I guess I take things too literally. Then again, maybe I’m just not up on new-speak. You know, where words have a meaning that is arbitrarily assigned by the speaker. It is the listener’s fault if understanding fails. Take this “Daily Mail” article about doomsday proof bunkers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7837713/Luxurious-doomsday-proof-bunkers-alluring-ultra-wealthy.html
This particular doomsday bunker is a converted cold war missile silo. This would not be my first choice in choosing a sanctuary. Chances are multiple nuclear warheads are targeted on the site, from the time when it was a missile site. Sure, it has been forty years since the site was deactivated. Does anybody really believe the bureaucracy has caught up and taken it off the targeting list?
Dooms Day Bunker
Dooms Day Bunker and Penthouse, Mutually Exclusive Terms?
The author is so taken with the concept of conspicuous consumption, that common sense has left the building. The people marketing the doomsday bunker offer a “Penthouse Suite.” Think about that a moment. This is what I think of when penthouse suite is mentioned.
Life is good, looking down on the little people. But we are talking doomsday. I think most doomsday scenarios would change the view significantly. For example:
It is probably just me. In choosing a survival shelter, penthouse, top of the heap, is not a selling point. I want to be as deep as possible.
The article has photos of medical facilities, a dentist chair, hydroponic gardens, and all sorts of stuff to make life bearable. What it doesn’t show is the riff-raff to run that stuff.
I haven’t watched more than thirty seconds of any of the dystopian dramas on TV. It appears nobody knows how to turn on the lights, make cloth or sew clothes, soap making is long forgotten. However, from what I have seen in those dramas the bunker marketers have not addressed a vital infrastructure component. This is likely a fatal flaw in their marketing plan.
If the incongruities in the doomsday bunker article don’t bother the reader, then the following items will make perfect sense.
• A college diversity-training course taught that it was culturally insensitive to expect people to be on time.
• University researchers demanded that we accept people who “identify as real vampires.”
• A Seattle-area councilman was concerned about the city hosing poop off of its sidewalks because he thought that it might seem too racially insensitive.
• A professor claimed that the small chairs in preschools are sexist, “disempowering,” and “problematic.”
• A school in Seattle reportedly insisted that Easter eggs be called “spring spheres.”
• A group of Berkeley students insisted that they could not take their in-class exam due to their lack of privilege.
• A campus Christian club was found guilty of discrimination for requiring its leaders to be Christians.
• Oxford University law students were told that they didn’t have to learn about rape or violence law if they found it too triggering.
