Notices by Aven (aven@shitposter.world)
-
Embed this notice
@lain spawn camped, long respawn timer, Australia bad gaem.
-
Embed this notice
@sun it's a slide to derail unwanted discussion. It kept happening when I talked about Epstein. And yes, when they do it about jews, it's irony recursion.
You not wanting to argue about jews is taken as evidence of "shut it down!" in a kafkatrap. It's great for glowie shills, they can't lose! Unless you name the dynamic and show them that they are indeed the ones "shutting it down". Then they evaporate away.
-
Embed this notice
@lain @opal @sun an underappreciated part of this is the OPM (other people's money) aspect. The vast majority of people funding ESG don't know they're doing it. They have pension/retirement funds, and the managers of those funds have decided that instead of maximizing safe return, they're going to "do good" by investing according to ESG scores, violating their fiduciary duty.
IIRC, it was Vivek Ramaswamy who said that the source of this was the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) which manages over 254 billion dollars, that told Blackrock that if Blackrock did not invest in ESG, they would pull out of Blackrock, and that's what started the long chain of arm-twisting.
Most pensioners, if they knew their pension was being wasted on woke Hollywood movies that lose money, and that their pensions would be smaller for it, would pull their money out.
-
Embed this notice
@opal @lain @sun a lot of the smaller developers and filmmakers could be getting funding to implement their visions, if that funding wasn't diverted to ESG-friendly big companies. This is what I mean by "flow of capital", and this is how ESG effects even small studios that don't do the ESG thing.
-
Embed this notice
@opal @lain @sun no I'm saying that ESG (and DEI, too) are being used to control the flow of capital, so that anyone who wants funding must bake ESG into their product and make shitty social justice propaganda instead of art. That effects bigger players like hollywood the most, but much of the rest of the market as well.
I can't wait for Hollywood to wither away and leave room for competition. They did it to themselves by falling for ESG, and the ESG strategy is a self-defeating downward spiral for those who adopt it. This is because it makes investors and activists your audience instead of paying customers. A business whose main income strategy is attracting investment instead of selling products, is called a ponzi scheme.
>but i don't understand why you care about the media market
I care about it because, although Hollywood was always corrupt and commie-leaning, at least they still made a lot of good stuff. The past decade's managed decline means that most of the media on the market sucks, and I do think part of the reason for that is to demoralize people into depression and black-pilling, and get them to consent to economic/cultural/spiritual decline, and "sunset" themselves, going over the cliff.
I agree that new-tech smaller players will inherit the market when Hollywood runs our of OPM (other people's money), but in the meantime they're filling the space with garbage, taking much of the oxygen. And they use their influence to demonize any indie success as "far-right" and "problematic". The salt over Palworld was insane.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @lain We're in a creative dark age. As long as we don't go off the cliff, merit will become valued again, and there will be a beautiful creative renaissance in the next decade. Talented people still exist and are still being born, they're just being smothered and stifled and held down by oppressive forces.
Just look at any of the wonderful media from the 80's and 90's and ask "Could this be made today? Or would it be deemed problematic?". It could be being made today, there's a huge hole in the market, but filling that hole and making tons of money, would violate ESG and the woke-scolds.
They're losing ungodly sums of money holding the market back, using pension-fund money to do it. That dam will break when they run out of OPM (other people's money), and a renaissance will occur. That is, if the total collapse, which is their goal, doesn't happen first. Their goal is to make everyone miserable and black-pilled to commit collective societal sudoku, so they can "rebuild" from the ashes (which they have no idea how to do, they only know how to co-opt and destroy).
-
Embed this notice
@sim @allison @dommymommy
the difference between "assimilationist current " and "visibility at all costs current" (good names for these, btw) is idpol.
"visibility at all costs" makes money, pushes political activism (of the cultural marxist kind), subjugates a minority to activists who claim to represent them, and creates a dipole:
Rubbing "pride" in everyone's faces is designed to create resentment toward gay people. Associating "queer" and pedo with gay also does this. Creating anti-gay sentiment is useful for LGBT activists as they can point to it and say "you need us!". Everything becomes pro-gay and anti-gay, with nothing in-between (dipole). This is great for making money and pushing for marxism via societal collapse, but terrible for actual gay people. It was never about gay people, it was always about social justice (the revolution).
>Although I will say that sometimes it is nice to see characters in stories that happen to be LGBT. I just don't want that to be their defining trait or to have bad writing attached to it.
Exactly this. Gay isn't a personality, the same way skin color isn't. Gay people aren't one-dimensional caricatures. But for idpol activism it is and they are, which is part of why woke writing sucks.
Contrast this to "assimilationist", which is the actual desireable outcome of gay rights. It's just not profitable for grifters, nor useful for collapsing countries, so it doesn't get the same funding.
Statistics
- User ID
- 254194
- Member since
- 6 Apr 2024
- Notices
- 7
- Daily average
- 0