Get more from Mr. Humble | Blacksite Literature™ on Patreon
“ARE YOU AN ADULT? ARE YOU REALLY?”
Not a recap. A gut check.
If your idea of “maturity” is clutching pearls over the word fuck while doomscrolling war footage, you’ve already failed the test.
This piece rips the mask off adult cosplay -- the LinkedIn profile with the sippy-cup mentality -- and drags language policing for what it is: mass infantilization disguised as virtue.
It calls bullshit on the safe-space Olympics, the fake politeness hustle, and the idea that avoiding “naughty words” makes you good. It doesn’t. Monsters say “please.” Villains say “darn.” Real adults swear when it’s true -- in grief, in love, in pain -- because they’ve earned it.
If you’ve bled, buried, or broken and still think the problem is syntax? You’re not an adult. You’re a hall monitor in a meat suit.
This isn’t about swearing. It’s about owning reality. And if that makes you flinch, you’re still applying for life.
🧠 Read more respect-coded doctrine and emotional architecture at:
👉 https://linktr.ee/ObeyMyCadence
🛡️ Masculine polarity. Scrolltrap psychology. Unforgiven words.
🚪 This one made a kindergarten teacher cry, a Marine clap, and a therapist blush. All at once.
In Europe, the word holiday can refer to what in America is called a vacation, which of course can occur whether or not the vacation falls o
Nietzsche's ideas on how resentment can disguise itself by donning a patina of apparent kindness shed some light on why so many people in the U.S. suddenly switch to the generic, "Enjoy YOUR holiday" or "Happy holidays" when Christmas is the next national (and public) holiday on deck. "We can't say 'Christmas party;' it's a 'HOLIDAY party,'" a Yale employee once INFORMED me. See: https://thewordenreport-mycorner.blogspot.com/2025/01/enjoy-your-holiday-on-weaponization-of.html
The modern morality of “You’re on my time; I’m not paying you to lounge around” is very different. It is the indignity of a man who feels he’s being robbed. A worker’s time is not his own; it belongs to the person who bought it. Insofar as an employee is not working, she is stealing something for which the employer paid good money (or, anyway, has promised to pay good money for at the end of the week). By this moral logic, it’s not that idleness is dangerous. Idleness is theft.
abigailrcjacob replied to your post “also I really can’t handle it when I explain why I’m so frazzled and...”
You know, I've really started to observe that our culture thinks "busyness" is a virtue and it's really not. You tell a group of friends "Oh, I'm so busy" and instantly you get people chatting with you but being too busy isn't something to want or aspire to. America worships productivity but that's often at the expense of the person.
yes, exactly. it’s not just that busy-ness is a virtue, it is that industry is the only virtue. it doesn’t matter what you think about, only what you accomplish. i can’t be idle, ever, even though my mind needs a certain amount of down time just to process experiences into inspiration.
It’s worse, for me, if I am not punching a clock. The times in my life I’ve been unemployed or underemployed, the pressure rachets up. Now, when I’m working half-time at a volunteer job, I have to constantly prove that I’m not just slacking off-- no, I’m working, I’m working so hard-- it’s usually 12-hour days, and virtually no leisure time. Last time I was unemployed, I made myself write 100 hours a week.
Even my leisure activities-- I can’t enjoy something if it doesn’t leave me anything to show for it. This is why I don’t watch TV or play games. I sew, because that has an end result. I write, because you can point to a word count at least.
I don’t even really read books anymore-- I always feel like I have to justify the extravagance of time spent.
Industry is the only virtue. Nothing matters but what you can produce. Justify your existence, or don’t exist.
And if you tell someone how overwhelmed you are, they then have to see you and raise you, or else you’ve won this idiot game.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher in the later 1800s whose main focus in his philosophy was to trace the origins of modern morality. He grew up with a Lutheran minister for a father, but ended up being an atheist and having some very interesting ideas on where religion came from, and the morality spurned by its arrival. He believed that human beings are characterized by the will to power. This is the will to give shape to things, or give form to things. There are two things that can be given shape: objects in nature, or other people. Shaping other people means shaping human nature. It can take the form of education, advertising, political structures shaping a society. We can also shape ourselves, with self-education, or physically with exercise. The strength of our will to power determines the outcome of the act. If we have a strong will we will succeed (or are more likely to), and if we have a weak will we will not.
Nietzsche, in his search for the origins of modern morality, looked to our wills to power which pervade our existence as humans, and looked for their expression in ancient societies. In most ancient societies there were two main groups of people vying for control: priests and nobles. The Nobles had strong wills to power directed outwardly. They directed their power to shaping other people. They did so violently, with the conquest of other places and conquering of other people. The priests had equally strong wills, but these were directed inward toward shaping themselves. They would deny themselves pleasures and inflict pain on themselves in the effort to change themselves. The nobles usually ended up on top of this structure, and therefore got to define good and bad for their people. They started by defining what was good, then defined bad as an afterthought. They defined good, naturally, as what they were: strong, with wills directed outward violently. They then defined bad as everything else, meaning weakness, or inward, non-violent wills.
