https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Saturday, February 20, 2016
it would be interesting to see what case law "judge" judy is citing, here. there's a concept in the common law system called due diligence. the legal system is based on stare decisis, not fundamentalist calvinism.
the reaction to this video is just another example of how remarkably ignorant americans are - and, in truth, have always been - about the historical basis of their legal systems. americans, by and large, legitimately want to live under sharia law.
how many times did trump declare bankruptcy, though, anyways?
===
kibblewibble1
This lesson will be lost on Bernie supporters. You make choices, YOU pay for them.
jessica
no, i think i get it. and, that means that when those kids grow up into criminals because they were forced to in order to survive, and they end up smashing up your car, then that's just you paying for your choice to withhold assistance.
Kban13
You can't reason with people like him. If he admits he is wrong, everything he has been brainwashed to believe falls apart. He doesn't believe facts, and keeps spouting the same lies he has been told by fox news. People like him are the reason the rest of the world laughs at America.
jessica
see, the thing is, though, that, on this particular issue, he actually doesn't have to abolish his worldview.
there are very strong arguments why conservatives, especially wealthy ones, should support social assistance. they don't have to stop being wealthy, or stop being conservatives, to come to a common end - even if they need a very different system of logic to get there.
what he's projecting ultimately doesn't benefit anybody. it just leads to a total systems collapse.
and, if you want to talk about a revival of new deal politics, what i'm saying is really fundamentally important.
Shqipëria Etnike
+kibblewibble1
You make choices loooooooooool
What choices do you have when you earn 3x less than you produce in the economy (results by a Harvard University recent study). A lower class American produces 18 dollars an hour and gets paid 7 dollars an hour. The other 11 dollars go to the top 1%. Now how many people are there who are working in America and who get paid less than 18 dollars an hour? Millions. For every 1 million workers the rich get 11 million wealth per hour, and that is a fact for over 50,000,000 american workers. Thats billions per day! Who made these choices? The lower class are no charity. Taking that 11 dollars an hour per person back from the top class is the way to go. Only someone brainwashed from those who take the 11 dollars will want them to keep taking the 11 dollars.
Trust me, the study is only for those who get paid below 18 dollars an hour (majority of Americans), now imagine doing a study for every worker of USA. The top 1% get fatter and fatter in money every second, and you defend them here even though you are the one whose money they are stealing. No comment.
kibblewibble1
+Shqipëria Etnike
In America you have many choices, and that's the point. Here, birth control is as cheap as it gets. Condoms are dirt cheap, the pill, Plan B, and on and on. Personal responsibility is about doing the right thing, and in this case, having more children, and then blaming the "1%" because you can't afford things is the antithesis of that. Ask yourself this question: if i worked hard to remove myself from poverty by doing the right thing, would i be ok with someone arbitrarily setting an amount of money they thought was going to "help" the poor, even if that meant 40% of every dollar I make? Your solution is to simply take money from those you deem rich enough to steal from, and give it freely to others, which ultimately helps no one. It impoverishes one group of people, and only teaches the other group that its ok if they do nothing for themselves, because they can just find someone else to take from. That only works for a little while. We were told by our president that "millionaires" were people who were making 250k a year, and above that was fair game.
I know that Europeans love their socialism, and middle class college kids here love to listen to intellectual professors go on and on about the evils of capitalism, but when push comes to shove, and there are no more rich people to take from, they go down a rung on the ladder. Eventually, if you managed to cling to what you have, they come for you. By then, its too late to say "b-but... I'm not the 1%!" When you look up and see nobody else to take from, these people you railed against the rich to help, will be clawing at your feet and calling for your blood, because you can afford a phone or computer to comment on youtube with, and they can't. If you've ever been dirt poor and climbed your way out, like I have, you learn to despise the theft and vilification, because you know you did the right thing and you're not a bad person. But according to the news, politicians, college kids, and those who didn't do the right thing, you are evil, not caring, and simply a means to an end... and it sucks to see fully capable people turn their noses up at jobs that are "beneath" them, then continue to call for my money. Socialism is evil. Its amoral and destructive. And its designed to keep everyone poor. It elevates NOBODY, and has been proven, time and time again, for the empty promises, stealing, food lines, abject poverty it causes to huge populations, to be a lie.
You're right though, you'll never convince me that stealing from the "rich" and giving to the poor is a good solution... ever.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
You're right... personal freedom and responsibility will ultimately lead to the system collapsing... just look at the havens of freedom that were the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and all the 3rd world socialist societies theoughout the world! We regularly marvel at the beauties of Soviet progress, or all the inventions that come from Cuba, or all the good the Chinese government does in times of need!
I can't wait til I can schedule a vacation to the Soviet Union to see all the wonderful things there!
jessica
+kibblewibble1
ok. kban is right that there's not any use in bothering - but this response isn't reflective of a conservative. this response is reflective of an idiot.
just don't complain to me when your car gets smashed up by poor people - because that's payback for your refusal to share, and you'll have deserved it. no empathy. sorry.
Shqipëria Etnike
+kibblewibble1
Simply put, 1 year in University costs on average 50,000 dollars a year. You need to work enough to produce 150,000 dollars to be able to afford that 1 year at university with the current system, cause 2/3rd of your work will go to the top 1%. That's completely not fair. They are stealing your work by paying you way less than you deserve to be paid. How can you agree with that? Come on, you are producing 50 dollars, getting paid 17 (thats the national average). You are producing 18 dollars, getting paid 7 (thats the lower class). How is that fair? It's not about working and planning, it's about defending your money. Why let the top 1% steal it from you? I will never understand these things about America. Why don't you do it like Europe? Here in Europe you can't become a billionaire by cheating on your people, the only european billionaires have become so by cheating on the chinese in China, which again is not correct. Nobody deserves to earn billions. Every billionaire has become so by stealing what his workers have built Top 1% in USA steals 11 trillion dollars a year from you the people, how can you allow that to happen? Why do you support it? It's not right.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Lol... well your response is absolutely reflective of a "useful idiot". That's what the old Soviet subversives called people like you, not me. I never would've used the word useful to describe you. And don't kid yourself. Once they're done destroying my stuff, assuming i don't shoot them first, they'll come for yours if you have anything left to take.
jessica
+Shqipëria Etnike
see, i agree that you don't get anywhere with conservatives by arguing for moral principles of equality. they have a different value system that's rooted in a calvinist concept of work. "right" and "wrong" have very different meanings to them. morals are relative, and you're just simply not operating with the same concepts of justice.
but, there was a time years ago when conservatives understood that the creation of an underclass necessarily puts their own safety in jeopardy. for a while, they tried the tactics of a police state, but that didn't work, so they moved to social welfare. it wasn't socialists that created the european welfare state, it was conservatives - bismarck & churchill. the point was to reduce dissent.
and, it worked.
the united states started peeling back social welfare in the 80s, and replaced it with things like the drug war and the crime bill. this resulted in the largest prison population in the world - a country with more prisoners per capita, in fact, than china or the soviet union. but, this is very expensive. and, it doesn't result in crime prevention.
again - i don't have a lot of patience. if you don't want to pay for this stuff, you can go ahead and deal with the consequence of high crime rates and high incarceration rates. in the end, it costs you far more to run the prisons than it would to send them to school. and, you get all kinds of unnecessary property damage out of it, while you're at it.
i'm safe and sound up here in canada. your choice - your consequences.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
a useful idiot was a foreign leftist that was tricked into working for the imperial ambitions of the soviets. it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, to use that kind of language, in context. i haven't stated my political affiliations, but i do not identify as a marxist and i'm well aware that i would have been purged by the soviets at the very start - if i wasn't killed fighting in the army that opposed them.
if we can take the context out of the realm of absurdity and back into the realm of reality, we can talk about smarter ways to manage a poor population that is only set to grow with rising automation and decreasing job opportunities. this is a problem that is only going to grow as time moves forwards, and that is going to require distributive approaches to neutralize - whether you like it or not.
or, like i say, you can continue on in the status quo - a system that facilitates pointless criminality, and sinks uncounted trillions into mass incarceration.
you get what you pay for, eh?
kibblewibble1
+Shqipëria Etnike
Like I said, companies do not exist to hand you money. They exist to make themselves money. The wages they pay you, aren't wages until they give it to you, in exchange for work. The amount that comes out to is balanced by how much money they can bring in with their services. This. Is. How. Its. Always. Worked. Of COURSE they are going to pay you like that! If they didn't, they wouldn't make money, go out of business, and you would have NO JOBS. Its up to you (again, personal responsibility) to decide whether your labor is worth what they are paying you. If you think the government will step in and magically force companies to pay you more based solely on "fairness", you can expect those companies to quickly shutter their doors, and leave. And the end result, again, would be NO JOBS. Saying that you could potentially make more money if only they would pay you more is so obvious and ridiculous, nobody ever takes the argument seriously. Them not paying you more isn't them stealing from you! What kind of argument is that? How do you even come to that conclusion?
