Change is defended against because the status quo is fulfilling. Parents adore sending their kids off to be tortured by pedophiles.
If you offer them a worse alternative that doesn't get them killed, they take it immediately. Tinder: "I get sex without even the simulacrum of a relationship? Sign me up! The more soulless the better!" If you find someone avoiding this dissolution, it's due to inertia. They'll get there eventually. Facebook: "I can meet my pabulum and ritual repetition quota without travel time and without seeing my friends faces? Neato!" You'll find that right less-left-wing groups are not primarily banned for heresy, they're banned for trying to pervert the social app so much it lets them socialize.
"I can vote for a incestuous pedophile who has gone senile?!? Hot diggity!" More worse more better.
The status quo is the status quo because demand is stable, not because it's the status quo. When change satisfies demand more deeply, the change is adopted swiftly, not defended against.
When the Pope in Harvard wants to change the messaging, it changes instantly. No fuss no muss.
Conservatives. Great joke, right? Hilarious.
Anyway, conservativeslol didn't oppose gay marriage because it was bad for marriage, they got high on their own supply and opposed it precisely because they thought it wouldn't. When it was rammed through anyway, they found out it made things worse, so the opposition evaporated.
At the end of the day, children grow up to be the kind of parent who sends their kids to be tortured by pedophiles. They deserved it. The first two acts of minority report are a documentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment