?
Imagine watching your parents having sex. Thats what watching two men kiss feels like. It an instinctual reaction of disgust. Why should I be OK with having that shoved into every single show?
I am nearing 70, and I’m a straight woman. I was brought up in an era where being gay/lesbian meant anything from staying in the closet your whole life, to living a life scorned and bullied, to losing your life. Since about the ‘70s gays and lesbians have slowing been entering the mainstream of life, being granted the right to love and have families. I remember having initial reactions like yours for short time in my early 20s until I, as a young scientist, began looking at things objectively and without societal bias. My straight male friends and colleagues today have grown and learned right along side most of us to realize homosexuality is just a part of humanity. My grandnieces and grandnephews think nothing of it. Most would tell you to just stop watching if you are troubled, it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say it’s in every show. That instinctual feeling of “disgust” may be something you might work on, but of course no one should make you. As many as 10% of us are homosexuals.
"That instinctual feeling of “disgust” may be something you might work on..."
I think that disgust is a natural response from a very basic level of individual biology. I'm not lesbian, but I'm pretty sure most homosexual people are equally disgusted by the thought of hetero sex. As long as no one is acting on that disgust to harm others, I don't think there is any reason to make people wrong for feeling it.
And now that homosexuality has gained acceptance, the activists among them have pushed "Pride Month" on the schools (my high schooler will have it shoved in her face in a few weeks, whether she's interested or not). They are pushing blatant sexualization of young children -- YOUNG CHILDREN -- in a manner that can only be described as pedophilic. They (and weirdly tolerant parents) hold "trans story hours" at libraries, which for some reason are incredibly open to such inappropriate events while notoriously denying their facilities quite recently to Christians.
They have gone from being quite wrongly oppressed and bullied as you have described, to becoming bullies themselves, getting people fired from their jobs for the slightest inappropriateness such as using the wrong pronouns.
All through my child's religious and secular education starting about 8-9 years ago, approximately during the Obama time in office, there has been a growing trend of everyone rushing to provide their preferred pronouns. Even heterosexual males and females seem to need everyone to know their pronouns, which are the expected traditional ones. This kind of pandering is one thing when among adults, but when children are inundated with this shit every day at school, with the parents only dimly aware, it's having an effect on their psyche and view of themselves.
Children are only dimly aware of genders at age 5-9. They begin to experience puberty around 11-13, and what they need at that time is good guidance from parental figures. Indoctrination from homosexuals, transgenders, etc. will only add to their pain and confusion as they navigate the road to adulthood.
In my opinion, and based on many online comments I have seen in various places, there is a backlash coming.
And based on the description of this show, where Frank and Bill survive some kind of a zombie apocalypse and fall in love, I have not one iota of interest in watching. Call me names if you want.
I guarantee those people still feel disgust and are hiding it because of the social stigma of being labeled a homophobe.
Maybe your intolerance is something you want to work on.
You are actually telling me with a straight face my naturally evolved feeling doesn't count and I should just get over it while maintaining A sense of moral superiority, lol. How tolerant and progressive of you.
You are the intolerant asshole here, not me. You are not a good, moral, or virtuous person white knighting for a privileged group of people and telling us over and over again how understanding you are.
"As many as 10% of us are homosexuals." Absolute clown.
Thank you for link but seriously I cannot watch such tripe!
That was interesting. TY
What's new is that it is the plan for our future. New to us, that is.
Gay men and lesbians have been present all around you all your life. Keep condemning, judging, hating. That’s the scariest plan for our future.
I understand your reaction, but you are jumping to a conclusion. I did not condemn gay men or lesbians. What I stated is an anthropological fact. It takes a certain level of societal wealth to support those lifestyles.
Your sexual preference is none of my business and I believe that you don’t deserve either praise or condemnation for a private act between or among consenting adults.
Examples range from the ancient world to now. The only new thing is the demand that I have adjust my pronouns for certain people to their wishes (and by law in Canada).
Live and let live only works two ways. It’s a give and take thoroughfare. I don’t buy the “We’re gonna take it all” approach.
Well for the record, I’m a straight grandma nearing 70. I don’t think I understand your anthropological take on single sex relationships, but it certainly doesn’t hold today. Two self supporting adults who live together in 2023 are no burden to society. I do admit I too struggle with buying into the whole pronoun thing, although I do keep trying to understand. The other “new thing” being demanded is that we stop persecuting homosexuality and allow everyone to live a full and productive life, as long as they don’t tread on the rights of others. That is a demand I think is just.
Ann22, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree that two self-supporting adults who live together in 2023 are no burden to society. That demand is just. However, million dollar treatments for AIDS patents at government expense -- that's just a boon to the hospitals. AIDS is past, but the burden of cleaning up other peoples' problems remains.
Single sex relationships hold today because we live in a rich society which does not depend upon intergenerational relationships for child rearing, schooling or elder care. We farm that out to paid professionals. Impoverished people don't have that luxury. No knock against homosexuality, just plain fact. I am against persecuting anyone for the sexual proclivities, radical agendas or misplaced virtue signaling. Misplaced virtue signaling is especially tough for me to stomach.
I favor taking responsibility for your own life, and living up to the best vision you have for yourself. I favor being a good neighbor and taking care of the people you care about. It's not easy, and a lot of people, even people who should be friends become enemies because they've decided against the idea of just desserts.
I have a graduate degree in anthropology, and I learned about the extended family structures of people living close to the land or sea in hovels, huts and shacks. If you are the kind who thinks that everyone must memorize six or more new genders and the wide variety of new pronouns from pronoun-choice advocates, you and I probably wouldn't get along. Yet, I am hopeful that it's not the case.
I think the purpose of the pronouns are to keep straight and/or old people silent. No one has to make laws against free speech and rile up the crowd, if they make us afraid to open our mouths. The wisdom of the elders is not as welcome in this day as it was in the days of our grandparents.
It's fine but do we have to watch it?
Readersaurus: I am a Rand student. I am most concerned with where we go next.
