alter-reality update

i have finished the listening through the sansa, as well as the first run through the laptop. i don't see any use in updating this here because it's monotonous. it's in the vlog.

but, i'm also pushing forward with the alter-reality for the day.

1) new blog post:

sept 1, 1996

there is no code to get into enriched classes, but i wish there was one....

happy new year!

well, it's not really the new year, i guess, but it kind of feels like it. the roman calendar is heliocentric and resets when the sun reverses course and starts coming back towards us. how did we escape the victorian era without reconfiguring the calendar to the start of the school year, anyways? there are new beginnings to be found in the innocence of youth. yet, maybe such a concept of yearly rebirth was a little too pagan.

it's labour day tomorrow, which means i go back to school on tuesday. i'll be starting grade ten. it's not just a new year, though: i'm also being sent to nerd school. yuck :(. this is not consensual!

it's a little bit of my own fault, though. i tend to fool around in class. a lot. while i get almost solid As, the kids i'm distracting are not doing nearly as well. one may kneejerk into blaming the kids with the lower marks, but i've actually been fingered repeatedly as the root cause of the distractions. so, i'm a kind of an enigma. they haven't been able to figure out what to do with me; while they ought to expel me based on my behaviour, they just can't justify it because i'm an A student. what happened around the end of last year was that a cabal of teachers conspired with my parents to take me out of advanced courses and put me into enriched classes. the argument is that i'll be less bored that way, but that, more importantly, i won't be so much of a distraction to the students around me. everybody should win out...

...except that i know that the reality of it is that i'm actually going to be even more bored because i'm going to have to hang out with the nerds all of the time. the thing is that the nerds aren't really nerds. if they were legit nerds, i'd probably like them. the legit nerds are all in the advanced courses. what the enriched class "nerds" actually are are really the rich kids and they're actually mostly wannabe jocks. these are the kids that walk around in sports jerseys but can't make the school team. the only reason that most of them got separated out is because their parents demanded they get special treatment. there was no testing. there were no interviews. entry to enriched classes is dependent solely on maintaining an A average and being recommended by a teacher, which only happens with outside pressure. there are plenty of students in the advanced stream with higher grade averages.

how do i get out of this? well, i didn't have the choice. my parents would never do this to me under normal circumstances, but the cabal of teachers was absolutely insistent and they ultimately relented. the only way out of this next year is to get Bs this year. nobody's going to care, right? nobody's going to check my grade ten marks, right? i'm already thinking about a scorched earth policy...

what about the last week?

well, i picked up the new pearl jam record, no code. to be entirely honest, i'm kind of still processing it. i'm not too young to remember early pearl jam, but i'm pretty close; i was ten years old when ten was released (oddly enough...) and not really a fan of what i interacted with. i liked jeremy, but it was a distant appreciation rather than an active experience. i didn't like the other singles nearly as much. you have to understand that the headspace i was in at the time was not very open to anything that might be interpreted as "heavy metal". the reason is that i was growing up with a set of influences that saw metal as the refuge of violent drunks and uneducated losers. it took me a few years to realize that i was actually conflating an idea with it's anti-thesis and that my inability to differentiate between pearl jam and guns 'n' roses (and grunge and glam, more generally) was really just youthful ignorance on my behalf. in fact, pearl jam was exactly the kind of rock band i could get into, i just didn't realize it. i was eventually able to get into vs a little near the end of it's run, but it wasn't until vitalogy was released that i was actively converted into a fan. on some level, and notwithstanding my age, i may be a better actualization of what the band really desires as a fan. but, that itself - combined with my near violent aversion to 80s metal - makes me a very atypical listener. i actually tend to prefer their more experimental tendencies, as well as their punk sensibilities, over the cliches and muscular riffs. of their four released records, i like ten the least! but, the thing i like about pearl jam the most is actually the lyrics.

i'm finding this new record to really be pretty good on the few listens i've had over all night civ 2 sessions. it's kind of uneven, though, and i'm not sure how it's going to ultimately hold up as a result of it. vitalogy was also uneven, but it wasn't as pronounced. see, the flip of that is that some of the high points on no code are just that much stronger. the irony is that this exaggerates the weakness of the weaker tracks, which makes it less cohesive, overall. i'm still enjoying the record, mind you. i just wish they had cut a few of the slower tracks out. i don't mean the artsy ones, i mean the rural ones: off he goes & around the bend, specifically.

something, i did listen to a lot of in the early 90s, though, was REM, who were definitely my favourite band. so, i'm super hyped about the new REM album. i didn't like monster as much as their older stuff. it seemed kind of shallow, to me, in comparison. it didn't breathe or flow and kind of got boring under the monotony. but, i really really like the new single...

i don't know who the female singer is, though. is she actually singing or is she just an actress?

i've also been spending a lot of time in the recording studio in the basement. on the last update, i wondered out loud whether i should keep waiting for band members or just go ahead and start recording on my own. i've decided that i will be recording songs on my own with the intent of teaching them to other people when they're done. in fact, i have already finished my first song! in my next post, i will provide links to stream my very first song, recorded in my basement studio over the last week.

