(09-11-2023, 06:41 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2023, 03:36 PM)JohnTrent Wrote: [ -> ]These terms are adopted, but they originate and are used chiefly by them; anyone not falling into the immediate rubric is an unwitting servant of its spread.
Not really true, the thing is most of the “adopted” terms are copied basically wholesale from niggers, and are used . It’s useful to differentiate the two because explicit Norwood terms and adopted terms are used for different reasons; explicit terms to make themselves seem cooler than normalfags, and adopted terms to make them seem cool to niggers.
I'm pretty sure we're agreeing with each other on most of this, but my opinions in the original post were left unsaid. I am half responding to your post and half expanding on my initial response here.
So whenever I was mentioning that a term is adopted, like "folks" or "nerds", there's an origin of meaning that isn't found previously. A rural man circa 1955 has a different intention in saying "folks". The words had meaning beforehand obviously, but the importance that those words originally had has changed under new use. If a Democratic Socialist type saw those terms being use, they adopt them because they have polemical worth ("wow, that person really
was a nerd. I'm like a jock compared to him!"). System's post in the Strivers thread about the lackadaisical personality fits into the thread here. As an attempt to establish polemical superiority, they can use the pretense of "not caring" or being "above it all", which is why they would think using the word "nerd" is helpful. You might see where I'm going with this, so onto the question of niggerisms.
A part of this polemical strategy really is to impress the always-lurking Cool Nigger in their heads. The question now is, are they doing this because they
first wanted to impress them, or if they happened to stumble onto that
after? It's a difficult question, worsened by the fact that we're analyzing an organic sociological development. Mass culture gave them abundant models of personality, "Cool Nigger" being a prominent one but
not the only one. These are usually gleamed from cartoons, schlocky Hollywood scripts, the like, and they might also be attempting to emulate the personality of a "smart but humble cool guy", who eviscerates his arrogant foil. This is what facilitates Norwood responses, a set of masks that you can use as a way to browbeat and admonish the enemy. I don't know if we can pose an exact logical sequence of these patterns, where the Norwood goes from the first personality, to the second personality, ..., and it is even harder to determine how much the Norwood personalities are plagued with niggerisms, compared to simply regurgitating cartoon character attitudes. So if we may do some hair-splitting here, I'd like to consider two ways in which the Norwood type can diverge. There are not
essentially different, but their models of behavior are.
The model of "Sage but Non-Aligned Wacky Zany Prophet Character Who Stays Aloof from The Optimism of the Main Characters Hinting at Greater Knowledge" (borrowing this apt category for now) has many forms today through what would be classically considered Norwood. They would often take the form of ironic Marxists, who might try to reclaim Adorno or Foucault or whoever else and engage in polemics against Chuds. So whenever they quotetweet with a statement like "this, like, is really stupid", they're imagining themselves to be doing a vicious takedown, because they see themselves as the cartoon character in a scene. They will then eventually do customary negrolatry sometime after, but their primary goal is a faux-intellectual one — affirming themselves as intellectual masters in the only way they know how, pretending to be a smart cartoon character. Their approach to the normalcy argument is that they weld it together with the faux-intellectual. Some examples being "...and normal people do
not think this", "...and nobody would agree with you", etc. This should be distinguished from an unrelated phenomenon, which is bragging about credentials on X. This personality model is only using the normalcy appeal because it completes their approach; without the appeal, the facade might disappear, and they will be seen as retarded.
Here's a good example of how the Norwood might originally be inclined to the Cool Nigger personality: Chapo Trap House, where their main selling point is being ironic DSA members and sharing milquetoast opinions about "hellworld chud america". The title itself is unquestionably a group of teacher pets and a breeding ground of schoolmarmish thoughts, but the title is suggestive of a personality they're trying to maintain to their early viewership (which would be all pretty much similar characters, Millennials in NYC). They're like the Cool Nigger to the podcast listener, while also still retaining the pig-like millennial body and the lemming attitude. It's an avatar of sorts. They aren't too distinguished from the other personality model I mentioned above (they still resort to the same thing, after all, which is nigger-worship), it is just that there's an immediate attempt to impress. For the Norwood personality model that I mentioned above, negrolatry is an eventual result, but not a stated premise, certainly different from the Chapo Norwood. The approach of the Chapo type vis-a-vis normalcy is a little harder to pin down, because their vision of normalcy is part Cool Nigger and part Reasonable American Who's Had Enough of The Bullshit. They can use both interchangeably if they intend on making the appeal to normalcy.
This was a little longer than I expected. I hope it all ties together.