The episode makes you imagine that such relationships work as a survival strategy in poverty so you will keep watching. Single sex relationships are a leisure class phenomenon.
Kaboom. I feel sorry for the people who are lead like animals to such wastes of time as bad television.
Can we all just admit peak TV is over? Stop watching TV and you'll have time to write love stories for an audience of one.
And results in the elimination of our species. I’m not concerned per se about this particular fictional love story as it’s not representative in how society as it is will end. But I’m sure it’s an OK story in its own way.
Speechless.
My sentiments exactly
Gee our trust in science, the media, and government is way down because they lie to us constantly
Exactly.
I live in Charlotte County in Florida. We were hit hard by Ian in September. We had no water for approximately 11 days, no power for 3 weeks, no reliable cell service for months. My neighbor boarded up our window with plywood at first light the next day after a terrifying night when the hurricane shutters blew off and it crashed in during the storm. I charged my other neighbor’s phone every other day with a solar powered charger we put out during the day. Once we were able to travel slightly north to stay with my parents, I drove down every day to bring a thermos of hot water to my friend and her 94 year old mother so they could have a cup of coffee and oatmeal.
I’m from Pittsburgh. I lived in Baltimore city for 5 years before we bought our first home here in 2021. Some of us still live pretty connected to our neighbors even though we don’t agree on anything the very online would consider important. My neighbors give me their unsolicited opinions on how I’m growing my fruit trees, they show up to fix my shed while I’m still having coffee and posting to TikTok (I’m an artist who has to use social media), I drop off cookies that I bake and bring extra to the ceramic studio.
We don’t have to wait for the apocalypse to be connected. I roll my eyes at their pickups loaded with flags. I’m sure that they roll their eyes at our remote jobs which sometimes make it seem like we never work. They’re the best people I’ve lived amongst since the growing up in the 1980s.
This made my heart sing. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing that. Just because we have worked hard to develop a society of surplus doesn't mean we aren't capable of helping each other in need. Similar post-Hurricane experiences here (that was Hugo, 1989).
The Cajun Navy is famous along the central Gulf coast.
Go Gators.
Key detail here is you are from Pittsburgh. The city’s culture of neighborliness is justly famous. Pittsburghers stop to let you into traffic. 🥰
Thank you!
I think that for millions of us who either served or worked as contractors and earned security clearances were gobsmacked on 5 July 2016 when FBI Director Comey gave the most quixotic press conference in which, after reading off a litany of potential crimes found in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a private server, he announced that "no reasonable prosecutor would make a case" against her or her staff. At that moment, millions of us knew that was a blatant lie and that there really is a Deep State (aka Friends in High Places) and that it is thoroughly rotten and polluted with malfeasance, misfeasance, duplicity, and corruption. In my opinion, that was the crack that gave way to The Fall. The totality of the maelstrom of lies and deceptions that followed from Alfa Bank to Russiagate to BLM to Woke to COVID to the 2020 election to J6 to Ukraine, etc., served as a quickening to where we are now. A broken republic, a fractured nation, a demoralized people. I don't know how we heal this rupture in the compact with our government and with each other. Perhaps it does begin with small acts of kindness with our neighbor, but how does this extend to the privileged elitists of our political/cultural nomenklatura?
You make vety valid points and I appreciate your doing so. I think it was cracked before that though. FDR took gold from the American citizens at a set price, then days later the price of gold was substantially increased thereby enriching the federal coffers. Then we were sold Social Security and somebody please explain to me how that is not a Ponzi scheme. Throw in creation of the OSS to conduct foreign surveillance. The wolf in sheep's clothing has grown by leaps and bounds since those days. Then create the Department of Himeland Security which tore down the wall between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement and we have the swamp. Oddly enough defaulting on all that debt would topple the regime of the "elites".
Let’s go for it America we have nothing left to lose!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
.y faith will ever be in people like you Skinny. Well said.
'A broken republic, a fractured nation, a demoralized people.'
That's rather apocalyptic all by itself, Jeff. Is it really that bad? If we insist that we need, as Americans, to define and separate ourselves by the political party we follow, the religion we believe in, the cable news we watch, the Presidents we hate, the state in which we live, the rights of which we should enjoy - then you might be right. Opposites abound.
But I would hazard a guess that you, if you found someone in real need, a stranger or a neighbour, not knowing anything about them - would lend a hand, would give your time, and be the recipient of a heartfelt thanks from someone who might think completely and utterly different from you. And I would too. It happens everyday, and goes unnoticed. A red Republican will help a Blue Democrat, and vice versa - especially if neither has defined the other.
I believe, and will continue to do so, that this country thrives on our commonalities. And if we let it, what we have in common as decent people (because as Americans, that is who we are..) will vastly overcome the differences that have taken center stage in this hyper social media world, where we all do is metaphorically battle in anger.
The more we see of what we have in common, the more we can understand and appreciate our differences, and perhaps resolve them with less rancour.
Disasters usually bring us together, at least for a time. Are we being prepped by elites for one?
Wasn’t Covid manufactured by the elites? I mean with all due respect the biggest beneficiaries were the elites.
Come on, man! You know how how we "heal" - some sort of separation is coming. The divide is becoming too wide, too unbridgeable.
We have to claw back from the edge Jeff, the America your post tells us about is not America. We are really sick, and so far the start to 2023 has bought a devastating earthquake to Turkey I’m praying this doesn’t transport to America.
"A study from Pew reports that 'most young adults in the U.S. see others as selfish, exploitative, and untrustworthy.' "
People usually perceive others as they themselves are. Get out of yourselves and serve others...maybe your perception of the world will change! The best way to find yourself is to be in service to others.
Join a church. If you want to feel needed, they can help you with that. And you will see people way worse off than you living their lives in grace and acceptance.
This. So, so, so much this! When you live in a society where the poverty level would have been considered EXTREME wealth just three generations ago, developing real self-esteem is almost impossible - there is nothing to overcome making the development of real self-esteem almost impossible. There are a few exceptions to this and the major exception is service. If we could get anything right in society, it would be illustrating how valuable service is to both those you serve, and those doing the serving.
