Skip to main content

Miss America - Reality

Leaving aside the fact that "Miss America - Reality" is an Oxymoron...

I wanted to watch even though I don't care for reality TV because Miss Utah has been mentioned on the milblogs. So I recorded... I think it was the second episode... and watched it last night. I don't know how she does it at all, frankly. The need to tell the "advisers" they were full of it would overwhelm me.

Miss Utah got "bottom three" because she didn't treat the advice she was given the episode before to glam it up with proper gravitas.

Miss Alaska got "bottom three" because she'd made Indian war... ah... noises when they cut 12 inches off her hair. Oh the horror! Only they didn't tell her that. They just said that she wasn't considerate enough of others. I wonder if it ever occurred to the "advisers" that she may very well *be* Native American. I don't know she's not. Do they know that she's not?

One of those who got "top three", I can't remember who, got chewed out for refusing a make-over when she was specifically told she had a choice. They gave her tops anyway (and gave the other "bottom" to a girl who said she didn't like how she looked without makeup and her hair done) but not before telling her just how *badly* she'd hurt their feelings.

In any case. One episode made it pretty clear just who this "reality" television show is about. It's all about the advisers and their own feelings of importance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...