Not dragging because a) we know that it's better to lead by example rather than by dragging, and b) because we got better things to do and lovely Melania is a mere fashion accessory who is best ignored.
Not dragging because a) we know that it's better to lead by example rather than by dragging, and b) because we got better things to do and lovely Melania is a mere fashion accessory who is best ignored.
Refusing to drag people lets them know that their behavior is acceptable, which is exactly how we got this whole rich powerful men problem to begin with: we told them that being decadently wealthy--and powerful as a result--was not only okay but *desirable* since at least the 1980's, and they've been obliging us generation after generation ever since. We made them our *heroes* decade after decade while ignoring their bullshit. That was the poison that set into the country, and plenty of women had a helping hand in that little cultural endeavor. Now we're here. And don't look now, but there's a whole lot of Melania's peers ignoring her bullshit as we speak. We reap what we sow. We either end it or keep letting it flourish folks.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Molly Jong-Fasts of the world are finally coming out and talking about the culture they collectively enabled for decades, but it's a day late and a dollar short now isn't it? How many millennial women suffered at the hands of a culture their mothers helped create do you think? Our moms failed us just as much as our fathers did. Who do you think helped protect the decadent sons young women are dealing with now via wealth? The mothers. They made sure to marry a solid provider so that their decadent ass sons could have as much financial protection from societal accountability as humanly possible. It buys you through the faux-meritocracy and makes sure the women you abuse don't land you in jail when you inevitably make it to the top because of the connections you made at the good schools your mom made sure you got sent to. This American house of cards has a lot of layers, and a lot of hands were involved in building those layers over the years. They always seem to wait until the end of their lives before they finally come out and acknowledge the cultural toxicity they helped enable. Just like Trump cabinet officials.
The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportionate amount of the nation wealth are numerically only a tiny percentage of the population--0.1% or1% or 9.9%, depending on which percentage is most useful to the argument, right? the kind of equality of outcome you seem to envision as the ideal has been tried and utterly failed. If you think wealth is the problem, where is the cut-off. In 2025, it will revert to $5.5 million (before estate tax kicks in).
I use the top 10% just as Matthew Stewart does (see "The 9.9%").
Douthat's definition of decadence: "...a decadent society manifests forms of economic stagnation, institutional schlerosis, and cultural repetition at a high stage of wealth and technological proficiency and civilizational development."
Voltaire had warned about the perils of decadence: "silken slippers" and "wooden clogs."
It seems that this has been recognized as a historically giant problem that people like you like to defend as being okay while the rest of the country backslides. We reap what we sow brother. Keep thinking this shit is cool until suddenly it's not. I'll just keep highlighting it in the meanwhile.
Yep, Douthat has his own idiosyncratic definition of decadence. I have not defended decadence. I have only objected to everything being called decadence in all-purpose radical rants. Your ill-informed diatribe against California is a good example. For decades, California has been at the forefront of non-decadent policies to ensure future environmental health, among other things while the rest of the country mocks them as fruitcakes.
Ahhh yes, California with its lack of golf courses, lawns, and excessive cubic footage households to keep ACed off of carbon sources. Real water and environment savers over there, especially when you talk air conditioning and lack of nuclear power. But hey, at least Larry David can go golfing and what not.
Not dragging because a) we know that it's better to lead by example rather than by dragging, and b) because we got better things to do and lovely Melania is a mere fashion accessory who is best ignored.
Refusing to drag people lets them know that their behavior is acceptable, which is exactly how we got this whole rich powerful men problem to begin with: we told them that being decadently wealthy--and powerful as a result--was not only okay but *desirable* since at least the 1980's, and they've been obliging us generation after generation ever since. We made them our *heroes* decade after decade while ignoring their bullshit. That was the poison that set into the country, and plenty of women had a helping hand in that little cultural endeavor. Now we're here. And don't look now, but there's a whole lot of Melania's peers ignoring her bullshit as we speak. We reap what we sow. We either end it or keep letting it flourish folks.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Molly Jong-Fasts of the world are finally coming out and talking about the culture they collectively enabled for decades, but it's a day late and a dollar short now isn't it? How many millennial women suffered at the hands of a culture their mothers helped create do you think? Our moms failed us just as much as our fathers did. Who do you think helped protect the decadent sons young women are dealing with now via wealth? The mothers. They made sure to marry a solid provider so that their decadent ass sons could have as much financial protection from societal accountability as humanly possible. It buys you through the faux-meritocracy and makes sure the women you abuse don't land you in jail when you inevitably make it to the top because of the connections you made at the good schools your mom made sure you got sent to. This American house of cards has a lot of layers, and a lot of hands were involved in building those layers over the years. They always seem to wait until the end of their lives before they finally come out and acknowledge the cultural toxicity they helped enable. Just like Trump cabinet officials.
The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportionate amount of the nation wealth are numerically only a tiny percentage of the population--0.1% or1% or 9.9%, depending on which percentage is most useful to the argument, right? the kind of equality of outcome you seem to envision as the ideal has been tried and utterly failed. If you think wealth is the problem, where is the cut-off. In 2025, it will revert to $5.5 million (before estate tax kicks in).
I use the top 10% just as Matthew Stewart does (see "The 9.9%").
Douthat's definition of decadence: "...a decadent society manifests forms of economic stagnation, institutional schlerosis, and cultural repetition at a high stage of wealth and technological proficiency and civilizational development."
Voltaire had warned about the perils of decadence: "silken slippers" and "wooden clogs."
It seems that this has been recognized as a historically giant problem that people like you like to defend as being okay while the rest of the country backslides. We reap what we sow brother. Keep thinking this shit is cool until suddenly it's not. I'll just keep highlighting it in the meanwhile.
Yep, Douthat has his own idiosyncratic definition of decadence. I have not defended decadence. I have only objected to everything being called decadence in all-purpose radical rants. Your ill-informed diatribe against California is a good example. For decades, California has been at the forefront of non-decadent policies to ensure future environmental health, among other things while the rest of the country mocks them as fruitcakes.
Ahhh yes, California with its lack of golf courses, lawns, and excessive cubic footage households to keep ACed off of carbon sources. Real water and environment savers over there, especially when you talk air conditioning and lack of nuclear power. But hey, at least Larry David can go golfing and what not.
Indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle does not help your case.