And universities have artificially inflated tuitions, at least in America, due to subsidizing the loan process. Also, do not be surprised if you waste 4 years of college getting a degree in gender studies, or African dance, and can't get a job to pay back the bloated tuition.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Oh... Canada... Lol now I see. Let's try a few real life examples here.
I have kids who beg me for cell phones. They want the good ones, and since I love them, I say ok. They get them and in a few weeks they have cracked screens. I replace them. A month later, they are cracked again! This time I make them pay to fix them out of their own pockets. You know how many cracked screens they have had since? My kids have actually done lemonade stands to make enough money for tablets! Do you know how many weekends they had to open up a lemonade stand to buy a $250 tablet?? Do you know that the experience was way more valuable than some piece of shit electronic device?
How 'bout another one? You have a family member who tragically becomes addicted to drugs. It was their choice to get addicted, but you want to help them, because its moral and right! After they destroy their lives, steal from you and others, countless arrests, and overdoses, you finally get them in rehab. They come out and maybe they're ok for a little while, and maybe they go right back onto the drugs. Either way, they end up going through the same thing, all over again. The lying, stealing, arrests, overdoses, the whole cycle, all over again. How many times do you go through that? Once? Twice? Every time until they finally OD and you realize you enabled them? Is it moral for you to do this? Everyone makes their own choices. Enable them, or set them free... but then again, you're Canadian... you just elected DUDEWEED. Enough said there...
jessica
+kibblewibble1
all profit is theft. if you were to abolish management (the middle man...), and have the workers run the companies themselves, you would eliminate that theft.
again: this is an argument that you should be able to present to conservatives and actually come out ahead on, as it reduces to eliminating waste. you just have to convince them that management is wasteful and that it's more efficient to get rid of it.
i don't see the relevance of anything you just typed.
but, i need to correct a misperception. i don't want to "help" addicts because it's "moral". i'm a moral nihilist. i don't believe in the existence of an objective morality. but, i'm a secular humanist, which means i think we can construct an artificial morality using logic and reason.
rather, i want to ensure that addicts do not pose a threat to others. i do not care if they use. i do not care if they overdose. i just don't want them smashing up anybody's car to get their fix.
and, empirical study has suggested that the best way to do this is to provide for injection sites.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Lol objective nihilist that has no objective moral code telling me that it's not "right" that people make a profit? Are you taking acid, or are you just retarded? I'm sorry it's come to petty name calling, but people like you who want to push an arbitrary set of rules based on how they feel at the moment, are legitimately mentally deficient... did you not say that conservatives don't know right from wrong? You immediately follow that up with "durr, there is no right or wrong!"
How fucking absolutely retarded do you have to be to live in your world?
How retarded do you think others have to be to accept your world view?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
i'm not making a moral argument; you're the conservative here, you're supposed to be the one into moral arguments. i'm a liberal: i'm trying to convince you that your arguments are not in your own self-interest.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
How bout that? Finally a liberal admits that conservatives are the ones who base their beliefs on morality, rather than some amoral code skewed towards some vague, amorphous, empty set of judgment standards! Thanks, dudeweedlmao! You made my day!
jessica
+kibblewibble1
well, your concept of morality is vapid authoritarianism. yet, this is a centuries-old historical division - i'm merely stating dictionary definitions.
KTAnarchist1
+Shqipëria Etnike
"Simply put, 1 year in University costs on average 50,000 dollars a year.
You need to work enough to produce 150,000 dollars to be able to afford
that 1 year at university with the current system, cause 2/3rd of your
work will go to the top 1%. That's completely not fair."
Citation? No? I suppose that isn't necessary when making bullshit claims. I've gone 4 years at an AACSB accredited university for less than $5,000 per year.
Is it possible that there are universities that are as expensive as you claim? Sure. Is it foolish to attend them at those rates, when there are others with equal accreditation ratings that are far less expensive? Yes. It is.
But, by all means, keep complaining about how it's "rich people's fault" that people make bad decisions and support a university that is ripping them off.
And, for the record, that call for a citation extends to all of your figures. You produce $18 (or $50) per hour, yet only get paid $7 (or $18)? How is that, especially when the minimum wage has been over $7 per hour for years, and no employer could hold their employees if they ever figured out "the truth" as you claim it to be?
Look, I'm no millionaire, but I work my ass off for what I make, and bend over backwards for my customers (since they keep my doors open and my wife and kid fed), and I love my job, and don't spend all of my time bitching about my paycheck, even though I took a $4/hr. cut (not to mention other benefits from previous employment that I've left behind) to be where I am right now.
The owner of my company gets to pick his son up from school, or take his wife out to dinner, in a VERY nice Mercedes that I can't afford, and I don't think he's evil for it, because he built the company from the ground up. I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what I do, with the people I work with, in the locations that we work, if it weren't for him.
The man hasn't stolen a damned thing from me, and has literally given me the clothes I wear to work, at the cost of them not being sold to paying customers.
If anything, I'm jealous that I don't have the means to start my own company, but I wouldn't take a cent from him, or anyone else, that I didn't earn or (intelligently) borrow, in order to do so.
You want to bitch because you think other people are taking your hard-earned money "unfairly," yet you would literally advocate for more of the same, albeit in reverse order, because it either fits your idea of "fairness" or because you think it's going to somehow make everybody equal?
I guess Europe still hasn't figured out irony or hypocrisy. Maybe we should give you guys another millennia to finally understand that there is more to a political/economic spectrum than "collectivist left" and "collectivist right". When you figure out how to put the customer first, and understand that no business keeps their doors open without incoming revenue, you'll have started to figure it out.
Yes, there is evil in the world. People are not inherently evil, even if they are billionaires. Evil is a choice, and its prevalence stems mostly from a lack of proper recognition and confrontation. Wanting to help people? Not evil. Wanting to do so by stealing from others, even with their knowledge and consent? Evil. Theft is not charity, my friend, even if it is theft from "people who can afford it". There are long-term consequences to such policies that will cause greater harm than you seem to understand. When the "evil billionaires" decide to do business elsewhere, all of the non-billionaires who work for them in your economy will find themselves seeking new employment. When entire economic sectors leave or become automated, many of those formerly employed individuals may be unable to find adequate employment. This only worsens the problem, in the long run.
Most people will give until it hurts, for the right cause (which is an individual concept). Beyond that point, they will stifle their own empathy, and walk away. If you think a billionaire, or even a millionaire, is any different, you're likely to find out the hard way that they will seek out greener pastures, and that they have the means to leave yours behind.
America has already learned this with our manufacturing sector, through bad trade deals and collectivist government fuckery.
Godspeed to your honorable endeavors, and have a nice day.
