http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-2016-cycle-being-battle-for.html

if you think that being addicted to nicotine is some kind of exercise of freedom, you're a complete fucking idiot. full stop.

freedom is the right to fresh air.

cancer sticks are slavery.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/07/j-reacts-to-hillary-clintons-insistence.html

i actually think that the time-out, combined with the serve, was something i sort of needed.

i need to slow down a little bit and make sure i'm only applying for apartments that are actually solutions to the problem.

and, i don't expect that they're going to be able to get me out of here any time soon, either - or at least not legally.

i have an appointment tomorrow. it seems like it's non-smoking. and, if it is, it may be the first chance i get to see the type of unit i actually want.

i was thinking about that this afternoon. while i have put several applications down, none of them have really been what i actually wanted. what i'm going to see tomorrow is potentially the first opportunity to see what i actually want.

i could potentially set up a fake did and use a fake voice, but i could be blowing a chance if i get caught.

and, i need a potential landlord to understand that i'm an introvert on disability for anxiety, i spend all day at home by myself and i don't have or want any friends. i can't have them misunderstanding what i'm like, and then expecting me to be a social butterfly.

given that my situation of conflict with a landlord is common, what do most people do?

most people bullshit their references.

they give them a friend or family member's number, and just lie through their teeth about it.

so, this whole process of reference providing and reference checking largely reduces to the ability to get somebody to lie on your behalf. that's what an employer or landlord is really checking up on.

and, that's the actual problem i have - i don't have anybody i can get to lie for me.

but, how stupid is this? what is the purpose of determining if somebody can get another to lie on their behalf?

only capitalism, right?

i've had this problem for years around references in a wide variety of contexts, and i've never been able to figure out what the point of it is.

if i'm applying for a new job, it's because i don't like my current job, right? so, why would you ask the people i'm bailing on for their opinion of me? i obviously don't like them, so what difference does it make if they like me or not? why wouldn't you ask me of my opinion of them? isn't that what's important?

likewise, if i'm looking for a new apartment, it's because i don't like the one i'm in. so, why would you ask the landlord i'm moving away from? of what value is their opinion of me? why wouldn't you ask me what i think of them? isn't that the important thing?

i'm a clean non-smoker that is trying to get out of a dirty apartment building that is full of drug addicts and heavy smokers, with a landlord that sells drugs to the tenants and refuses to address the smoke complaints. i've sued and won a rent reduction and an end to the lease. yet, they want to call this landlord and ask them for a reference? it's surreal & ridiculous.

the landlord should be arrested and put in jail, not quizzed on their opinion of the situation.

but, this isn't unexpected, and i'm well aware that i'm going to need to find somebody that isn't interested in references and/or is willing to look at actual evidence, rather than ask the problem in the scenario what their opinion is.

if i got along with my landlord, why would i move?

no. really.

why would anybody move, if they got along with their landlord?

so, doesn't the premise of somebody telling you "i'm moving" presuppose a conflict with their existing landlord? why else would they move?

as expected, the application was declined.

i can supposedly get the money order tomorrow...

i actually suspect it was declined several days ago, and she was holding on to it, hoping to keep it. i'm not surprised or disappointed by any of this - it was a shot in the dark, and it might not have even worked out well. the annoying thing is that i lost a week that i could have spent looking.

i haven't seen anything i'd really jump at, although i'm obviously going to have to spend the day calling.

it seems as though i very well may have to actually file this appeal on the 28th.

it's one thing to give a marginalized group a voice, and then completely ignore them. that is the typically "enlightened" liberal perspective - let them speak, they add "diversity" and "culture", and then just walk away and completely ignore them.

this is the status quo on the pseudo-left. but, this is deeply patronizing and deeply racist.

it is another thing to listen to the voices of the marginalized with goodwill, and make a good faith effort to take them into consideration. this ought to be the preferable approach, at face value. but, anybody who has actually done this has learned how impossible it is to stay consistent with an ideologically left approach and listen to these group at the same time - which is why they're so often ignored in the first place.

so, we're left with a pointless choice between ignoring them altogether and infantilizing them into something that isn't worth taking seriously, because you can't take a group seriously when they show up at a science conference and start taking about great spirits - you have to approach them with some patronizing concept of fiduciary obligation and patiently wait to ignore them, or you have to continue to marginalize them.

what you want is for these groups to be able to come to the table and be able to represent their interests using modern language, with an understanding of modern science and modern law. but, you probably realize they wouldn't be marginalized any more if they could stand up and speak for themselves, right?

i don't think that the liberals of past eras were wrong in pointing to education as a way out. today, we point to mary wollstonecraft as the originator of feminism for pointing out the idea that what women need is equal access to education, but we attack people who made similar arguments about indigenous groups as racists and colonialist wasters. it's not an inconsistency, it's an inversion; it's repressed racism for us to continue to cast them away as the other, and then justify that as an "embrace of diversity". if we saw therm as equals, we would insist on educating them so they can stand up for themselves, not let them languish aimlessly in their own ignorance, and then steal their resources when they can't present a defence of them.

it's not what we did that was wrong, it was how we did it. and, it is the how that we should be adjusting, not the what. because, the endpoint of education and modernization is the correct one, and the correct way for these groups to save themselves - and help the rest of us save the planet.