The priests then wanted to spread this transvaluation of values to slaves all over the world because they knew the other oppressed people of the world would like the morality they created. The problem was that pretty much the whole rest of the world hated them because they were Jewish. In order to spread this morality, someone had to agree with it who was not a Jew. They found their opportunity in Jesus Christ; they allowed him to preach their morality, but then ostracized him so that other people would accept him as an enemy of the Jews. Once enough large groups of slaves and other oppressed people found this morality, they were able to overthrow the nobles in sheer number. This was the slave revolt; the overthrowing of the nobles by the people they oppressed, spurned by this new slave morality. This is the morality that pervades to this day.
Nietzsche is critical of this morality, firstly because in order for this morality to work, those who believe it have to put forth denials. First they had to deny their own weakness; the fact that they couldn’t fight back, and the only way they could was by overpowering them as a mob. They have to believe that they are strong, they just choose not to use their strength in an outward or violent way, and that this somehow makes them better than their oppressors. Nietzsche says that they are wrong, and in reality there are no choices. One is, or is not strong, and there is no way to change it or choose to be otherwise. Next they must deny their hatred of their oppressors, and their desire for revenge. They substitute this hatred of their oppressors for hatred of injustice. They substitute their desire for revenge with a desire for justice.
Nietzsche also criticizes this morality because in order for it to work, and for them to deny their weakness and hatred, the Jews had to come up with something else to blame for their lack of action. They had to invent some reason for them to feel like they shouldn’t be violent and strong willed outwardly, something that loved justice and hated injustice as much as they said they did. What they created was God. The nobles elevated their ancestors to the level of Gods and attributed their power to them, sacrificing to them to pay the debt they felt they had because their ancestors were attributed with the power that got them where they were in society. When the Jews started feeling like they had a right to power themselves, they needed a God to support their morality as well. When their morality succeeded, the Jews saw that their God had defeated any other Gods, which made their God the true God. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was proof to all who followed their morality that they were right, because who they saw as God’s son had just paid off their debt, and only a God who truly loved Justice would do that.
Nietzsche says that this morality has allowed for the flourishing of mediocre human beings. He says that we weed out any exceptional people because if anyone shows any sign of aggression and not agreeing with our morality, they usually end up in jail. In addition, those who have strong wills who would otherwise have violent tendencies are afraid of society’s wrath and therefore are forced to turn their anger and violence inward. This, Nietzsche says, is incredibly unhealthy. So this morality has created a boring society with a ton of unhealthy people running around beating themselves up for something that people used to be praised for.
Instead of this current morality, Nietzsche says that we should try and return partially to the morality of the nobles. He says that the battle should happen within, and there should be both moralities at war in each of us. He says this will make the world much more interesting, and help people to stop internally harming themselves when they want to be outwardly angry and violent at others. He seems to hope for a world where people aren’t punished for being strong willed, but are not oppressed for being weak willed or inwardly strong willed either.
Nietzsche’s claims actually make a lot of sense to me. I see it around us all the time. The history makes sense, though I’m not sure I agree with his ideas of the creation of religion only because I don’t see solid evidence for it like I do his other claims and the timeline doesn’t quite match up. I do like the idea of how Gods were created through the importance of ancestors in pre-modern times. I think it is valid that the religious overthrew the nobles and their morality became the norm. I see this everywhere. The Christian morality is the dominant one in western culture. It is even shown in laws. Anyone who is seen to disagree with it is indeed looked down on, and anyone who hurts someone is punished in some way or form. I see a lot of people internalizing hatred and violent anger toward others rather than expressing it, and it has created a lot of mental stress. People express their strong, societally taboo wills to power in small ways which show that people do still have these urges. Games like cards against humanity. Sports where people literally fight each other or tackle each other while people watch. All of these show me that Nietzsche is correct in thinking that strong-willed people are now the oppressed members of society. I also agree that the world would be a healthier, more interesting place if both moralities were acceptable. However, I think this ideal is a long way off. The majority of people are weak or internally fixated, and this mob will not easily let the minority of people with strong outward wills take over without a fight.
Though it will be a long time before this new morality has a chance, there are many people who do have this dichotomy within them already. People with open minds. People who find ways to exert their aggression without hurting others, but not internalizing to the point of poor mental health. I think an ideal society in Nietzsche’s mind would be full of people who accepted their aggressive tendencies as they were and found ways to exert that aggression without hurting other humans or themselves, but also valued the weak and did not oppress them. It would be a world full of acceptance and health, and maybe even abundance. It might even be perfect. Whether this is possible or not, though, only time will tell.