KTAnarchist1
+jessica
"we can talk about smarter ways to manage a poor population that is only
set to grow with rising automation and decreasing job opportunities.
this is a problem that is only going to grow as time moves forwards, and
that is going to require distributive approaches to neutralize -
whether you like it or not"
This is where we address the concept of an "information based economy". Surely you've heard of this.
It does not require "distributive approaches", only changes in educational conceptualization and application.
But if someone were to believe that the current educational system is the only possibly effective system, then it is understandable that they would not see this.
Why not teach children the things we spend 13 years teaching them (inadequately) in less than 13 years in a more effective manner? Certainly this is possible. Then, if we insist on maintaining this "you don't work until x age" concept, we focus on vocational training at that age, based upon IQ, aptitudes, and personal student preferences?
Granted, this is quite a shift, but it would prepare new high school graduates for their place in the economy and provide the whole economy the benefit of having ready candidates for a variety of areas, who understand that it is what they know, and whether it is valuable, marketable knowledge, that will determine their "fate" as a working person.
It wouldn't change much in the collegiate realm, and it might actually reduce the number of people who will attempt to attend a college or university despite being entirely unsuited to the effort.
Does it create a hierarchy of ability? No, it simply makes the best use of the hierarchy of ability that is inherent in humans.
Not every child is born an Olympic gold medal winner. Not every child is born a chess master. Not every child is born to be a television star. Those who are not will need a solid ground from which to build their future.
The "distributive approach" is as ineffective, in the long run, as it is immoral in the immediate now.
I will gladly cede that progress is necessary, but I will not agree that the current "progressive" movement is anything but a rehashing of the failed policies that are over a century old, and proven to fail in varying degrees, to the exact degree of implementation, every single time they have been implemented.
The "distributive approach" is not new, and is not worth repeating. Someone here claimed that "the socialists were not responsible for...", and that person is dead wrong. Government controlled employment is welfare, and the Third Reich (among others) excelled in that area, but I single out the Third Reich because you can't properly say "National-socialist German Workers' Party" without using the word "socialist".
The collectivist extreme is communism, and socialism is simply communism wearing soft gloves. The degree of collectivist application determines the padding, but at the end of the day, it's still collectivism.
I will never expect a collectivist to understand the true folly of their ways.
A single person can ask me to do something, and I can tell them, "No".
Ten people can tell me to do something, and I can tell them to get bent.
A hundred can order me to do something, threatening my very life, and I can choose to fight them.
A good collectivist will acquiesce to the first individual, for the "good of the collective"; if the first individual can present their argument in the properly persuasive fashion, no matter what the request might be. Groupthink is the greatest danger of collectivism, and it is evident that far too many people are under its influence.
jessica
+KTAnarchist1
the so-called "knowledge economy" has not developed in the vacuum of de-industrialization, and theories promoting it's inevitability should be thrown into the trash heap of history. it was a fantastical false projection that has been long since shown to be pure delusion. what we're seeing, instead, is mass unemployment, mass underemployment and mass incarceration. democrats need to drop their delusions on this point and get with the empirical data.
a better approach is to question the value of maintaining a private ownership in the means of production when that means of production is almost entirely automated. fordism worked as a compromise solution to the contradictions in capitalism for a very long time: you gave the workers enough money to buy the items being produced. it wasn't a utopia, but it was a pragmatic solution. yet, it relied on the existence of production and on paying out high enough wages. that whole system has collapsed, and nothing at all has moved in to replace it. a lot of bernie's support is actually coming from workers who want reindustrialization, and that's utter madness - it's flatly backwards.
frankly speaking, i don't want to live in a society where people are trained to maximize their value to a market. you're enslaving people to capital.
i want to live in a system where people have free access to resources and can apply them in a way that allows them to carry out intellectual and artistic pursuits.
i've been through this argument a million times. it's really not a left/right or socialist/capitalist argument. that only exists on the surface. it's really a question of whether you want to live in this austere, german society defined by these calvinist principles of work and reward, or whether you want to live in more of a liberal society defined by more relaxed attitudes towards labour and a greater focus on recreation.
but, you've taken the discussion dramatically off topic. my intention was simply to point out that it is not within the op's best interests to hoard resources.
and, fwiw, you have a lot of nerve calling yourself an anarchist. you're a slave to capital.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Wew, lad... That's a real flowery way of saying "I don't wanna work, I just wanna bang on these drums all day!" I'd rather be a "slave to capital", ie; working hard to improve my station in life, than an actual slave for an authoritarian government that decides what's best for me, and reallocates the money earned from my work, to do-nothing, empty headed, rhetoric spewing, hive mind robots who think that everything is better when people have no free will. Corporations don't have the power to send people with guns to your house to take away your freedom when you choose not to do business with them. What part of this do you not understand? Do you even have a job? Do you even support yourself or are you eternally "in school" and living off of someone else?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
well, i don't want to work - and i do want to bang on the drums all day. that ought to be a human universal, but we're brainwashed from a very young age to accept these currency-based, coercive market relationships.
i mean, listen to yourself. you're hilarious.
you're a slave!
with a little help from technology, and a big change in attitude, we can build a better society that abolishes coercive labour. you're either on my side on this, and willing to help, or you're working for the banks - whether you realize it or not.
and, this guy calls himself an anarchist.
anachism, first and foremost, is about the abolition of wage slavery. this guy's just regurgitating all the banker propaganda about hard work and the "american dream".
(edit: actually, i apologize - i've confused these two posters. but, the point still stands.)
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Canada, folks... I'm hillarious because I want to work and have nice things, and not have to live off of others, but you're not deluded in thinking, like, really, actually thinking that without going out there and earning what you get, you deserve to be handed food, shelter, comfort, luxury, some sort of sun-drenched fantasy in which you get to play your pan flute, and frolic in a field of daisies & butterflies?? Your parents have failed you. Your school system has failed you. You do not know reality. You are to be pitied and used as a scornful example of what a wasted life truly is. I'm really dying to know how you support your lifestyle now... I know you don't have a job... its gotta be your parents. Are you even out of high school?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
see, this is what a slave sounds like. and it's this mindset that needs to abolished for us to emancipate ourselves from currency.
if anything, i hope i'm demonstrating my point that hoarding resources is not an act of self-interest.
i've managed to talk a psychiatrist into filling out disability forms. but, the truth is that i believe i'm entitled to a minimum income and that's just the shortest path to it.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Wow... at least you're honest about being a fraud and a liar... I think you should've talked to that psychiatrist about a little more than defrauding your government. Why do you think you're entitled to anything? You obviously would be useless even in your own fantasy utopia, let alone in a productive society.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
yeah, you guys don't really believe in ideas like human rights. that's well understood to people outside your borders. kind of a shame, though.
i think i'm entitled to human rights because i'm a human and we've collectively decided that humans are entitled to rights. but, you're a slave. so, you can't understand that.
let me ask you this, though: what is it that you do, exactly, and how do you suppose that it is "productive"?
kibblewibble1
+jessica
I asked you first, but to answer your question anyway, I work in the petrochemical industry. I produce tangible goods that people use every day of their lives.
And you're so deluded, you actually think that people providing you with anything you want is a human fucking right? You're saying that where you live they're violating your human rights by making you lie in order syphon off of your government to survive? Lol... you're a really good troll... I can't believe I actually fell for this... Nobody is this sick, even in America...
jessica
+kibblewibble1
well, i didn't suppose that i'm entitled to a corvette and a mansion and a dog to follow me around that does backflips on command. i've stated that i believe that i'm entitled to a minimum income, and i'm not about to be browbeaten down by some petrochemical wage slave about it, either.
there was this document signed a little while back called the universal declaration of human rights. have you ever read it? i'd suggest you give it a read through.
for all your precious hard work, how much of that remains out of your grasp?
now, get back to work, you slave.
your concept of productive work is contentious at best. i'm an artist, and i'd argue that what i do is infinitely more valuable than the construction of plastic - which is incredibly environmentally destructive, and needs to be phased out as soon as possible.
regardless. can you explain to me - in concrete terms - why it is that what you do could not be done by a robot?
