When Clarice Starling's nightmare became Dr. Lecter's dream.

Sheeps that pass in the night and all that.

Raddy shared this yesterday. There were were a lot of twitter links in my feed, including one who suggested that we had little to fear of abject socialists if they were going to be that delusional.

Joke about tech circa 2015:

Wired: "Machine learning will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"

Amazon: "We see you bought a wallet. Would you like to buy ANOTHER WALLET?"

Maybe we should try it. Someday. (Just a suggestion, still thinking through the ramifications.)

Similarly surreal… As with the socialists in the Raddy clip, it's difficult to imagine how their lives could be so far removed from the worlds of work and achievement that these ideas could be expressed without laughter.

@Crid,

This comic was on point when it comes to these American Socialists:

http://stonetoss.com/comic/working-clash/

Our American socialists seem to have forgotten that someone has to pick up the trash, or get sent to the gulag. Not everyone will be given a seat in the Politburo or be a member of the Nomenklatura. They also forget - if they've ever known - lessons of Trotsky. You can be a good comrade today, but become a bad kulak tomorrow, and have assassins set on your tail if you manage to escape imprisonment.

I wonder how they'd fare if I said my preferred pronouns were lord/master?

Crid, I recall the 1970s version of that joke. The story goes that a computerized form letter was sent to an entity called something like "17th Street Church of God". The letter's salutation went: "Dear Mr. God:"

If you repeat something often enough, it becomes true. Right?

But according to Gillette CEO Gary Coombe, the billions of dollars that the company cost parent company Proctor and Gamble was totally worth it. According to MarketingWeek, the ad was a “price worth paying” if it helped to reach the millennial generation.

https://iotwreport.com/gillette-ceo-says-the-billions-of-dollars-lost-over-the-toxic-masculinity-ad-was-worth-it/

MOAR capitalism.

The Cost of Air-Conditioning Fell by 97 Percent Since 1952

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2050

Yass queen slay?

https://old.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/bjt5hg/aita_for_not_wanting_to_be_involved_with_a_child/

> the 1970s version

The first version I ever heard was even a little older!

At this point, it seems like everything is a little older. There's nothing new under the sun.

No, really!

'Murica… Free pie.

Sadly, I think he's right.

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/08/04/media-and-politicians-dont-get-it-brian-cates-thread-on-the-gunmans-alleged-manifesto-is-a-must-read/

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/338051/

> the ad was a “price worth
> paying” if it helped to
> reach the millennial
> generation.

That might well be true, so long as you recognize that by "millennial generation, " they could be referring to young women who want to shave things. A badly-hidden truth is that men's shavers are of higher quality than women's, especially for the price differential... So a lot of the customers buying men's shavers are actually women. And in these generations, those women like nothing more than scolding young men. The unfairness of it all, y'know? Because men are badly socialized, Etc. They needed to be told!!

Demographic and fashion changes were diminishing Gillette's customer base anyway. If we could get a look at their books and spreadsheets, we might well regard those ads as works of shimmering genius.

In the 1990s and beyond, Bill Gates made a lot more money from the Apple Macintosh then Apple did.

...the ad was a “price worth paying” if it helped to reach the millennial generation.

I think he's conflating the Millennial generation (Gen Y) with Gen Z. In terms of marketing, brand loyalty, and outlook, they're very different generations.

Not all people under 40 are Millennials. The leading edge of Gen Z is now 24 years old. Z is a more fiscally conservative generation and, in a recent poll, rated access to wifi as more important than access to a restroom - having grown up with ubiquitous wifi, smart phones, and connectivity. This is a generation that spends more time on YouTube than on TV and prefers its social media ephemeral (i.e., SnapChat).

More or less relevant to Conan's point.

As so often, these little things are, I think, quite telling. I realise that other people’s attempts at politeness or reflexive chivalry aren’t always perfectly expressed, but it takes a certain churlishness, a contrived meanness of spirit, to construe the above as ill-intended, some patriarchal act of oppression, and therefore something to resist - before publicly congratulating oneself on Twitter. And as noted previously, it’s curious how all this feminist empowerment doesn’t seem to result in much stoicism or self-possession or mental resilience, just lots of narcissism, ingratitude and chronic whininess.

