I’d argue that some probably are familiar with more underground punk, and see it as being “invaded” by others (you can see these debates in the letters section of Maximum Rock-n-Roll across the 80s)… the music as a genre certainly holds wider appeal than to leftists (aggressiveness in music being pretty prized by lots of men)… Of course, some just like the more well-known stuff, but that’s true across the board. Plenty of people just enjoy punk music without being in punk scenes, but not people who participate in punk scenes are leftist, radical people who are inclusive…
We know that they want them silenced in public life, so any of them into punk would despise the many variants of punk practices by those same marginalized people.
But it’s true enough that some people will invoked a term like punk to just mean anti-establishment and edgy, but at least some right wingers do understand the deeper history and are seeking to “take it back” from the more inclusive strains of punk rock. Part of the reason why lots of dudes ended up in the more conservative skinhead movement, especially of the right wing, racist variant was because the punk scenes were too inclusive.
We get a lot of that in the kink scene too. It’s almost always the usual white, cis, straight men that don’t like that no one wants to be around them when they spout that garbage. In both punk and kink, it’s clear that these duds (yes, that’s on purpose) don’t know any history of the label they want to claim.
“I’m apolitical” inevitably means “I’m a right wing asshole, but I don’t want my words and actions to have consequences.”
I think someone saying they’re apolitical can also mean that they might be aware that they don’t feel strongly towards either end of the political spectrum, which to me can mean that they are self-absorbed. And/or they know they don’t know enough about the politics and consequences of it and prefer to remain ignorant of the society they live in (which is also pretty narcissistic, and stupid, in my eyes)
I think that’s true, but also, often times people say that they’re “apolitical” (in these specific circumstances) and are just lying… or they really believe that they are objective and rational with regards to their views, hence “apolitical” because to them it’s just “facts”…
Self-absorbed and the problems that those other people are complaining about don’t affect the individual being apolitical, so what’s the big deal? In the kink scene this is brought out when people raise concerns about accessibility of a venue, events having a gender-based pricing scheme, and really all of the same issues we get everywhere else, just often with a slightly different implementation. (The seemingly obvious statement that “submissive is not an inherent trait of being a woman” is considered by some to be a political statement which matches with “no politics in kink.”)
Ayn Rand called her philosophy objectivism because somehow “everyone should act like selfish dicks” was supposed to be the objective outcome of simple logic. I think this is still really common among libertarian capitalists who pretend their beliefs are neither left nor right, the free market is simply natural law, and so on. “Reason” magazine is about “free minds and free markets”. The review I linked about Pinker is a good example of someone extolling rationality as at odds with progressives, as if things getting better must be an inherent process rather than the result of people fighting to make it so. The whole thing seems like a political movement dedicated to pretending it’s not.
“I’m apolitical” inevitably means “I’m a right wing asshole, but I don’t want my words and actions to have consequences.”
I always interpret that sort of statement (in whatever scenario) as “no other politics,” or, more likely, “no statements that make me uncomfortable with my own politics.” Folks who are participating in a community who their political cohorts would very much like to see persecuted and wiped off the face of the earth are disingenuous little twats who deserve neither respect nor accommodation.
Not the dumbest thing that I ever read, but the quote below left me scratching my head this morning.
Heavy snow could in turn make temperatures feel even colder, since fallen snow both absorbs and reflects the sun’s rays.
The linked explanation goes into why snow cover can contributed to actual air temperatures being lower, but doesn’t say anything about a given atmospheric temperature feeling colder, like with humidity.
Anyway, I definitely associate a lack of snow with the air feeling colder, but that might just be due to my association with growing up in lake effect snow belts (if it’s cold enough for Lake Superior to freeze over, the lake effect snow stops).
But there’s also the fact that snow accumulation is called a “blanket” of snow, and blankets make you feel warm. It’s just science. Am I the only one that feels like it’s warmer with a comfy blanket of snow on the ground?
In northern Canada, we’d talk about it being “too cold to snow” because snowfall with temperatures below -20 C felt rare (I think it was, but haven’t checked stats).
When water vapour condenses and freezes, it gives up its latent heat of vapourization and fusion. On that basis, the air would get warmer because snow was forming in the atmosphere, and I suspect that was at play. Not sure whether that has a significant effect, though.
People up here say that, too, but I think that’s mainly because of most of the snow coming from lake effect. It did prompt me to look it up and find maybe the dumbest thing I’ve read today, though:
Despite their frigid winter weather, it does snow in both Oymyakon and Yakutsk. In fact, Yakutsk receives an annual snowfall of about 24.49 feet. Yakutsk isn’t quite as snowy as the Chicago area, with an annual snowfall of 40-plus inches…