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Universal declaration of human rights? Who endorsed it? Who wrote it? Who does it entitle to take my labor and apply it to loser artists who produce NOTHING. A fucking artist... why is that not surprising? No wonder you choose to live your life at the mercy of government, who would just as soon flush you down the toilet the first chance they get. Choosing to work for a very good salary versus trying to convince some back alley quack that you need disability, while trying to sell a picture or two is slavery?
If you really want to convince people you are insane, do yourself a favor and print this whole back and forth out, then take it to a judge. They'll lock you up in a looney bin and throw away the key! Then you can draw happy little clouds, rainbows and unicorns til they purge you.
Sorry to disappoint, but, there are no robots capable of doing what I do. It takes human intelligence and innovation, you know (or most likely not), actual skill.
I honestly and sincerely hope you sell a painting for a ton of money. Stop trying to defraud the few people left in your country who want to work and pay taxes, and defraud some rich person crazier than you. Someone who wants to buy some degenerate sculpture, or a disgusting shit-picture or something. Meanwhile, the rest of us who actually produce for others will continue to build lives, raise children, and be happy.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
i don't really see anything worth responding to here - it's just an angry slave rant. although, you didn't actually answer my question.
i highly doubt that what you do is beyond the ability to automate. all you've really demonstrated is that you're working with an obsolete technology (oil) that should have been phased out quite some time ago. all i'm getting out of that is a net social negative.
the world would be better off if you were replaced by a computer, and you were given a set income that is able to meet your needs, instead.
i'm the future - i'm existing in a post-industrial social relationship, where i rely on technology for production and spend my time on intellectual pursuits (it's sound art, and you can find some of it by clicking on my name and following the bandcamp links). you're living in an industrial economy, and seem to be advocating a pre-industrial economic theory.
the first step for us to move forwards, socially, needs to be in people like yourself deromanticizing the concept of work. labour used to be a horrible necessity. today, it is being phased out.
but, you must come to this conclusion on your own. i cannot force it upon you.
but, i can suggest an excellent essay: the soul of man under socialism, by oscar wilde.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Lol, ok... Let me know how all your needs are met when there are no more workers and we're all artists... or in your case, an autist.
This shit doesn't come from thin air... people actually have to work to do stuff. That includes building your robots who can do everything...
By the way, you do know they already have robots and computer programs that can paint, make sculptures and create music, right? Looks like you're already obsolete... people still need gasoline.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
i don't expect you to understand that robots cannot create art the same way that they can produce commodities.
it's not that technology can abolish all labour. it's that it can abolish all coerced labour, leaving what is left as entirely voluntary.
....meaning that if you want to work a job, that's great - in fact, it's encouraged. you just shouldn't expect to get paid for it. you should do it because you actually enjoy it.
ask yourself this question: if you weren't getting paid, would you do your job? if not, you should quit.
you certainly shouldn't be attempting to force your miserable mode of existence on to others. it's contemptible.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Yup... you're retarded.
Just so happens, robots can do everything, but art, which you just so happen to do, and you're solution to metaphoric slavery, is... actual slavery. Y'know, cause the company I work for held a gun to my head and made me work there, and its not right for me to get paid.
Ok. You are an idiot. Good trolling. You made me respond way more than I should. I guess I just like arguing... or beating my head against a wall.
Good luck committing fraud, and i hope you and your wonder-bots have a happy future!
jessica
+kibblewibble1
see, it's amazing how these things reinforce themselves. this person has demonstrated:
(1) a clear tendency towards political conservatism.
(2) a total lack of understanding of what art is.
(3) a total lack of understanding of slavery (or, as i've suggested, total slave brainwashing)
(4) a complete lack of intelligence.
they then attack what is clearly superior intellect with base insults.
can you even spell philosophy?
i have advanced stem degrees. but, i took the time to stop and think and read some thinking by some thinkers. and, i came to a set of conclusions that not some but most intelligent people come to, in regards to the value of labour in an industrial society.
the wilde essay is very important. it's the reason they went after him.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
K... keep me posted
KTAnarchist1
+jessica
"anachism, first and foremost, is about the abolition of wage slavery."
You might want to look up the definition of "anarchist".
Anarchism, first and foremost, is about self-governance. Might that include an abolition of wage-slavery? Sure. But where you and I seem to differ is in the area of whether currency-based trade is better than barter and conquest, and whether wage-slavery is an inevitable result of an economy that utilizes currency-based trade. Second, if you'd bothered to ask instead of being a snot, I'd have been happy to explain the idea of my position as an anarcho-realist, which accounts for lazy shits like you, who guarantee that an actual anarchistic society would be a far cry from any form of Utopia.
I don't know what you do for a living, though I am now aware that you don't want to have to earn a living.
If the terms "experience" and "education" have played any part in your social or economic standing, then your arguments against the economy being information or knowledge-based fall flat. But, of course you haven't bothered to think that through.
The truth is that you're just an ignorant, lazy shit who doesn't want to do anything that might be considered "work", and you think that your very survival (let alone any semblance of luxury or comfortable existence) should simply be handed to you because you're alive and breathing.
That, alone, is enough for me to place no value in anything else that you've proposed, especially when you're proposing that everyone should live at the charity of those, like yourself, who do not want to do anything but bang on their drum all day.
I'd like to know where your "free resources" are going to come from, if everybody gets to live your Utopian dream. Or maybe some people get to work for your leisure? Is that not at least somewhat hypocritical?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
if you'd read the rest of the thread, you'd know that you're merely repeating the argument.
but, i'm not interested in this debate. i entered this discussion to point out that it's in the op's self-interest to support wealth redistribution.
and, you're not an anarchist. you're a fascist.
kibblewibble1
+KTAnarchist1
Meh... don't bother... he's a child who thinks stuff materializes out of thin air, and that everyone should take advantage of people who do things for themselves, by having the government rob them blind.
He's useless.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
the reality is that i'm entirely aware that what i want is infeasible, but i'm not the counter-example. you're the counter-example. the fact that you exist means that i can't get what i want. and, i can see that - most anarchists can see that.
but, it doesn't follow that i'm going to all of a sudden change how i think about things and go be a slave with a shit-eating grin. it does follow that you need to make a choice about how you want to deal with people like me, who are never going to do anything except disrupt your market economies. if not out of logic, than even out of spite.
that is inevitable, from your perspective. i exist. i reject your system. i'll physically fight you over it, if it comes down to it. what do you do about it?
you can throw us in jail if you want. but it's expensive, isn't it? you could try executing us in the public square, and i don't doubt that plenty of you would be just fine with that, but you're going to run into public opposition on that. i hope. my tactic relies on this assumption.
the reality is that it costs a lot less for you to just write me a monthly check. this is the unavoidable conclusion of true rational self-interest. and, i'm not shedding any tears for the slaves that won't fight back - you're right: that's their choice.
if i have a choice between being a slave and enslaving others, of course i will choose to enslave others.
that's not hypocrisy. i'm not rejecting slavery out of some kind of lofty moral principles. it's self-interest.
the reaction to this video is just another example of how remarkably ignorant americans are - and, in truth, have always been - about the historical basis of their legal systems. americans, by and large, legitimately want to live under sharia law.
how many times did trump declare bankruptcy, though, anyways?
===
kibblewibble1
This lesson will be lost on Bernie supporters. You make choices, YOU pay for them.
jessica
no, i think i get it. and, that means that when those kids grow up into criminals because they were forced to in order to survive, and they end up smashing up your car, then that's just you paying for your choice to withhold assistance.