There are a million reasons why service has declined (taxes are the primary driver, right next to parents who believe pre-determining their children's outcome is "good" parenting) but fixing this problem would fix so many of our societal ills. This, and jobs that actually create demonstrable value - that is the other way real self-esteem can be developed - and de-globalization may just give us that gift.
I frequently wonder if part of the whole homeless-drug-addict-checked-out culture isn't a phenomenon that's arisen because of this sense of hopelessness you are describing. Kids who have been raised getting a prize for every stupid thing they do (as well as the smart things), being told they can be anything they want to be. It actually puts a huge burden on them to be something _important_ , something that stands out to everybody. Well, by definition, only a few can stand out in each arena, and if you were dealt a genetic/nurture/peers hand of cards that doesn't get you there - doesn't get you even remotely, serviceably in the ballpark of there, what are you going to do with your life? They weren't being taught that life is worthwhile unless you are a prince/ss. Well, we're mostly technopeasants now.
I agree. But I think too many are conditioned to believe that the government can, and, will fix whatever ails them. What we are witnessing is the failure to deliver on that. Ever growing taxation, ever-growing governmental spending, ever-shrinking satisfaction. Just think what it will be like when the debt created by that ever-growing spending is defaulted on.
We've certainly discussed this before, but when an entire generation decides that wealth and status are all that matter (hi boomers), and then builds train tracks to drive their children directly into that same system, whether they earned their way there or not, what else do we expect? We have generations that were told they "could be anything they wanted to be," and when things got hard were told to blame others, or that their parents would do the work for them, but that "nothing could stand in their way." Then, turns out they can't do whatever they want (welcome to life), never learned hard work OR how to overcome obstacles, and now are sitting around waiting for their parents (in the form of government after their actual parents blew all their money on face implants and cars they couldn't afford) to rescue them again as they've done throughout their life.
And it all starts with taxes. When your first dollar goes to the government, you SHOULD expect them to take care of everything. But your first dollar SHOULD NEVER GO TO THE GOVERNMENT. You want to buy things, great, you should pay to facilitate that exchange in the form of government. You want to own a home and have it supported by good schools, and waste treatment plants, etc... great, you should pay to for those common goods. You want to work hard and create value for yourself and others, YOU SHOULD KEEP THAT VALUE!!!
And here I was trying not to go on a rant about taxes :)
I had to take a few minutes to prepare a measured response because I find your comment quite off-putting. With regard to your first paragraph's tirade against boomers I do not know the source of your opinion but it is extreme stereotyping. The Boomer generation spanned roughly 20 years of births. It is marked by being a very large population as compared to those before and immediately after. A large population would logically acquire a larger measure of wealth, especially in relatively peaceful and prosperous times. Also the Boomer generation was the first generation with a significant number of women who entered the work force outside the home. Thus a significant portion of two-earner families came to be. Two-earner families were able to accumulate wealth at a greater and faster pace. I am surprised someone who prides themselves about being about the data missed that one. Also you are aware that the drive for wealth accumulation is largely a product of the so-called Golden Age of the late 1890s? You know the Wall Street types. So if you need to cast blame I suggest you look there.
Now for the specifics. I am a Boomer although I am a late Boomer. I am not and have never been of the opinion that wealth and status are all that matter. I do not worship at the altar of the almighty dollar nor do most of the folks I know. The ones who do are viewed with pity by the rest of us because that path is not only a road to hell it is driven by either character defects or mental illness. I do not blame others for any personal misfortune I have incurred but rather always try to deduce what I did wrong. I also diligently tried to instill that in my offspring, as my parents instilled it in me and my husband's in him.
Many if not most of my generation realize that overdoing for your offspring retards their growth, thus we expect them to leave the nest and spread their own wings. No boomerang kids around here. Those offspring you seem to be describing were the result of helicopter parenting created by Millenials or Gen X depending on your sources and are an anathema to most Boomers. At least the ones I know but to be fair I am a southerner, a ruralite, a conservative and all of that is informed by being a Christian. I have an estate largely because I came of age in a former feckless Democrat administration, Carter, and know what an economic downturn means. No jobs, high inflation and all that flows from that. It was scary. I found a man with common values, married him, we both worked hard, avoided debt (to this day every time I pull out a credit card I hear my Daddy's voice saying "if you can't pay for it, you don't need it" so I then go online a pay the credit card balance); and lived below my means. Never had a mortgage, paid cash for my land, paid to build the house in stages, paid cash for and drove beater cars. Never had cosmetic surgery., not thankfully any other kind except oral surgery. It worked. I have a modest estate if the federal government does not destroy it in its not so subtle effort to redistribute wealth. Fueled by the ignorance of people like you who seem.to think I am not justified in having what I have. If my estate does survive it will not go to my offspring. My husband and I sacrificed to give them a firm foundation. What they make of it is up to them.
As for your second paragraph your first sentence illustrates a stunning level of ignorance. The federal government at this stage is not even adequately managing its Constitutional mandates - a secure border and a standing military. Or its subsequently created bureaucracies, for example the Department of Transportation with its across the board ineptitude. Yet it takes and takes and takes and spends, and spends, and spends in the name of whatever trendy term it can sell to the gullible - currently social/justice/equity, green energy, and covid relief. All of which are based on questionable evidence. I do not even understand the rest of your second paragraph. If you are saying I do not want to pay taxes you are once again woefully uninformed or deliberately obtuse. What I want is for my taxes to function effectively. I want most of my taxes to be paid locally not seized by a behemoth federal government that is intent on dictating the minutiae of the life of every American citizen through a system of ever-burgeoning bureaucracies and bureaucrats. And non-citizen resident. You can imagine what I think of that. I want to pay for schools that teach children how to think, not what to think. And I want those schools funded and governed locally. I want my taxes to be paid locally to fund police who are actually allowed to enforce the law. I want stable infrastructure (roads/bridges, sewage plants, etc.) and a functioning electrical grid (by that I mean one powered by proven technology not pie-in-the-sky technology being funded by federal programs which are nothing more than ways for politicians and bureaucrats to line their pockets). And what functions best is going to vary across the country. They have coal.in West Virginia so let them use coal. They have rivers in the east and Pacific Northwest so let them use hydroelectric. They have wind off the coast of California and Massachusetts so let the..use wind. They have solar in the desert southwest so let them.use solar. This is not rocket science. Change will come. Just not by government fiat, at least not effectively. Take the gas stove debaucle for example. I want to pay federal taxes for border enforcement, a functioning military. Other than that I think most federal departments and agencies need to be scaled back considerably and their needs for tax dollars re-evaluated. Mostly I want accountability for tax dollars, particularly at the federal level. It is the only way to give the American citizen the respect, power, and control to which they are entitled.
