>>126873869She could be bi, which I'd be fine with, I feel like it wouldn't be so cringy and performative with her for some reason. For now only Brett is viable
>>126876523>the idea of the elite floating around in various societies for millenniaInaccurate.
The modern "elite" is not the same elite of pre-modern civilizations.
Framing the elite as this big sinister cloud of obscure, untraceable influence is VERY modern, only could have come from ideologically egalitarian democratic societies such as ours, where people expect and idealize being captains of their own ships.
In Rome, Axum, Victorian Britain, The Elite were very transparently The Elite, your social betters, controlling the course of your civilization because that's just how it is and should be. They were aristocrats, nobles, royals, generally wealthy families.
The negative connotation "elites" has and the nebulousness with which it is directed hasn't always been there, there was no need for being conspiratorial - you just assumed your lord, who had no need to hide wealth and title, has power over you, had your life in his hands.
So arguably, the concept of the "elite" is not millennia-old. Try a couple centuries, at MOST.
This is not simply a semantic nitpick. This is conceptual. People millennia ago in Assyria did not think the same about society as us
>expecting a straight answer shows that you are low IQThinking that's a good insult shows that you yourself have have low IQ, or alternatively, are a child, or socially maladjusted in a way that you are as of yet unaware.
Are you a nerd-bully in some kind of Disney Channel tween sitcom?
>"they" is simply a catch-all phraseWhich is not good enough.
Conspiracy theorists claim to know the inner workings of the world, and yet fail to specifically outline how the logistics of their theories actually play out. Evading specificity gives them space to make outlandish ad-hoc claims that are just vague enough to be unverifiable, indistinguishable from bullshit