As usual with David Thompson, the comments are as interesting as the post itself.

ROTHERHAM Council Tell Grooming Gang Victims To Add Rapist’s Names To Birth Certificates So They ‘Have Parental Rights’

https://twitter.com/vote_watch/status/1158030793043775488

On 'the price worth paying' I think he is just in CYA mode and spouting gibberish. Coombe has been a screw up at Gillette for quite a while. He has presided over falling sales and failed to change that. Finally he figured out 'Women! We sell to the women!', which is actually the right answer. As Crid notes their profit margin is higher for Gillette and they are a growing demographic for them as well. So he hired a famed feminist advertiser to grab that demographic . . . and royally screwed up. He accelerated his losses among men with minimal increases among women. Quite frankly I doubt Coomb can tell the difference between up and down these days much less gen Y and gen Z. Yet another person promoted above his capabilities.

Instapundit.

THE CAMPUS DUE PROCESS DISASTER IS HEADED YOUR WAY: The ABA is voting next week on whether to recommend that every state pass laws criminalizing failure to get “affirmative consent” for sex. When your actual sex life becomes a Dave Chapelle skit, you know who to thank.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/338119/

Whoops? whaddya mean "whoops"?

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-russian-ammunition-dump-exploded-injuring-multiple-people-2019-8/

If the comments on the Coombe link are correct, that Gillette's products are higher priced and poorer performing than their rivals, it may not be too long until Gillette's women customers hear about that and contemplate switching.

I've given serious thought to getting a good handle and then using double-edge single blades as my dad did when I was little. I've also found Shave Secret to be well worth the price of admission. It gives me a better shave and it seems to allow me to use the blades for more uses.

https://twitter.com/politifakes/status/1157879942324948992

Disney denies request to put Spider-Man on a 4-year-old's tombstone.

Multiple articles:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1268&bih=819&tbm=nws&ei=9f5CXdzFI8-Jggei3oXYDw&q=spider+man+ollie+jones&oq=spider+man+ollie+jones&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3419.5078.0.5246.12.10.0.2.2.0.132.803.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.575...0j33i299k1j33i10k1.0.3ws93y3lDac

I found it first at Bratfree. Quote:

kittehpeoples
The Mouse is picking on entitled breeders again
August 01, 2019 09:14AM

"Breeders' son dies. They want Spider-Man on his gravestone. The city council tells them they can't without permission from Marvel/Disney. Disney tells them they have a policy in place since before Walt Disney died saying none of their IP can be used for grave markers, cremation urns, etc. because they don't want their characters associated with death and dying.

"Breeders commission a 'temporary' gravestone with a huge image of Spider-Man on it and put it up anyway. Now they are outraged that they've been told by the city council that it has to come down. Cue the lowing.

"(I personally love that the father claims 'Disney's only interested in money' and that now his son's dead and they won't be getting any more of that sweet toddler paycheck, they don't care; but on the other hand, if they licensed their characters for this kind of thing, wouldn't that make them more money?)

"They've already been contacted by a lawyer. Because of course they have. They'll end up making some money off of their kid's death yet."

From elsewhere, by Adam H. Kerman:

"You know, the grieving father is an a------. Disney offered a personalized cel depicting a scene with a message to the deceased child. Disney was actually being kind.

"I don't blame Disney one iota for not wanting their trademarked and copyrighted work to appear on tombstones."

And, from Michael OConnor:

"I feel bad for the kid and his family, but what do you expect from a company like Disney who is trying to own the entire entire entertainment world. I hate to agree with Disney on anything, but I do. Here's why:

"Putting Spiderman on this kid's tombstone will only open Pandora's Box, so to speak, and soon every comic book geek will want Superman or whichever Marvel character they want on their tombstone. And it won't stop there, as Disney also owns Star Wars, and I imagine Darth Vader tombstones will be very popular. Disney also owns the Muppets, Fox (which includes The Simpsons and Family Guy), Pixar (which includes Toy Story and Shrek), Peanuts to a limited degree (they own the rights to the Peanuts movie thru Fox) and of course the original Disney characters. Not to mention, Disney also owns ABC and ESPN, so if you wanted a tombstone with the Sportscenter logo on it, or a tombstone with Starsky and Hutch's car on it (an ABC series).