http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/09/there-is-no-code-to-get-into-enriched_1.html

2) second part of the blog post:

sept 1, 1996

external links to recorded music

this is my very first recording!

i initially wrote this song in the wee hours of a morning in 1995, where it was recorded for future use by notating it on loose leaf (using a mix of tablature and chord blocks). it was slowly mutated into a final form over the next few years through solitary performance, and was eventually recorded in the summer of 1996.

the dream in the song is something that actually happened, although the concept was exaggerated for the track. there is a clear underlying misanthropy. but, it's more hands-off than the term usually implies. the song is not about starting fires, it's about not interfering in fires that are burning. all young people contemplate ways they can make a difference and "save the world" - literally or figuratively. but, is the world really worth saving?



i've also set up a youtube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXlH5Ds5mqClkdAUFJwQCNQ/

http://therealinri.blogspot.com/1996/09/external-links-to-recorded-music.html

3) the alter-reality bandcamp site is now up and running:
https://jnrj.bandcamp.com

4) the alter-reality youtube page will be up soon, too:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXlH5Ds5mqClkdAUFJwQCNQ/

i'll be back to listening soon, too.

jessica
even a two-year old can reason that maximizing utility with toys is not portable to moralizing questions about a train wreck in real life, which he likely can't even really fathom. the only teachable moment here is that he doesn't understand the question.

fwiw, the right answer is to try and pull the train off the tracks. and, i'm not missing the point.

sm901ftw
But what about the guys in the train you just derailed?

jessica
i don't think that derailing the train decreases their chances of surviving an impact.

sm901ftw
If you're saying the right answer to the trolley problem is to forcibly derail the train while it's in motion, then the train will probably crash hard. There's a good chance some people on the train are going to die or suffer serious injury in the crash.

This of course assumes we're considering an actual train with passengers to kill.

jessica
i realize that derailing the train is going to cause it to crash hard. but, it's going to crash hard, anyways. that is a constant through all scenarios.

sm901ftw
Maybe. I don't think hitting someone would cause the train to derail. Idk but I imagine suicide/murder by train would be much less common if it also frequently derailed the trains.

Even then it still doesn't change the moral question much. The only difference in the new scenario is now you have to chose between total inaction, actively minimising the number of deaths (changing to hit the 1 person) or actively trying to save everyone but by putting the most people at risk to do so (forced derailment).

jessica
no, you're not...

the train is going to crash under all circumstances. what happens after it runs over the one person? it crashes. it's out of control. it will crash. so, derailing the train minimizes the risk of harm to only those on board, which is the best possible outcome.

i would actually argue that it doesn't matter if you pull the switch or not, because i wouldn't value six lives as more important than one. in the typical formulation of the problem, i would argue you should do nothing, say something about how shit happens and go smoke a joint. there's simply no positive course of action and you shouldn't pretend that there is. that's not rare, either.

but, if you can get the train off the tracks before it hits anybody, you're accomplishing something.

sm901ftw
Is the train definitely out of control? I've heard so many versions of this problem I can't say for sure which is the original anymore.

If you know it's out of control then you have a good point, but unless you're on the train you have no idea whether it's a runaway or the driver just hasn't seen the people on the track. Also I wasn't making any judgement on which action is best. I was just saying you seemed to be treating causing a crash as an objectively better decision than letting it hit anyone. There're moral implications no matter what you do.

Plus I think the point of the problem is to discuss whether actively causing a little harm is acceptable when the alternative is passively allowing a lot of harm to occur. In that sense derailing the train can still be regarded as actively causing harm, just to different people. Whether they're at risk regardless isn't the point so much as whether you pull the trigger. Or at least that's how I interpret it.

jessica
well, if there's a way to stop the train then there's no dilemma: you stop the train. that you can't stop the train is the basis of the problem. it follows that the crash is unavoidable, and i'm not measuring outcomes so much as minimizing harm.

i want to be clear: i'm not saying the crash is morally preferable. i'm claiming it's unavoidable. it's consequently the only way to interfere that is objectively preferable.

what you're constructing is what i'm rejecting, and why i'm not missing the point. the answer is no: it is not acceptable to play god. you are neither causing nor preventing harm. you are redistributing it. you don't have the right to make the choice to kill somebody to prevent the deaths of others. it's not up to you to make that choice. you should walk away from the situation altogether.

what i'm saying is that if you can't stop the train, you should do nothing at all. but, you should also try to stop the train, somehow.

sm901ftw
I'm not trying to drag this out, but I genuinely don't see why the crash is confirmed as unavoidable. Unless you're in the drivers seat you can't be sure the train is out of control. I was always told the problem in the sense that the train won't stop in time, but is still functional and capable of stopping at some point i.e. the train is fine but the people are around a corner and not in sight.

All you have control of at the switch is which way the train goes and supposedly a way to derail it. You have to work on the assumption that the train won't stop in time to prevent someone being run over. You aren't in a position to know whether the train is a runaway and can't be saved after it's hit someone.

jessica
you're not changing the logic of the situation. for the sake of argument, if i concede the point, even though i don't think it makes any sense, then the correct answer remains non-interference.

i've never heard a drake song, and i just learned he's an actor roughly four seconds ago. #notamillennial.

