More midden, more midden, have a look an' here we go...

I was re-reading that old articleⁱ (as part and parcel of the research required by the previous one, though no reference made it through) ; and...

Well, come to think about them... it's difficult to avoid the self-obvious observation that Seinfeld the TV show is perfectly descriptive of the 70s generationⁱⁱ : a minority of "succesful" shy & inept dorks constitutingⁱⁱⁱ the Seinfeld (or whatever you're used to calling them : "the left", "liberals", impostor-syndrome-sufferers, Dad, pick your own vocabulary) and a majority of "unsuccesful", equally shy & inept dorks constituting the George (aka MAGA or w/e). Most of the show's tropes eminently apply : takes two of them to almost-kinda hold a woman down, "I'm not an orgy guy"^iv, it's really all there.

The only problem is... why exactly were the "successful" minority "successful" ?

There's no answer to be had. Why the unsuccessful were unsuccessful can readily be answered, by me or most anyone else. Their glaring inadequacies, shortcomings and altogether fecal composition are quite fucking painfully obvious, even if one's trying to look down from as far as the god damned Moon. All these answers'd be wrong, though : the "successful" are exactly the same! If presented with a Tupperware container full of rotten caserole aside a Tupperware container full of "perfectly fine" caserole, you can't say the rotten's rotten "because Tupperware sucks" : both had the same. Sure, in general "Tupperware sucks" might be an explanation as to why food in general went over ; but in the case at hand it's no kind of answer. "It's store-bought" fares no better in this light, nor does "it was kept in the fridge" etcetera. If the problem's to be earnestly approached as posed, one's forced to admit the loser's objection : yes he's a loser because he's a loser and a loser is a loser ; nevertheless this requires calling the other a loser too, and just as much, for the same exact reasons. Maybe then they could all be... equally successful ? Why keep the terminology in the negative ? Something relatively far away's correspondingly close from a "better" chosen vantage, and therefore... see ? Make America Socialist Again! Like it actually was, back in 1950! "War economy" and all that, they liked it fine. Time for a REBOOT!!!!

If nothing else, it'd be eminently ethical. Rite ?

1. Though meanwhile... [↩]
2. Or whatever your prefered nomenclature for "lumpens of 1970s vintage". [↩]
3. titu-ting da fuck word's that! [↩]
4. GEORGE: So what happened? She throw you out? Eh?
   JERRY: No actually, she took it pretty well.

   GEORGE: So what happened?
   JERRY: She's into it.

   GEORGE: Into what?
   JERRY: The menage. And not only that. She just called me and said she talked to the roommate, and the roomate's into the manage too!

   GEORGE: That's unbelievable.
   JERRY: Oh, it's a scene, man.

   GEORGE: Do you ever just get down on your knees and thank god that you know me and have access to my dementia?
   JERRY: What are you talking about? I'm not going to do it.

   GEORGE: You're not goin to do it? What do you mean, You're not goin to do it?
   JERRY: I can't. I'm not an orgy guy.

   GEORGE: Are you crazy? This is like discovering Plutonium ... by accident.
   JERRY: Don't you know what it means to become an orgy guy? It changes everything. I'd have to dress different. I'd have to act different. I'd have to grow a mustache and get all kinds of robes and lotions and I'd need a new bedspread and new curtains I'd have to get thick carpeting and weirdo lighting. I'd have to get new friends. I'd have to get orgy friends... Nah, I'm not ready for it.

   GEORGE: If only something like that could happen to me.
   JERRY: Oh shut up, you couldn't do it either.

   GEORGE: I.... know. [↩]