In closing you and all the other know-it-all Boomer haters need to pull your heads out of your arses and decide if you want to continue to be part of the problem or part of the solution.
We're badly missing each other here, but that is entirely my fault.
of what generation would you consider Bush, Biden, Clinton, Trump, Pelosi, etc...? The burden the Boomers must carry is that they broke the sacred agreement with the American people forever in the form of debt. That is, in no way, to blame EVERY Boomer, but that generations "leadership" must carry the weight of this failure. The "gilded" age carries the failure of implementing income taxes (the worst thing ever done to this nation, with the fed right behind it) and the Boomers carry the failure of "leading" us into debt that is so large almost no one can actually fathom what it means. That excess wasn't created by the golden age. The golden age may have ripped people off, they may have lied, cheated, and stolen, I honestly have no idea (they did rig rules and regulations to concentrate power - the All In podcast just did a great tiny throwaway segment on this when talking about the potential corruption going on in India right now as public/private partnerships slush money around to build badly needed infrastructure), but I know they didn't steal people's money in the form of mass taxation AND steal people's money again in the form of borrowing against that taxation.
I am a millennial. I certainly carry the weight of my generations failure to accept life for what really is and instead try to manufacture a virtual façade to be placed on top of their lives. But we haven't "lead" anything yet, and so our generation doesn't actually have legacy. The Boomers do, and that is not calling EVERY boomer, or even most boomers, anything other than wonderful people - but it is to call out that this generations leadership has amounted to what we see around us today - the war machine, the debt machine, the pharma machine, the failed education system, and I could go on and on.
On the tax thing I was in no way indicating YOU don't want to pay taxes, I was saying I don't want to pay income taxes and I firmly believe NO ONE should pay income taxes. Income taxes were the moral failure (believing the government, and not God or Man deserved the first piece of value of your labor) that lead to every single thing that came after it.
My statement regarding the "dependent" class is that it isn't weird, given the system, that they believe the government is there to take care of them. Fundamentally, if you give your first dollar to someone (before you even keep one for yourself) you should expect everything from them. The issue isn't with the expectation - it's with the system. if your first dollar went to God you'd lean on God (as was the old, and much more desirable way). If your first dollar went to yourself, you'd lean on yourself. But if your first dollar goes to the federal government, well then... this is exactly what we should expect.
I should have read further before I typed up basically the same comment - at least up to the taxes part. Not sure I'd blame it all on us boomers but an unfortunate succession of forces.
Federal income taxes are at their lowest levels ever. State and local taxes may be high, but it’s very site specific. What do you make of the outrageous concentration of wealth in our top 1 to 5% percent? Somewhere along the way, since Reagan, the middle class lost and the CEO class won. It isn’t the size of government but what our tax dollars are used for…which forces more people to turn to the government for help. Right and left played along.
You seem to be missing the whole "we didn't have federal income taxes for the first 150 years of this country" thing when saying they're at the "lowest levels ever." Lowest levels SINCE the government started robbing from the people you mean?
The concentration of wealth in this country has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with CEO's. There are infinitely less CEO's today, as a percentage of the population than there were 70 years ago. As government concentrated, so did business. Not the other way around.
I did an entire substack on this - https://butthedatasays.substack.com/p/has-the-american-dream-been-eaten
CEO's have become powerful BECAUSE the government not only takes money they don't deserve/haven't earned, but then ALSO borrow against that money (to the tune of spending twice as much as they "make") so they have even more money that they hand pick who they give that money too. Taxes are, by definition, the process of giving the government the power to pick the winners and losers... If thats the kind of system you want to live in, we want to live in VERY different systems.
But you are correct, the right, left, and everyone else, went along.
No they are not. They were lower a couple times - and I'm not talking about before we even had them which was a longer period.
You are probably right. But certainly lowest since the Reagan years, for most of us.
That penultimate president whose-name-we-cannot-mention simplified and lowered taxes below where they are now also. They've gone up since Biden took office. I know a tax accountant who handles a wide variety people's taxes in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Many of these are very well off, he says. The majority of his clients were panicked when the 2018 tax season arrived. They had all heard they were going to get crucified because of the elimination/simplification of many of their habitual loopholes. He said the taxes for all of his clients except one went down after those changes. And the one that didn't was peculiar for reasons, but he didn't elaborate.