#extremelywhite

the new youtube rules are not going to bother me, because i don't upload for the cash, anyways.

but i think, in the end, that youtube may find that the family-friendly market is less lucrative than it thinks.

this is an error. it could produce a set of serious competitors.

i don't have a problem with it. people just don't get the business model.

youtube is selling advertising space, not acting as a speech platform. they give you a cut of their revenue, but they don't even have to, really. it's just an incentive for you to upload. in the end, you're just being used as a conduit.

the actual financial transaction that occurs is that youtube sells space in your videos to advertisers. it's consequently entirely up to the advertisers as to whether they want to be associated with your videos or not. i think that's in their rights. and, if the advertisers don't want to be associated with you? that's their choice.

imagine your girlfriend breaking up with you because she doesn't like your politics. is that censorship? no. you have every right to keep talking. she just doesn't want to hang out with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbph5or0NuM

this playlist may increase in size.

no biggie.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2aP4aFlcpTsPI6eSTBAlPyf

j reacts to the elite's misunderstood plan for climate change

nononono, you don't under...

the elite does have a plan to deal with the trillions of dollars required to adjust to climate change. that plan is to profit from the trillions of dollars required to adjust to climate change.

when the floods come in, that's pay day!

j reacts to bernie sanders being a dirty, rotten sellout (or not...)

see, here's the thing: i was never actually opposed to money in politics in the first place. money changing hands doesn't bother me. what bothers me is not knowing who is giving money to who.

canada has much stricter laws. i've posted here about some of the ways that you can get around those laws. i don't think writing more laws is the answer in either country.

what i'd like to see is transparency, and a culture that upholds it. so, if a candidate wants to take money from wall street or the oil industry or the weapons industry, then that's ok - so long as they tell me so i can look it up. i would be highly unlikely to vote for such a candidate on the basis of them having a conflict of interest. that's what we need, here: a culture that rejects conflicts of interest as unacceptable, not more laws to be dodged while an apathetic voting base shrugs. jefferson articulated this position by calling for an educated populace.

so, when sanders says he wants to take money, it doesn't bother me a priori. but, i would push him to ban anonymous contributions and to lead the way in transparently publishing the source of every dime that comes in. i want who, how much and (where possible) why. that way, the media and the public can see for themselves where the money is coming from and decide whether a conflict of interest exists. it would be in the organization's interest, then, to be careful about who it accepts money from. but, that's a part of building trust in good governance.

"the cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate." - thomas jefferson

j reacts to how bad polling is a compounded, escalating problem

the polls out this week are mostly trash. the best of the bunch is actually the fox poll, although you'd have to expect some bias from fox. the monmouth poll is good, too. even the ppp is trash, methodologically (due to the inclusion of an opt-in internet panel). if you go back through my vlogs, i predicted that this would happen. you're supposed to conclude that they can't all be wrong and then be affected by them. this is the error of aggregate polling: averaging out a lot of trash doesn't give you a better result. it's still trash. garbage in, garbage out. they can all be wrong, and no doubt are.

if we get some better polls in and they show a tightening race, so be it. but, i'm not going to speculate on garbage. i'm just going to throw it in the trash.

can we? really?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/let-talk-infrastructure-since-clinton-000000340.html

j reacts to the media's baffling refusal to understand hegemony

author does not understand hegemony.

"the policeman is there to preserve disorder."

http://www.alternet.org/world/us-policy-killing-kurds

if the kurds are getting too much influence, that must be countered because the goal is not to end the conflict but to continue it. any time anybody gets an advantage, america will step in to reverse it. this is the american goal, here - to ensure that the region is in a state of constant stalemate and perpetual warfare that nobody can possibly break out of.

once the turks have taken the kurds down a notch, the amercans will need to pull the turks back and help the kurds regain the ground that was just lost.

they don't want peace. they want an unending war.

j reacts to the bipartisan demagoguery on mexicans (the deportation force is called ICE)

again: it's hard to see a reason to get involved in the immigration discussion when it's easy to see that they actually basically have the same policy of continuing to provide cheap slave labour to corporate interests while deporting those who escape the plantations, while distracting from the static policy with demagogic rhetoric designed to appeal to different bases.

so, trump uses this wacky right-wing rhetoric to appeal to the xenophobes that want insularity and purity, whereas clinton uses more inclusive rhetoric to appeal to multicultural liberals and the relatives of the migrants, themselves. you can decide which rhetoric you like better if you'd like. but, the rhetoric is designed in both cases to distract from the actual policy, which is basically the same.

trying to erect some kind of meaningful discussion when both sides are blatantly lying is entirely pointless. the discourse just has no connection to the reality.

....which is that the united states already has a deportation police force (called ice) and that neither of them will do anything besides continue the status quo put in place by the 'deporter in chief'.

so, yeah: i may like what clinton says better, but i don't expect that i'll like what she does.

i at least believe her when she says she wants to increase resources to the border. that means hiring more cops, building more detention facilities and hiring more judges. i don't doubt that she agrees that the system is overloaded. i don't doubt that she'll try and make it more efficient.