Kban13
You can't reason with people like him. If he admits he is wrong, everything he has been brainwashed to believe falls apart. He doesn't believe facts, and keeps spouting the same lies he has been told by fox news. People like him are the reason the rest of the world laughs at America.
jessica
see, the thing is, though, that, on this particular issue, he actually doesn't have to abolish his worldview.
there are very strong arguments why conservatives, especially wealthy ones, should support social assistance. they don't have to stop being wealthy, or stop being conservatives, to come to a common end - even if they need a very different system of logic to get there.
what he's projecting ultimately doesn't benefit anybody. it just leads to a total systems collapse.
and, if you want to talk about a revival of new deal politics, what i'm saying is really fundamentally important.
Shqipëria Etnike
+kibblewibble1
You make choices loooooooooool
What choices do you have when you earn 3x less than you produce in the economy (results by a Harvard University recent study). A lower class American produces 18 dollars an hour and gets paid 7 dollars an hour. The other 11 dollars go to the top 1%. Now how many people are there who are working in America and who get paid less than 18 dollars an hour? Millions. For every 1 million workers the rich get 11 million wealth per hour, and that is a fact for over 50,000,000 american workers. Thats billions per day! Who made these choices? The lower class are no charity. Taking that 11 dollars an hour per person back from the top class is the way to go. Only someone brainwashed from those who take the 11 dollars will want them to keep taking the 11 dollars.
Trust me, the study is only for those who get paid below 18 dollars an hour (majority of Americans), now imagine doing a study for every worker of USA. The top 1% get fatter and fatter in money every second, and you defend them here even though you are the one whose money they are stealing. No comment.
kibblewibble1
+Shqipëria Etnike
In America you have many choices, and that's the point. Here, birth control is as cheap as it gets. Condoms are dirt cheap, the pill, Plan B, and on and on. Personal responsibility is about doing the right thing, and in this case, having more children, and then blaming the "1%" because you can't afford things is the antithesis of that. Ask yourself this question: if i worked hard to remove myself from poverty by doing the right thing, would i be ok with someone arbitrarily setting an amount of money they thought was going to "help" the poor, even if that meant 40% of every dollar I make? Your solution is to simply take money from those you deem rich enough to steal from, and give it freely to others, which ultimately helps no one. It impoverishes one group of people, and only teaches the other group that its ok if they do nothing for themselves, because they can just find someone else to take from. That only works for a little while. We were told by our president that "millionaires" were people who were making 250k a year, and above that was fair game.
I know that Europeans love their socialism, and middle class college kids here love to listen to intellectual professors go on and on about the evils of capitalism, but when push comes to shove, and there are no more rich people to take from, they go down a rung on the ladder. Eventually, if you managed to cling to what you have, they come for you. By then, its too late to say "b-but... I'm not the 1%!" When you look up and see nobody else to take from, these people you railed against the rich to help, will be clawing at your feet and calling for your blood, because you can afford a phone or computer to comment on youtube with, and they can't. If you've ever been dirt poor and climbed your way out, like I have, you learn to despise the theft and vilification, because you know you did the right thing and you're not a bad person. But according to the news, politicians, college kids, and those who didn't do the right thing, you are evil, not caring, and simply a means to an end... and it sucks to see fully capable people turn their noses up at jobs that are "beneath" them, then continue to call for my money. Socialism is evil. Its amoral and destructive. And its designed to keep everyone poor. It elevates NOBODY, and has been proven, time and time again, for the empty promises, stealing, food lines, abject poverty it causes to huge populations, to be a lie.
You're right though, you'll never convince me that stealing from the "rich" and giving to the poor is a good solution... ever.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
You're right... personal freedom and responsibility will ultimately lead to the system collapsing... just look at the havens of freedom that were the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and all the 3rd world socialist societies theoughout the world! We regularly marvel at the beauties of Soviet progress, or all the inventions that come from Cuba, or all the good the Chinese government does in times of need!
I can't wait til I can schedule a vacation to the Soviet Union to see all the wonderful things there!
jessica
+kibblewibble1
ok. kban is right that there's not any use in bothering - but this response isn't reflective of a conservative. this response is reflective of an idiot.
just don't complain to me when your car gets smashed up by poor people - because that's payback for your refusal to share, and you'll have deserved it. no empathy. sorry.
Shqipëria Etnike
+kibblewibble1
Simply put, 1 year in University costs on average 50,000 dollars a year. You need to work enough to produce 150,000 dollars to be able to afford that 1 year at university with the current system, cause 2/3rd of your work will go to the top 1%. That's completely not fair. They are stealing your work by paying you way less than you deserve to be paid. How can you agree with that? Come on, you are producing 50 dollars, getting paid 17 (thats the national average). You are producing 18 dollars, getting paid 7 (thats the lower class). How is that fair? It's not about working and planning, it's about defending your money. Why let the top 1% steal it from you? I will never understand these things about America. Why don't you do it like Europe? Here in Europe you can't become a billionaire by cheating on your people, the only european billionaires have become so by cheating on the chinese in China, which again is not correct. Nobody deserves to earn billions. Every billionaire has become so by stealing what his workers have built Top 1% in USA steals 11 trillion dollars a year from you the people, how can you allow that to happen? Why do you support it? It's not right.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Lol... well your response is absolutely reflective of a "useful idiot". That's what the old Soviet subversives called people like you, not me. I never would've used the word useful to describe you. And don't kid yourself. Once they're done destroying my stuff, assuming i don't shoot them first, they'll come for yours if you have anything left to take.
jessica
+Shqipëria Etnike
see, i agree that you don't get anywhere with conservatives by arguing for moral principles of equality. they have a different value system that's rooted in a calvinist concept of work. "right" and "wrong" have very different meanings to them. morals are relative, and you're just simply not operating with the same concepts of justice.
but, there was a time years ago when conservatives understood that the creation of an underclass necessarily puts their own safety in jeopardy. for a while, they tried the tactics of a police state, but that didn't work, so they moved to social welfare. it wasn't socialists that created the european welfare state, it was conservatives - bismarck & churchill. the point was to reduce dissent.
and, it worked.
the united states started peeling back social welfare in the 80s, and replaced it with things like the drug war and the crime bill. this resulted in the largest prison population in the world - a country with more prisoners per capita, in fact, than china or the soviet union. but, this is very expensive. and, it doesn't result in crime prevention.
again - i don't have a lot of patience. if you don't want to pay for this stuff, you can go ahead and deal with the consequence of high crime rates and high incarceration rates. in the end, it costs you far more to run the prisons than it would to send them to school. and, you get all kinds of unnecessary property damage out of it, while you're at it.
i'm safe and sound up here in canada. your choice - your consequences.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
a useful idiot was a foreign leftist that was tricked into working for the imperial ambitions of the soviets. it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, to use that kind of language, in context. i haven't stated my political affiliations, but i do not identify as a marxist and i'm well aware that i would have been purged by the soviets at the very start - if i wasn't killed fighting in the army that opposed them.
if we can take the context out of the realm of absurdity and back into the realm of reality, we can talk about smarter ways to manage a poor population that is only set to grow with rising automation and decreasing job opportunities. this is a problem that is only going to grow as time moves forwards, and that is going to require distributive approaches to neutralize - whether you like it or not.
or, like i say, you can continue on in the status quo - a system that facilitates pointless criminality, and sinks uncounted trillions into mass incarceration.
you get what you pay for, eh?
kibblewibble1
+Shqipëria Etnike
Like I said, companies do not exist to hand you money. They exist to make themselves money. The wages they pay you, aren't wages until they give it to you, in exchange for work. The amount that comes out to is balanced by how much money they can bring in with their services. This. Is. How. Its. Always. Worked. Of COURSE they are going to pay you like that! If they didn't, they wouldn't make money, go out of business, and you would have NO JOBS. Its up to you (again, personal responsibility) to decide whether your labor is worth what they are paying you. If you think the government will step in and magically force companies to pay you more based solely on "fairness", you can expect those companies to quickly shutter their doors, and leave. And the end result, again, would be NO JOBS. Saying that you could potentially make more money if only they would pay you more is so obvious and ridiculous, nobody ever takes the argument seriously. Them not paying you more isn't them stealing from you! What kind of argument is that? How do you even come to that conclusion?