Regarding federal income taxes being at their lowest level I second what BTDS said. ( And income tax is not the only source of federal revenue.) As for the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, I am a staunch capitalist. But I think the current over-reliance on corporations needs a course correction. I think that reliance creates that concentration of wealth you find so outrageous. Those people who have significant wealth can wager larger in the stock market(s) and thus win larger. They should face larger risk too but that seems to not happen as often as it should, likely because of advanced knowledge or awareness of moves in the market. Lobbying dollars go a long way. Giving corporations the power to influence, oh hell, I mean control, elections, through political donations is what I find outrageous. It Lso probably impacts that concentration of wealth you find outrageous. But many ordinary Americans, and foreigners for that matter, have gained wealth on smaller scale by investing in those same markets. Not my cup of tea but many partake. As for state and local taxes my preference is as much state and local control as possible and as little federal as possible. And yes it is absolutely about the size of government. If for no other reason than for all the bureaucrats salaries, benefits, and perks. In 2016 compensation for federal civilian employees was $215 billion. And that does not take into account the costs of running and supplying the offices to house them or vehicles to transport many of them. That was for 2.2 million civilian workers or 1.5 percent of the US workforce spread among 100 agencies. The federal government also generates tons of waste that apparently no one can account for. That is Congress' job but they have abandoned their responsibility to do so. And the fraud is staggering - $5.4 billion in identity fraud associated with Covid PPP aid, and estimates as high as $100 billion of the $5 trillion appropriated Covid funds, Medicare fraud estimated to cost $65 billion a year, we do not even know what the fraud and graft involved in the green energy programs amounts to. But you get my drift and this is largely because the federal government is a massive, bloated bureaucracy that is incapable of efficient administration. In other words too big. Then bear in mind $32,000,000,000,000 dollars of federal debt. In the fourth quarter of 2022 the US spent $213 billion on interest payments on that debt. In one quarter so times 4 for the year. That was up $63 billion from a year earlier. And it was a jump of almost $30 billion over the 3rd quarter; the biggest quarterly jump on record. This is because the Fed raised interest to 4.25 percent in December and just raised them again in January. Every time the Fed powers up the printing press it devalues the dollar - yours, mine and the federal governments. So the federal government has to spend more for less, which means increasing debt and increasing debt service. It is a vicious, vicious cycle and it cannot continue indefinitely. When it finally crashes the wealthy will flee like rats leaving a sinking ship and average American citizens will be left to suffer the consequences. So be very, very careful who and what you vote for.
Great post! I agree with more than half of what you said here. I believe during the Bush and then Obama years the federal government was reduced and was smaller than in previous decades. I worked in the federal govt then, it was difficult, stressful. But I think that if there is one federal worker (1.5) for every 100 workers we are well served. That’s a lot of clientele for one fed, esp when you consider all those people and children not in the workforce also being affected by federal programs. (Did that stat include military as well? ) That said, I agree about the unwieldy nature of administering that amount of money and programs. But the grift and fraud is not all a problem of the number of government employees, or maybe it is. The private sector is milking the system and regarding the corporations…..I’m totally with you. Too few, too large. It comes down to big money, starting with its political and financial influence in Congress, who hold the purse strings. Gaining control of the beast takes oversight of dare I say it, regulators, an enforcement arm and finally a functional, well staffed judicial system. I agree, some agencies and programs could use fewer people but many others could use more and more expert employees (ie SEC). I don’t see state or local control over many federal programs because of these governments are also poorly administered and/ or subject to the same greed, grift and fraud. Maybe that’s the nature and continual struggle of a capitalist democracy. I firmly believe the beginning of any solution, as difficult as it will be, is to get money out of politics. Pretty complicated, I’m far from an expert in any of it.
It makes me happy that when we discuss what at first blush are opposing views we find much to agree on. My dad was a federal civil servant for years so I am not anti-govrrnment worker. The figure I used did not include the military. I do have more faith in state and local governments because I feel I have greater access to them and thus can demand greater accountability.
I think the corporate influence should be limited by overturning Citizen's United. And I think term limits are a must for Congress. No more McConnells or Pelosis.
I think the first preacher of the Gospel said it best, lose yourself to find yourself.
The faults we vilify in others are generally the same faults we see in ourselves...IF we are honest and self aware.
I had the same thought as I read the article.
Crazy Hair what planet are you living on. Perhaps the older generations might be a more giving society, our youngsters today generally I might add don’t give a shit, for them it’s about how many likes did I get today on Instagram and Facebook or even worse how badly was my look criticized to the point of I feel soooo bad there is not much left to live for. Sadly
I'm guessing you don't have kids? This isn't what MOST kids/young people are like. This is what old people portray children as looking like to make themselves feel better about how badly they messed up both their, and the generations after theirs', priorities. Oh, and because it's important to illustrate they're dumb (unless they're celebrities who can help you get votes) so old people never have to give up the wealth and power they've spent their entire life chasing at the expense of their children (we're generalizing here right!?)
It is true that if you give a child, who hasn't yet developed self-esteem, this kind of self-critique tool and societal bent toward self-critique (you know who pays to have the most chemicals injected into their face? It isn't children...) they're going to be messed up. No way around it. That WE, as a society, valued the power of celebrity and status over decency, hard work and kindness isn't the child's fault. The boomers turned all of life into chasing money and power (and they're still doing it today), and that our children are paying for it should make us sad for them first, mad at their parents second, and then, finally, lead us to tell them to sack up and overcome the sh*tty hand they were dealt.
But let's not start with overgeneralized defeatism
I grew up on a farm in Iowa. The last thing most farmers chased was money, power, celebrity and status. They were happy to have enough money to put food on the table for six, and saved to pay cash for tractors and the next harvest's seeds so they never had to borrow money. We were taught, first and foremost, decency, hard work and kindness. At the heart of the community were Quaker and Lutheran churches.
We instilled the same ideals in our children (who are in their 30's). All four are gainfully employed and value family. I would venture to say there are many, many more families out there who carry the same values.
But this mass attitude of victimhood penetrating our society will be our ruin. Blame is so easy and childish.
Yes, I dream about injecting some of those chemicals in my face or even getting a face lift. But financially it's not gonna happen in this lifetime. Thank goodness for Photoshop.
Can I qualify as a victim? 😁
🤣🤣🤣 not sure if you qualify but in my books you do! You remind me of ME!
Excellent reply only thing wrong I do have kids and great kids I might add, plus lots of grandchildren. My kids missed all the nonsense of Fakebook and Instagram thank God. My grandchildren unfortunately not. They are gorgeous, but I fear for them growing up especially in today’s America, hopefully common sense will prevail and they will grow up with some sense of normality. Watching the state of the Nation tonight although I’m not expecting anything from HIS speech. I don’t think you can blame all their ills on our generation. When I look at the oligarchs they are just over 40 eg Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Google mob. I’m not sure what you call that generation I know I call them the Triple D’s Distract, Disrupt and then Destroy. Mark Zuckerberg poured $430mil into the 2020 election which destroyed our election integrity, those kids are not exactly kosher.
