Partially inspired by this post: https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634692&mc=15&forum_id=2#48340747

"the NYT business model now relies entirely on flattering the pretensions of its mass readership of midwits w/ soft degrees and low-level white collar adjacent jobs by convincing them that they are part of some vaguely defined 'college educated elite™'.

it's an aspirational lifestyle magazine. 4/5 of their columns or news reports revolve explicitly around this trope, of the 'sophisticated NYT reader' wringing her hands coming to terms with her superiority over some cartoon caricature of the unwashed 'pomodoro prole' masses."

Sometime in the last ~50 years or so, this sort of self-imagined faux-elite self-image "trickled down" from the actual idle rich upper class to the status striver monkey class. You could talk a lot about how and why this happened, but I don't have time to type that all up right now

We now have tens of millions of untalented, average people whose entire personal identity is built around them believing that they're in this 'cosmopolitan,' 'educated,' 'sophisticated' "elite class." Defined by adherence to the lib state religion and reinforced by consumption of things like reading the NYT and participation in group rituals where people take turns signaling that they buy into/understand various Party Line positions

These people will always be in conflict with both the actual elite, who are intrinsically superior by virtue of genetics, and regular people, who have to work for a living and thus have conflicting values. I think other authors have referred to these people as the "managerial class," although I think a lot of these people are in occupational professional classes too, not just imaginary middle management and bureaucratic positions

These people have essentially the worst possible value system imaginable:

-status, and status striving, is virtuous above all else, no matter how mundane or marginal

-objectivity does not matter and is not a real thing. empiricism does not matter and is not a real thing. the test of whether or not something is good & true/bad & wrong is whether or not it's the social consensus among people who have status

-to be intrinsically talented, gifted, elite is bad and evil, because it means that you have an unfair advantage vs. people who have no gifts other than the willingness to strive

-people who work honest jobs for a living are bad and evil, because they are low status

-people who are inferior, worthless, parasitical, deviant, etc are good, because they are natural allies against both the working classes and the elite, and share this class's grievances against those groups

-any sort of normal, natural, healthy homogeneity, group identity, etc other than that of this class is bad and evil, because it means that those cliqued up 'others' could be a potential rival to this class of people

It's true that leftism, which these people generally subscribe to because it's a dominant strategy in our current political paradigm, is a big problem itself that needs to be stomped out. But apart from that, this group of people, the people themselves, are a serious existential threat to civilization that did not exist in the past. Before the modern era and the obscene amount of wealth it created due to our mastery of technology, there wasn't enough extra wealth floating around to enable people who weren't actually meritorious to gain wealth and status

Even if leftism is pushed out, these people will remain an existential threat. It's possible (probable, I suspect) that this class of people will always necessarily emerge in post-Malthusian society, and there's not much you can do to quash them if you have a society with free markets, freedom of expression, etc. It may be that post-Malthusian existence itself is the problem, which I suspect it is, for a few other reasons

Anyways TL;DR is that all striver midwits should be persecuted and exterminated en masse. Happy Friday everyone

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48340982)

1800000 poast

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48341422)

pomodoro prole tp

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48342671)

There's always this idea of the imagined parasite, like on Dilbert you have the idiot pointy-haired boss managing the Engineers. But then irl every wikipedia article of every CEO will inform you that they are Engineers.

Non-profit workers are out there but they're all Women and make like $10,000 per year.

Government workers are out there, and they're working imo, but the fundamental problem is that the thing they are working on is BS

With all of that said OP perfectly encapsulated the NYT's tone and who it appeals to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48341504)

-objectivity does not matter and is not a real thing. empiricism does not matter and is not a real thing. the test of whether or not something is good & true/bad & wrong is whether or not it's the social consensus among people who have status

-to be intrinsically talented, gifted, elite is bad and evil, because it means that you have an unfair advantage vs. people who have no gifts other than the willingness to strive

-people who work honest jobs for a living are bad and evil, because they are low status

-people who are inferior, worthless, parasitical, deviant, etc are good, because they are natural allies against both the working classes and the elite, and share this class's grievances against those groups

-any sort of normal, natural, healthy homogeneity, group identity, etc other than that of this class is bad and evil, because it means that those cliqued up 'others' could be a potential rival to this class of people"

lol. I don't think you guys go outside and interact with people much. The first one, to a degree sure, though I'd argue it's true of every class in the US given our consumerist culture. The rest are ridiculous caricatures. lol, dear lord the internet fucked with your brains.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48341752)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48341783)

Sends her kids to good private school and complains that her only issue is "it isn't really that diverse."

My wife, must have thought that sounded good because she said the same thing to someone in conversation about our kid's school. Didn't go over well with me.

Don't say that, you don't mean it. You think that is what you should say, but you don't mean it, because if you did we wouldn't live where we do or send our kids to the school we do. I went to a "diverse" elementary and middle school and it was... not great.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48341833)

“Yeah we love the schools here because there aren’t very many black students.”

People would have no idea how to react.

Another thing that’s strange is that many wealthy inner suburb schools are quite diverse, in terms of many different kinds of whites, Asians, Jews, recent immigrants in the professional class, transplants from other parts of the US, old money WASPs, Catholics who made money more recently, black middle class renting to get their kids out of urban districts, and so on. They just don’t have inner-city blacks, recent working class Spanish-speaking immigrants, or poor white trash,because all are excluded by housing prices. It’s a community defined by being able to afford a lot of housing, which correlates with race, but it’s otherwise less homogenous than most other communities.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48342617)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48343477)

xo 2024: *applauds*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5634730&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5231527",#48343453)