And universities have artificially inflated tuitions, at least in America, due to subsidizing the loan process. Also, do not be surprised if you waste 4 years of college getting a degree in gender studies, or African dance, and can't get a job to pay back the bloated tuition.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Oh... Canada... Lol now I see. Let's try a few real life examples here.
I have kids who beg me for cell phones. They want the good ones, and since I love them, I say ok. They get them and in a few weeks they have cracked screens. I replace them. A month later, they are cracked again! This time I make them pay to fix them out of their own pockets. You know how many cracked screens they have had since? My kids have actually done lemonade stands to make enough money for tablets! Do you know how many weekends they had to open up a lemonade stand to buy a $250 tablet?? Do you know that the experience was way more valuable than some piece of shit electronic device?
How 'bout another one? You have a family member who tragically becomes addicted to drugs. It was their choice to get addicted, but you want to help them, because its moral and right! After they destroy their lives, steal from you and others, countless arrests, and overdoses, you finally get them in rehab. They come out and maybe they're ok for a little while, and maybe they go right back onto the drugs. Either way, they end up going through the same thing, all over again. The lying, stealing, arrests, overdoses, the whole cycle, all over again. How many times do you go through that? Once? Twice? Every time until they finally OD and you realize you enabled them? Is it moral for you to do this? Everyone makes their own choices. Enable them, or set them free... but then again, you're Canadian... you just elected DUDEWEED. Enough said there...
jessica
+kibblewibble1
all profit is theft. if you were to abolish management (the middle man...), and have the workers run the companies themselves, you would eliminate that theft.
again: this is an argument that you should be able to present to conservatives and actually come out ahead on, as it reduces to eliminating waste. you just have to convince them that management is wasteful and that it's more efficient to get rid of it.
i don't see the relevance of anything you just typed.
but, i need to correct a misperception. i don't want to "help" addicts because it's "moral". i'm a moral nihilist. i don't believe in the existence of an objective morality. but, i'm a secular humanist, which means i think we can construct an artificial morality using logic and reason.
rather, i want to ensure that addicts do not pose a threat to others. i do not care if they use. i do not care if they overdose. i just don't want them smashing up anybody's car to get their fix.
and, empirical study has suggested that the best way to do this is to provide for injection sites.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Lol objective nihilist that has no objective moral code telling me that it's not "right" that people make a profit? Are you taking acid, or are you just retarded? I'm sorry it's come to petty name calling, but people like you who want to push an arbitrary set of rules based on how they feel at the moment, are legitimately mentally deficient... did you not say that conservatives don't know right from wrong? You immediately follow that up with "durr, there is no right or wrong!"
How fucking absolutely retarded do you have to be to live in your world?
How retarded do you think others have to be to accept your world view?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
i'm not making a moral argument; you're the conservative here, you're supposed to be the one into moral arguments. i'm a liberal: i'm trying to convince you that your arguments are not in your own self-interest.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
How bout that? Finally a liberal admits that conservatives are the ones who base their beliefs on morality, rather than some amoral code skewed towards some vague, amorphous, empty set of judgment standards! Thanks, dudeweedlmao! You made my day!
jessica
+kibblewibble1
well, your concept of morality is vapid authoritarianism. yet, this is a centuries-old historical division - i'm merely stating dictionary definitions.
KTAnarchist1
+Shqipëria Etnike
"Simply put, 1 year in University costs on average 50,000 dollars a year.
You need to work enough to produce 150,000 dollars to be able to afford
that 1 year at university with the current system, cause 2/3rd of your
work will go to the top 1%. That's completely not fair."
Citation? No? I suppose that isn't necessary when making bullshit claims. I've gone 4 years at an AACSB accredited university for less than $5,000 per year.
Is it possible that there are universities that are as expensive as you claim? Sure. Is it foolish to attend them at those rates, when there are others with equal accreditation ratings that are far less expensive? Yes. It is.
But, by all means, keep complaining about how it's "rich people's fault" that people make bad decisions and support a university that is ripping them off.
And, for the record, that call for a citation extends to all of your figures. You produce $18 (or $50) per hour, yet only get paid $7 (or $18)? How is that, especially when the minimum wage has been over $7 per hour for years, and no employer could hold their employees if they ever figured out "the truth" as you claim it to be?
Look, I'm no millionaire, but I work my ass off for what I make, and bend over backwards for my customers (since they keep my doors open and my wife and kid fed), and I love my job, and don't spend all of my time bitching about my paycheck, even though I took a $4/hr. cut (not to mention other benefits from previous employment that I've left behind) to be where I am right now.
The owner of my company gets to pick his son up from school, or take his wife out to dinner, in a VERY nice Mercedes that I can't afford, and I don't think he's evil for it, because he built the company from the ground up. I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what I do, with the people I work with, in the locations that we work, if it weren't for him.
The man hasn't stolen a damned thing from me, and has literally given me the clothes I wear to work, at the cost of them not being sold to paying customers.
If anything, I'm jealous that I don't have the means to start my own company, but I wouldn't take a cent from him, or anyone else, that I didn't earn or (intelligently) borrow, in order to do so.
You want to bitch because you think other people are taking your hard-earned money "unfairly," yet you would literally advocate for more of the same, albeit in reverse order, because it either fits your idea of "fairness" or because you think it's going to somehow make everybody equal?
I guess Europe still hasn't figured out irony or hypocrisy. Maybe we should give you guys another millennia to finally understand that there is more to a political/economic spectrum than "collectivist left" and "collectivist right". When you figure out how to put the customer first, and understand that no business keeps their doors open without incoming revenue, you'll have started to figure it out.
Yes, there is evil in the world. People are not inherently evil, even if they are billionaires. Evil is a choice, and its prevalence stems mostly from a lack of proper recognition and confrontation. Wanting to help people? Not evil. Wanting to do so by stealing from others, even with their knowledge and consent? Evil. Theft is not charity, my friend, even if it is theft from "people who can afford it". There are long-term consequences to such policies that will cause greater harm than you seem to understand. When the "evil billionaires" decide to do business elsewhere, all of the non-billionaires who work for them in your economy will find themselves seeking new employment. When entire economic sectors leave or become automated, many of those formerly employed individuals may be unable to find adequate employment. This only worsens the problem, in the long run.
Most people will give until it hurts, for the right cause (which is an individual concept). Beyond that point, they will stifle their own empathy, and walk away. If you think a billionaire, or even a millionaire, is any different, you're likely to find out the hard way that they will seek out greener pastures, and that they have the means to leave yours behind.
America has already learned this with our manufacturing sector, through bad trade deals and collectivist government fuckery.
Godspeed to your honorable endeavors, and have a nice day.
KTAnarchist1
+jessica
"we can talk about smarter ways to manage a poor population that is only
set to grow with rising automation and decreasing job opportunities.
this is a problem that is only going to grow as time moves forwards, and
that is going to require distributive approaches to neutralize -
whether you like it or not"
This is where we address the concept of an "information based economy". Surely you've heard of this.
It does not require "distributive approaches", only changes in educational conceptualization and application.
But if someone were to believe that the current educational system is the only possibly effective system, then it is understandable that they would not see this.
Why not teach children the things we spend 13 years teaching them (inadequately) in less than 13 years in a more effective manner? Certainly this is possible. Then, if we insist on maintaining this "you don't work until x age" concept, we focus on vocational training at that age, based upon IQ, aptitudes, and personal student preferences?
Granted, this is quite a shift, but it would prepare new high school graduates for their place in the economy and provide the whole economy the benefit of having ready candidates for a variety of areas, who understand that it is what they know, and whether it is valuable, marketable knowledge, that will determine their "fate" as a working person.
It wouldn't change much in the collegiate realm, and it might actually reduce the number of people who will attempt to attend a college or university despite being entirely unsuited to the effort.