💯
Not going to watch, but to those who are, a question--are there any women left? Does mankind survive or does it all end with two gay guys falling in love?
A woman is key to saving the world. The episode reflected the best of humanity irregardless of the protagonists sexual orientation. The show is based on a video game. I don’t know if this couple is part of the game or was specifically added to be inclusive, but they reflected love, trust, cooperation and the idea of living a full life.
actually in the game they HATED each other. Frank left to die order to get away from the Bill. it wasn't a healthy relationship lol. here is a screenshot of his last letter to Bill. Very different from the show: https://twitter.com/SydneyLWatson/status/1619899793345773568?s=20&t=qHh4KGL7t_TinwtByo4mkA
Wow. That’s great! Much more realistic;)
and selfishness, paranoia, and disregard for anyone outside their carefully walled off and booby trap laden compound. I mean...come on...don't just knee-jerk to all this tripe because they were a gay couple.
Are they going to have kids and start to repopulate the earth?
They're looking for a surrogate.
Wonder who is going to offer a uterus? Or better still can they not produce a fetus in a Petri dish and after 2 months transfer it to a incubator and feed it till it’s full term. I sound deranged today all this shit is getting to me, must be post Covid😂😂😂 I just realized they going to need an egg to fertilize!
Why should they? Look where humankind ends up…
How though it would be a very interesting episode 😂😂
Here, here!
I hated the video game so I have no desire to see this show :-)
Yip I wondered to. I’m not going to watch anyway, but am curious if Frank was a transgender.
Going to be contrarian and say even this POV of this article is first-world self-indulgence. You live in a modernized society with comfort and convenience at your fingertip and you look at third-world countries with rose-tinted glasses idealizing their way of life as if living on the edge of death makes for better society with more trust? You hold up Malaysia as an example like that's how it is everywhere when people don't have all our first world conveniences? Sorry I don't think so. Look at Afghanistan and tell me how much trust toward strangers people can have especially the women? Or Iran? Or North Korea? Ok don't even look at the worst of the worst but look at Muslims in Indonesia where a neighbor might rat you out for adultery and next thing you know you're getting 100 lashes. What about all those Nigerian princes? You think they're only playing on our naivete when they promise us millions $$$? You think their fellow countrymen trust each other?
Most countries on earth today wouldn't trust people enough for companies to have liberal return policies like we do. (Thats liberal not in the political sense btw for those who might be triggered.) In most countries where people are poor the first thing they assume about strangers is the strangers are trying to scam them.
Sorry but I've traveled around the world and the author's worldview is horseshit. I get the point he wants to make but his fantasy that people in less well-to-do places trusting other people more is simply fantasy. When people live on the edge of death, they distrust other people much much more because you might be killed.
Yes we're rapidly losing our sense of trust toward each other but our trust didn't come from modernization and we're not losing them because it. It came from our culture and we're losing it because of deterioration of our culture.
I can’t believe the author just watched a fictional TV show and then wrote an article about how it informed his view of human nature--as if he were observing the actual world instead of made-up entertainment.
Good point.
Totally agree with every word
In all the examples you use there is a violent and tyrannical government involved. How much of the lack of trust is due to poverty and how much is due to state sponsored violence? I know people who have gone on mission trips to very poor places, and they say the same thing the author does. The people they met in places like Haiti were more willing to share what they had, even though it was very little, than people they knew in the States.
We have no idea how much lack of trust in poor countries is due to poverty and how much is due to state sponsored violence. Possibly one or the other; possibly both. Possibly neither and depending on particular culture. Or possibly inconsistent within a country depending on regions. Maybe someone will do a research on it. But that's my point. The author picked out one example he could idealize to try to make an indictment on ourselves. But reality is not that simple.
Also, Indonesia does not have a violent and tyrannical government. You can book a vacation to Bali today and bask in a resort villa with your private pool or backpack to see all the local arts in Ubud. You can arguably say that the strand of government enforcing Sharia law on Indonesian Muslim in backward villages is tyrannical. But it's not all so straight-forward. The backwardness is due to poverty. The poverty and backward local rule reinforce each other. It's no different than backward villages in the West that burned witches once upon a time. I would argue witch burning wasn't straight-forward tyrannical government.
Again, my point is, the author is self-indulgent in idealizing poor third world using selective examples for some self-shaming while ignoring many many poor countries where that idealized version isn't true. It's really insensitive TBH. I've been to Malaysia. I can guarantee those poor families living in huts would jump at a chance to live in the fancy high rises in Kuala Lumpur in a heartbeat.
Of course no one would choose to be poor. No one is arguing that. And poverty and Totalitarianism aren't always interwoven. You can argue that the USSR and Nazi Germany were experiencing economic hardship, but you can't really argue at they were developing or underdeveloped nations. I mean, our government is increasingly authoritarian and it's not because we're a poor nation.
II didn't argue that poverty and totalitarianism are always interwoven. I don't see how the points you made contradicts my comments about the author's romanticizing poorer countries solely to make some points about our own country and societies. And it's quite insensitive in the most first world indulgent way because he can afford to romanticize people living in huts. The people he's idealizing have no choice.
As for them living in a more trusting environment because of it? I don't think he can make a blanket statement like that because in many cases it's also not true, whether because of reasons of political regimes or something else. And for that matter, I live in the US. Luckily I live in a nice neighborhood. My neighbor's teenage kids always shovel the driveway of the house of one of our elderly neighbors when we have a snowstorm, even though they don't get paid for it. During the Christmas seasons, another neighbor leaves little gift in the mailboxes of the houses near his. So then everyone also leave small gifts for each other in return. Some of us even leave treats for the postal workers. None of us are living in poverty. In my neighborhood you can still forget to lock the door and be ok. And no I don't live in some gated community of millionaires. I live around regular working folks. So what gives?