"To me, a cemetery is supposed to be a place of solitude, where the dead go to rest forever, and for those who remember them to go visit them and reflect. Turning cemeteries into billboards would IMO ruin the experience. And allowing this kid to put Spiderman on his tombstone would only put Disney in the custom tombstone business before very long. I have no doubt you would soon be able to go online and purchase a tombstone from Disney with whatever character you desired from the entire Disney universe of all the crap they own, at a ridiculous price that people would no doubt pay."

"It’s a woman’s choice: falling fertility rates are not the business of government."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/03/womans-choice-fertility-rates

However, it MAY be true, as the Pew Research Center has said, that both American and European women are having fewer children than they WANT to.

Which brings me to a conversation I had recently. I was talking to my elderly friend, the Polish psychologist, and I told him about the movie "Idiocracy." He said that that doesn't sound like a very likely future scenario to him. Why? Because the current U.S. birth rate is below replacement level (1.80 babies per woman in 2016). So (in my words) that would suggest that even dimwitted couples are more-or-less choosing NOT to breed like rabbits. (Very likely for economic reasons.)

Not to mention that while being born into families that are poor and/or uneducated doesn't bode well for one's future, it doesn't automatically mean that anyone in the family has a low IQ.

Some articles:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=XaZIXbuND8SOggeNz42YAQ&q=american+birth+rate&oq=american+birth+rate&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.364.4425..4585...0.0..0.239.1671.20j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131.MfcwinsDwew&ved=0ahUKEwj7r5Hk3OzjAhVEh-AKHY1nAxMQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

Among the first ten results:

"U.S. Births Fell To A 32-Year Low In 2018; CDC Says Birthrate Is In Record Slump"

"Everyone’s Missing the Obvious About the Declining U.S. Birth Rate: 7 counterarguments in response to anyone who blames the baby bust on women or millennials"

"And in these generations, those women like nothing more than scolding young men."

Such women have no business being offended if somebody has to do the equivalent of telling them to look both ways before crossing the street: they should be ashamed, not offended, that someone should have to point out the blatantly obvious in hopes that they wouldn't be hurt or killed.

Alas, arrogance and stupidity in one package is efficient...

“Political responsibility!”

https://www.politico.eu/article/finlands-government-collapses-over-failed-health-care-reform/amp/?fbclid=IwAR1DJLKQtOk1gOyxv3fnPLXaA7q22SePDFT_rYouyzuvZ4m1S4_KA-2DMok&__twitter_impression=true

> (Gen Y) with Gen Z

I just meant young people, hairy ones who might be convinced to buy the occasional razor.

Delineations of these generations have received more discussion in this forum than can be readily tracked.

Haidt says 'Igen' was born > 1995. That's fine for now... I'll revisit the question in a couple years, when the High School kids have USB 6.3 installed under their occipital lobes.

(Bad news: Yet another new connector.)

I just meant young people, hairy ones.... ~ Crid at August 5, 2019 11:24 PM

I was referring to the Gillette CEO's comments about Millennials. Not only does he seem out of touch with the common marketing demographic terms about the market he claims to be targeting, but he also seems out of touch with how this target market, Gen Z, consumes media.

Demographic and fashion changes were diminishing Gillette's customer base anyway. ~ Crid at August 5, 2019 11:18 AM

Exactly, and the Gillette CEO seems to be floundering in trying to catch up - like he read somewhere that young people ("Millennials" to him) like companies that take a stand. So, his company "took a stand" on something trendy and progressive-approved.

"Exactly, and the Gillette CEO seems to be floundering in trying to catch up - like he read somewhere that young people ("Millennials" to him) like companies that take a stand. So, his company "took a stand" on something trendy and progressive-approved."

Right, because toxic masculinity totally has to be the reason that Gillette posted a $8 billion loss last year. It could not possibly have to do with their ridiculously-overpriced products being undercut by Harry's and Dollar Shave Club. No sirree.