Does it create a hierarchy of ability? No, it simply makes the best use of the hierarchy of ability that is inherent in humans.
Not every child is born an Olympic gold medal winner. Not every child is born a chess master. Not every child is born to be a television star. Those who are not will need a solid ground from which to build their future.
The "distributive approach" is as ineffective, in the long run, as it is immoral in the immediate now.
I will gladly cede that progress is necessary, but I will not agree that the current "progressive" movement is anything but a rehashing of the failed policies that are over a century old, and proven to fail in varying degrees, to the exact degree of implementation, every single time they have been implemented.
The "distributive approach" is not new, and is not worth repeating. Someone here claimed that "the socialists were not responsible for...", and that person is dead wrong. Government controlled employment is welfare, and the Third Reich (among others) excelled in that area, but I single out the Third Reich because you can't properly say "National-socialist German Workers' Party" without using the word "socialist".
The collectivist extreme is communism, and socialism is simply communism wearing soft gloves. The degree of collectivist application determines the padding, but at the end of the day, it's still collectivism.
I will never expect a collectivist to understand the true folly of their ways.
A single person can ask me to do something, and I can tell them, "No".
Ten people can tell me to do something, and I can tell them to get bent.
A hundred can order me to do something, threatening my very life, and I can choose to fight them.
A good collectivist will acquiesce to the first individual, for the "good of the collective"; if the first individual can present their argument in the properly persuasive fashion, no matter what the request might be. Groupthink is the greatest danger of collectivism, and it is evident that far too many people are under its influence.
jessica
+KTAnarchist1
the so-called "knowledge economy" has not developed in the vacuum of de-industrialization, and theories promoting it's inevitability should be thrown into the trash heap of history. it was a fantastical false projection that has been long since shown to be pure delusion. what we're seeing, instead, is mass unemployment, mass underemployment and mass incarceration. democrats need to drop their delusions on this point and get with the empirical data.
a better approach is to question the value of maintaining a private ownership in the means of production when that means of production is almost entirely automated. fordism worked as a compromise solution to the contradictions in capitalism for a very long time: you gave the workers enough money to buy the items being produced. it wasn't a utopia, but it was a pragmatic solution. yet, it relied on the existence of production and on paying out high enough wages. that whole system has collapsed, and nothing at all has moved in to replace it. a lot of bernie's support is actually coming from workers who want reindustrialization, and that's utter madness - it's flatly backwards.
frankly speaking, i don't want to live in a society where people are trained to maximize their value to a market. you're enslaving people to capital.
i want to live in a system where people have free access to resources and can apply them in a way that allows them to carry out intellectual and artistic pursuits.
i've been through this argument a million times. it's really not a left/right or socialist/capitalist argument. that only exists on the surface. it's really a question of whether you want to live in this austere, german society defined by these calvinist principles of work and reward, or whether you want to live in more of a liberal society defined by more relaxed attitudes towards labour and a greater focus on recreation.
but, you've taken the discussion dramatically off topic. my intention was simply to point out that it is not within the op's best interests to hoard resources.
and, fwiw, you have a lot of nerve calling yourself an anarchist. you're a slave to capital.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Wew, lad... That's a real flowery way of saying "I don't wanna work, I just wanna bang on these drums all day!" I'd rather be a "slave to capital", ie; working hard to improve my station in life, than an actual slave for an authoritarian government that decides what's best for me, and reallocates the money earned from my work, to do-nothing, empty headed, rhetoric spewing, hive mind robots who think that everything is better when people have no free will. Corporations don't have the power to send people with guns to your house to take away your freedom when you choose not to do business with them. What part of this do you not understand? Do you even have a job? Do you even support yourself or are you eternally "in school" and living off of someone else?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
well, i don't want to work - and i do want to bang on the drums all day. that ought to be a human universal, but we're brainwashed from a very young age to accept these currency-based, coercive market relationships.
i mean, listen to yourself. you're hilarious.
you're a slave!
with a little help from technology, and a big change in attitude, we can build a better society that abolishes coercive labour. you're either on my side on this, and willing to help, or you're working for the banks - whether you realize it or not.
and, this guy calls himself an anarchist.
anachism, first and foremost, is about the abolition of wage slavery. this guy's just regurgitating all the banker propaganda about hard work and the "american dream".
(edit: actually, i apologize - i've confused these two posters. but, the point still stands.)
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Canada, folks... I'm hillarious because I want to work and have nice things, and not have to live off of others, but you're not deluded in thinking, like, really, actually thinking that without going out there and earning what you get, you deserve to be handed food, shelter, comfort, luxury, some sort of sun-drenched fantasy in which you get to play your pan flute, and frolic in a field of daisies & butterflies?? Your parents have failed you. Your school system has failed you. You do not know reality. You are to be pitied and used as a scornful example of what a wasted life truly is. I'm really dying to know how you support your lifestyle now... I know you don't have a job... its gotta be your parents. Are you even out of high school?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
see, this is what a slave sounds like. and it's this mindset that needs to abolished for us to emancipate ourselves from currency.
if anything, i hope i'm demonstrating my point that hoarding resources is not an act of self-interest.
i've managed to talk a psychiatrist into filling out disability forms. but, the truth is that i believe i'm entitled to a minimum income and that's just the shortest path to it.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Wow... at least you're honest about being a fraud and a liar... I think you should've talked to that psychiatrist about a little more than defrauding your government. Why do you think you're entitled to anything? You obviously would be useless even in your own fantasy utopia, let alone in a productive society.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
yeah, you guys don't really believe in ideas like human rights. that's well understood to people outside your borders. kind of a shame, though.
i think i'm entitled to human rights because i'm a human and we've collectively decided that humans are entitled to rights. but, you're a slave. so, you can't understand that.
let me ask you this, though: what is it that you do, exactly, and how do you suppose that it is "productive"?
kibblewibble1
+jessica
I asked you first, but to answer your question anyway, I work in the petrochemical industry. I produce tangible goods that people use every day of their lives.
And you're so deluded, you actually think that people providing you with anything you want is a human fucking right? You're saying that where you live they're violating your human rights by making you lie in order syphon off of your government to survive? Lol... you're a really good troll... I can't believe I actually fell for this... Nobody is this sick, even in America...
jessica
+kibblewibble1
well, i didn't suppose that i'm entitled to a corvette and a mansion and a dog to follow me around that does backflips on command. i've stated that i believe that i'm entitled to a minimum income, and i'm not about to be browbeaten down by some petrochemical wage slave about it, either.
there was this document signed a little while back called the universal declaration of human rights. have you ever read it? i'd suggest you give it a read through.
for all your precious hard work, how much of that remains out of your grasp?
now, get back to work, you slave.
your concept of productive work is contentious at best. i'm an artist, and i'd argue that what i do is infinitely more valuable than the construction of plastic - which is incredibly environmentally destructive, and needs to be phased out as soon as possible.
regardless. can you explain to me - in concrete terms - why it is that what you do could not be done by a robot?
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Universal declaration of human rights? Who endorsed it? Who wrote it? Who does it entitle to take my labor and apply it to loser artists who produce NOTHING. A fucking artist... why is that not surprising? No wonder you choose to live your life at the mercy of government, who would just as soon flush you down the toilet the first chance they get. Choosing to work for a very good salary versus trying to convince some back alley quack that you need disability, while trying to sell a picture or two is slavery?
If you really want to convince people you are insane, do yourself a favor and print this whole back and forth out, then take it to a judge. They'll lock you up in a looney bin and throw away the key! Then you can draw happy little clouds, rainbows and unicorns til they purge you.
Sorry to disappoint, but, there are no robots capable of doing what I do. It takes human intelligence and innovation, you know (or most likely not), actual skill.