But I'm also familiar with run down slum neighborhoods in the US and I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of trust in these poor neighborhoods where people are on food stamps and can't afford to buy stuff on Amazon or have multiple computers and latest versions of smartphones or even internet. If being poor is how people would have more trust, then why isn't it the case in our own backyard? The author's premise is a fallacy.
Fair points. There are other factors at play.
Yeah but arguably it is the form.of modernization we elected (pun intended) that has created the cultural decline.
“Many people are aware that Americans’ trust in scientists, police officers, the media, and institutions in general has declined. This is true especially among the young. Seventy-three percent of Americans under 30 believe people “just look out for themselves””
—————————————————————-
This is three different things:
1) young people believe other people are selfish because people their age are exceptionally selfish because they have been trained to be prideful self-esteeming narcissists by the psychopaths who run our government schools
2) people don’t trust the police because race hustling shysters have propagandized them into believing a variety of lies which are all part of an overarching program aimed at nudging us towards communism with a federal police force run by Peter Strzok and Klaus Schwab probably
3) trust in everything else has declined because the aforementioned nudging towards communism has been very effective and all of the major institutions are run by Democrats who are by nature bloodthirsty pagan collectivists who lie 100% of the time because they are possessed by Satan
From the article: "A study from Pew reports that 'most young adults in the U.S. see others as selfish, exploitative, and untrustworthy.'”
Indeed. Indoctrination in the Marxist narrative is nothing if not predictable.
Number three gave me my first laugh of the day!
Yip you have a way with words Kevin as per usual brilliant post!
Currently visiting Thailand and people are wonderful and polite. We live outside the city back home and neighbors are all good and considerate.
I would suggest the polls mentioned have more of the urban swing where everyone is closed door and getting worse thanks to the law and order haters and social justice idiots efforts it will get worse.
Should things go South, I still think those of us who know how to defend ourselves and band with like minded individuals will prevail. It would require turning away the same said justice warriors to fend for themselves. But I am sure they can live on CRT.
I live in two states. Both neighborhoods are working class. Corporate media broadcast from the big cities on the coasts would have you believe going out for a walk with the dog is perilous and should be avoided. The horrible things featured on the news every day--murders, store thefts, racial violence, burning, looting, etc...are rarely if ever experienced, except of course during the summer of 2020 up north. They can’t peddle enough fear. Our local mayor in my northern state is a Democrat in a red state and like the mayors of other large cities there has bowed to the anti police rhetoric emanating from the white upper class. He has made a point to criticize law enforcement every chance he gets and harps on racism as the cause for every social ill. He has sown an atmosphere of distrust and divisiveness unlike the red southern state where neighbors are multitudes more friendly and trusting. Strangers wave at strangers and even stop to chat rather than cross the street and avoid eye contact. Up north this is somehow touted as progress. Down south they know better.
Costa Rica is lovely too. They live by a code of "Pure Vida" or simple life. I know folks living on ocean front property worth millions in today's market who have simple homes with dirt floors. By choice.
Remember when social media first came out (I know, I’m old) and the promise was that, not only would you have your IRL community, but you would be able to form new communities with people thousands of miles away because of your love of art, books or The Office.
Well, as Rob points out, we now have the worst of all worlds. For many people IRL doesn’t even exist and the people you thought you would form Office fandoms around, are all woke-scolds who will, at best, virtually finger wag at you if you say you liked the Benihana episode, or at worst, call you out to your employer if you say the Michael Scott/Oscar kiss was kind of hot (that’s not me, of course...anyway).
Maybe we should get back to living on the edge of annihilation.
And certainly get rid of LinkedIn, because it’s the manifestation of all that sucks.
https://www.gordoncomstock.com/p/what-is-the-point-of-linkedin
HBO so you can’t make a show about trust unless the characters are gay. If they had made one transgender and the guy with the gun asked about his pronouns, it would have been “best in the century. Garbage.
I believe I read a criticism in the NYTs that the couple were “too conservative.” I kid you not. I thought it was a good story, irregardless of the focus on identity.
Please stop saying “irregardless.” It’s not a word. The word you’re looking for is “regardless.”
Irrespective of grammar, I think the comment is a good one. Also, it’s okay to make mistakes sometimes. Y’all need to chill.
I disregarded your entire last comment and missed your whole point when I saw "irregardless" in there. The grammar police are here for a reason. To help you make your point, not to offend or control you, irrespective - or regardless - of what you think. I simply can't take someone seriously when they use that word.
Jeez! Maybe there should be a feature in this forum to sort responses by correct use of grammar and punctuation? I’m sorry I wasted your time with my poorly written praise for the endearing relationship.
I love you, Jean. Thank you for getting me. My correction was meant as an act of kindness to help JTaylor. I hope he can get past his defensiveness to realize that.
She can. Point taken.
Apologies for the mistaken assumption! And honest best wishes to you. I look forward to reading more from you. :-)
Thanks grammar police!
There should be a comma after “thanks.”
And you’re welcome.
*your
(Waits)
Thanks, for taking the bullet for me
Good thing nobody miss-used "hopefully". We'd be here all day.
I am a "card-carrying", knuckle-dragging, conservative troglodyte, but I found that episode to be touching, to a point, but totally extraneous as far as the story is concerned.
And "irregardless" is not a real word. Just saying...
Yeah, it was extraneous, but I was also more interested in Bill and Frank as characters than I am so far in Joel and Ellie.
Such scene would have made the whole show worth it.
I suppose the show as it is, is The Road meets Brokeback Mountain. Just saying.
Yip!
😂😂😂
"The Last of Us" is a fabulous show, but this is a RIDICULOUS review.
I am not jealous of the Americans who live in HBO's post-apocalyptic dystopia. Nobody I know is jealous of the Americans who live in HBO's post-apocalyptic dystopia. If it turns out that the majority of people in this comment section are jealous of the Americans who live in HBO's post-apocalyptic dystopia, I will probably terminate my "Free Press" subscription.
I also find the subsequent "And just LOOK at those happy Malaysians!" deeply... well. Not "offensive" exactly though it does bong those Rosseauian "happy savages" notes with a well-nigh Kipling-esque enthusiasm. Let's just say "uninformed." Malaysia is one of those places where the ethnic majority has been degrading, humiliating, assassinating etc the non-ethnic minorities for quite a while now.
