Med al ret!
Maybe he likes being a tad unpredictable. If I had to choose if I wanted to be his friend or if I wanted to be stuck in an elevator with him for an hour, I'd clearly say neither, thanks. History will probably record him as a stirrup-holder of full born fascism.
That's some cool stable genius shit!
YMMV. There is no universal answer to this question. None of us separate the artist entirely from the work and thus our enjoyment of it. I think of it in video game terms. Every artist has a power bar. They can get hit a couple of times and can still be tolerated when they're in the yellow. But once we're in the red zone and the character starts getting translucent or is flashing I'm out. This is all very subjective though.
Marylin Manson went red for me and I scrubbed the songs I liked from my playlists. Michael Jackson also. But I continue to listen to The Smiths/Morrissey in spite of Morrissey's politics. I still enjoy Pink Floyd although Walters and Gilmore are profoundly unlikable characters and Walter's politics rub me the wrong way a lot of the time.
In the age of streaming, there isn't a lot of money going to the artist. You're not really supporting them financially if you enjoy their music in spite of any a-holery, moral or criminal, they may have committed. If you get something out of it, continue to do so. If it feels yucky then I'm gonna guess one more hit is putting the character in the red. And if you paid for the music/album, the "damage" is already done.
I'm glad I was never a big fan of Kanye's œuvre so I don't have to wrestle with this question about him. I think he would have done enough to drain his power bar thrice over and thus it's game over for me. I wish he had more well meaning people around him who could help him to protect himself from himself.
How does confidence factor into this? I've been confident in stuff before and it turned out that confidence was misplaced. Pride cometh before the fall shit. Confidence alone risks cockiness. Cockiness may lead to somebody testing your Golden Shield. Didn't work. You now don't have a country any more.
If the Golden Shield really worked it's a question of capacity. If you had enough juice in it to repel all nuclear weapons you could throw at this country in a worst-case scenario, you'd have a powerful defense against the most powerful weapon on Earth that's ready to deploy this minute. It may not save you from conventional attacks. It may not shield you from chemical or biological weapons so gruesome they aren't currently shelf-ready. But development of those would suddenly become a viable prospect. I fear it just turns the spiral of development of more destructive weaponry one more rotation. Extrapolating from the last 6000 years of history, we've gone from sticks and stones to vaporizing people into thin mist by harnessing the power of the atom. We're already in the narrow bit of the spiral. Paradoxically, developing a Golden Shield against nuclear attacks may lead to wiping our species out for good.
But promotions should be earned.
I think with Disco S1 they attempted a reset that didn't work. They all looked the same. Nobody really liked it. So they reverted to giving them hair and there's a throwaway line in S2 by Burnham that's tantamount to admitting failure by the show runners. And then we don't hear anything about it again. My guess is SNW will continue with ridged Klingons and just never explain it.
If they really wanted to go into canon, you could say there was the augment era during ENT, then they fixed their ridges with a hypospray, and then just before SNW reaches TOS times, there was a recurrence of the augment craze on Qronos. Or a COVID like virus escaped from a lab. It would be odd because all the characters we know from TOS never comment on this oddity - Spock, Kirk, Uhura have all seen ridged Klingons, then the smooth kind, and then ridged again in the movies. But stranger plot points have been ignored in Trek. Borg Queen anyone?
Hoisted by my own methtard.
Being asked anyway.
Was it all building to this?
FriendOfDeSoto
joined 2 years ago
Psy op implies an amount of planning and the involvement of the military or the intelligence community. I think it is better attributed to chance that the cryptic pretentious musings of one person snowballed into a cultish internet movement. Because it garnered strength online, the musing person at the heart of it probably changed due to tiny power struggles.
People like to know there is a plan for everything. People always suspect a secret cabal behind everything. People are also dumb and impressionable. It doesn't take a general or CIA buffin to try to target the Venn diagram of those three groups. I think it had the results you describe, it contributed to what we see in the US today: a weakening of the rule of law and a slide into fascism.
Calling QAnon psy op is giving what basically started as a 4chan meme too much credit. If no one took a gun to find a nonexistent basement in a DC pizza restaurant, society at large may have never discovered this snowballed cult, and jumped on it like a cat does catnip, enlarging its reach. The secret "cabal" behind it is maybe a handful of people. Bored and slightly Machiavellian internet users with odd political views and/or the love of endorphin-inducing likes and reach. Never attribute to conspiracy what you can more likely attribute to stupidity. QAnon is stupid. Stupidity with disastrous cobsequences. But not a planned psy op campaign.