I _will_ say that Bill and Frank knew how to keep busy, and industry probably _is_ the key to human happiness. And also that HBO didn't show us all those times when Bill farted in bed and Frank thought, "I can't stand this ONE MORE MINUTE."
Also, this note from my son, the mycologist: "Cordyceps are our FRIENDS! Cordyceps-like fungi are our best bet for replacing the majority of chemical insecticides with an ecologically rational and economically scalable solution."
Thank you. I'm starting to see the terrible tendency to policitize this show, and twist it to whatever agenda the author is slinging. Here "The Last of Us" is about that special kind of community we apparently need an apocalypse or extreme deprivation to experience ;P In the NY Times, Michelle Goldberg feels this is a pretty "conservative" show because it is valorzing and vindicating the "preppers" and validating beliefs in a fascistic pandemic government and state. Elsewhere, it is "woke" because it featured an LGTQ love story (which many now are stating as a reason to refuse to watch). I'm sure I'm leaving out some other bad takes.
Folks. It's a show based on a video game. So far a well made and intriguing show with a new twist on the typical zombie theme (this is actually based on a real fungus that has this capability, albeit mostly over lower order brains like ants, but still!). But it's not a vehicle to whip your favorite hobby horse on. Sheesh. Can't we just enjoy stuff without having to mine it for politics??
Certainly not jealous! I just thought the episode posited that even in hell, you can find relative happiness. Without Bill, the couple would have died, however both men benefitted from their relationship.
Precisely! Symbiosis (i.e. mutual cooperation) is good, and as Abraham Lincoln once remarked, "Most people are exactly as happy as they want to be." (Words to that effect: I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote.)
It's not being jealous of their post-apocalyptic condition. It's the need to co-operate and trust that the author is writing about.
Have you watched "The Last of Us?"
If the author thinks "The Last of Us" is about the need to cooperate and trust, _he_ has not watched the show. 😀
I agree with you, Patrizia. Perhaps the only thing more absurd than the review is the episode itself. The folks at HBO need to get a life!
You didn't like the episode? 😀
I often say that I'm the most Christian-and-Jewish friendly atheist on the planet. Extend that to the most gay-friendly straight guy, too, but I am soooooooo tired of having it all shoved down my throat and up other orifices everywhere I turn. So tired. So very tired.
I can't stand political correctness/wokeness, but for me the episode was utterly fantastic. I think developing the trust between the two people had to feature two men because a woman turning up would have been a completely different scenario - because Frank was a man I was worried when watching that he was going to try to kill Bill (haha) and steal his set up. When that didn't happen it was wonderful. I averted my eyes when they started kissing and was glad that there was no graphic sex as I'm not used to watching gay sex and don't really want to, but the relationship was so touching it moved me enormously and I liked it way more than episodes 1 and 2! My heterosexual 25 year old son who is a fan of the game and a big fan of the show, was raving about the brilliance of the episode, but said that IMBD was full of comments by homophobes complaining about the gay story line. I told him I couldn't stand it when gay storylines were crowbarred into dramas to make them more diverse etc, but that here, I had absolutely LOVED the episode as it was about being a good human. My son told me that in the game there is no love affair and Frank's a bit weird and kills himself in the end. So I'm glad HBO rewrote it, as it was a fascinating look at prepping and what you might theoretically achieve in a dystopian world, but more than anything it was about the trust, love and interdependence between a married couple (irrespective of sex). Great stuff!
💯
That's the way I feel too.
"the advent of modern technology, relative material abundance, stable governance, and social services, which have allowed people to live longer, more prosperous lives" - This is really the story of every human relationship - you get lazy and take things for granted and then you become disgruntled that it is not more about YOU. Civility dies in direct proportion to selfishness. Maybe we can learn to "love others as we love ourselves" again but it does make me wonder if only really hard times will bring us back from the edge of the "me, me" precipice.
The soft times create soft people thing rings true to me.
Really well put. I have been watching the show recently and my draw to post-apocalyptic narratives, which has been considerable throughout my life, has always been to see how people survive and what survives of us from before (culture, art, etc.). Henderson makes a beautiful, poignant statement here - that when we face a world of dangers and uncertainty, we must come to rely more on each other and get drawn back into the habits of our ancestors and this is something we have lost in modernity. I am an avid reader of fiction in this genre and at one point, tried to go to grad school to write a thesis on it, but I hadn't dug into Henderson's point as much as I dug into the thinking that such circumstances as catastrophe, pushes humans beyond limits through creativity and adaptability. But Henderson hones in on something that Yuval Noah Harari speaks to in "Homo Deus," it's human cooperation and, therefore, trust that sets us apart as a species and allows us to weather unbelievable circumstances. Our edge isn't the most violent things we are capable of doing to survive - it's the relationships and cycles of reciprocity we weave with those around us.
In the hunter/gatherer days hunting required cooperation. Survival required hunting. It also required gathering when the hunting was not so good. Which meant increased cooperation. People began to live in groups to facilitate both. That is the root of civilization.
Yuval wrote in the same book “humans are becoming redundant.״ As we move on through the 21st century that is clearly what’s happening there is going to be a major problem with resources. Food and shelter are going to become scarce. Think we will probably land up killing each, before getting to a place where we will be falling over each other with kindness. Watch the Hunger Games it’s 3 parts it’s very interesting.
Of course people will raid and murder when things go to hell. But again, groups will form. We are tribal and that’s hard to shake. We survive better with cooperation among a group rather than alone.
There's an elephant in this room. Are we not allowed to notice anymore? Or do we simply have to keep our mouths shut? Maybe, it's best if we all just keep saying "How brave!" to let everyone know you're onboard with the trend and/or plan.
Apparently, fans of this video game noticed some extreme liberties taken with the plot. If you know, you know. If you see it, keep seeing it. There's plenty of raised eyebrows out there. Who will not opine explicitly.