I honestly and sincerely hope you sell a painting for a ton of money. Stop trying to defraud the few people left in your country who want to work and pay taxes, and defraud some rich person crazier than you. Someone who wants to buy some degenerate sculpture, or a disgusting shit-picture or something. Meanwhile, the rest of us who actually produce for others will continue to build lives, raise children, and be happy.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
i don't really see anything worth responding to here - it's just an angry slave rant. although, you didn't actually answer my question.
i highly doubt that what you do is beyond the ability to automate. all you've really demonstrated is that you're working with an obsolete technology (oil) that should have been phased out quite some time ago. all i'm getting out of that is a net social negative.
the world would be better off if you were replaced by a computer, and you were given a set income that is able to meet your needs, instead.
i'm the future - i'm existing in a post-industrial social relationship, where i rely on technology for production and spend my time on intellectual pursuits (it's sound art, and you can find some of it by clicking on my name and following the bandcamp links). you're living in an industrial economy, and seem to be advocating a pre-industrial economic theory.
the first step for us to move forwards, socially, needs to be in people like yourself deromanticizing the concept of work. labour used to be a horrible necessity. today, it is being phased out.
but, you must come to this conclusion on your own. i cannot force it upon you.
but, i can suggest an excellent essay: the soul of man under socialism, by oscar wilde.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Lol, ok... Let me know how all your needs are met when there are no more workers and we're all artists... or in your case, an autist.
This shit doesn't come from thin air... people actually have to work to do stuff. That includes building your robots who can do everything...
By the way, you do know they already have robots and computer programs that can paint, make sculptures and create music, right? Looks like you're already obsolete... people still need gasoline.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
i don't expect you to understand that robots cannot create art the same way that they can produce commodities.
it's not that technology can abolish all labour. it's that it can abolish all coerced labour, leaving what is left as entirely voluntary.
....meaning that if you want to work a job, that's great - in fact, it's encouraged. you just shouldn't expect to get paid for it. you should do it because you actually enjoy it.
ask yourself this question: if you weren't getting paid, would you do your job? if not, you should quit.
you certainly shouldn't be attempting to force your miserable mode of existence on to others. it's contemptible.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
Yup... you're retarded.
Just so happens, robots can do everything, but art, which you just so happen to do, and you're solution to metaphoric slavery, is... actual slavery. Y'know, cause the company I work for held a gun to my head and made me work there, and its not right for me to get paid.
Ok. You are an idiot. Good trolling. You made me respond way more than I should. I guess I just like arguing... or beating my head against a wall.
Good luck committing fraud, and i hope you and your wonder-bots have a happy future!
jessica
+kibblewibble1
see, it's amazing how these things reinforce themselves. this person has demonstrated:
(1) a clear tendency towards political conservatism.
(2) a total lack of understanding of what art is.
(3) a total lack of understanding of slavery (or, as i've suggested, total slave brainwashing)
(4) a complete lack of intelligence.
they then attack what is clearly superior intellect with base insults.
can you even spell philosophy?
i have advanced stem degrees. but, i took the time to stop and think and read some thinking by some thinkers. and, i came to a set of conclusions that not some but most intelligent people come to, in regards to the value of labour in an industrial society.
the wilde essay is very important. it's the reason they went after him.
kibblewibble1
+jessica
K... keep me posted
KTAnarchist1
+jessica
"anachism, first and foremost, is about the abolition of wage slavery."
You might want to look up the definition of "anarchist".
Anarchism, first and foremost, is about self-governance. Might that include an abolition of wage-slavery? Sure. But where you and I seem to differ is in the area of whether currency-based trade is better than barter and conquest, and whether wage-slavery is an inevitable result of an economy that utilizes currency-based trade. Second, if you'd bothered to ask instead of being a snot, I'd have been happy to explain the idea of my position as an anarcho-realist, which accounts for lazy shits like you, who guarantee that an actual anarchistic society would be a far cry from any form of Utopia.
I don't know what you do for a living, though I am now aware that you don't want to have to earn a living.
If the terms "experience" and "education" have played any part in your social or economic standing, then your arguments against the economy being information or knowledge-based fall flat. But, of course you haven't bothered to think that through.
The truth is that you're just an ignorant, lazy shit who doesn't want to do anything that might be considered "work", and you think that your very survival (let alone any semblance of luxury or comfortable existence) should simply be handed to you because you're alive and breathing.
That, alone, is enough for me to place no value in anything else that you've proposed, especially when you're proposing that everyone should live at the charity of those, like yourself, who do not want to do anything but bang on their drum all day.
I'd like to know where your "free resources" are going to come from, if everybody gets to live your Utopian dream. Or maybe some people get to work for your leisure? Is that not at least somewhat hypocritical?
jessica
+kibblewibble1
if you'd read the rest of the thread, you'd know that you're merely repeating the argument.
but, i'm not interested in this debate. i entered this discussion to point out that it's in the op's self-interest to support wealth redistribution.
and, you're not an anarchist. you're a fascist.
kibblewibble1
+KTAnarchist1
Meh... don't bother... he's a child who thinks stuff materializes out of thin air, and that everyone should take advantage of people who do things for themselves, by having the government rob them blind.
He's useless.
jessica
+kibblewibble1
the reality is that i'm entirely aware that what i want is infeasible, but i'm not the counter-example. you're the counter-example. the fact that you exist means that i can't get what i want. and, i can see that - most anarchists can see that.
but, it doesn't follow that i'm going to all of a sudden change how i think about things and go be a slave with a shit-eating grin. it does follow that you need to make a choice about how you want to deal with people like me, who are never going to do anything except disrupt your market economies. if not out of logic, than even out of spite.
that is inevitable, from your perspective. i exist. i reject your system. i'll physically fight you over it, if it comes down to it. what do you do about it?
you can throw us in jail if you want. but it's expensive, isn't it? you could try executing us in the public square, and i don't doubt that plenty of you would be just fine with that, but you're going to run into public opposition on that. i hope. my tactic relies on this assumption.
the reality is that it costs a lot less for you to just write me a monthly check. this is the unavoidable conclusion of true rational self-interest. and, i'm not shedding any tears for the slaves that won't fight back - you're right: that's their choice.
if i have a choice between being a slave and enslaving others, of course i will choose to enslave others.
that's not hypocrisy. i'm not rejecting slavery out of some kind of lofty moral principles. it's self-interest.
youtube just pushed down a character limit.
i think it's as clear as day that they are shutting down comments - for political reasons. they want this shut down before the election cycle heats up.
as time consuming as this has been, i actually waited too long to do it and have lost much more than i wanted. the last few days of vlogs have dealt with this topic. i've got over a thousand pages off, and have quite a bit more to go, but i've also lost a lot of really interesting conversations.
with the character limit? it's over. it's useless. i'm moving to my own space - there's no other solution.
it's going to be a while before i get back to work, unfortunately. but if i had doubts about the worth of this, the character limit has reinforced the need for me to be doing this asap.
youtube, as we know it, is on the verge of collapse. it's been too successful in spreading ideas. and, it's getting shut down.
bernie sanders may very well win the election. that is a failure of the propaganda system.
i think it's as clear as day that they are shutting down comments - for political reasons. they want this shut down before the election cycle heats up.
as time consuming as this has been, i actually waited too long to do it and have lost much more than i wanted. the last few days of vlogs have dealt with this topic. i've got over a thousand pages off, and have quite a bit more to go, but i've also lost a lot of really interesting conversations.
with the character limit? it's over. it's useless. i'm moving to my own space - there's no other solution.
it's going to be a while before i get back to work, unfortunately. but if i had doubts about the worth of this, the character limit has reinforced the need for me to be doing this asap.
youtube, as we know it, is on the verge of collapse. it's been too successful in spreading ideas. and, it's getting shut down.
bernie sanders may very well win the election. that is a failure of the propaganda system.
character limits?
wow.
getting worse and worse by the day, youtube.
do you know what character limits accomplish? they force users to copy and paste a long reply into multiple shorter replies.
it's an incredibly pointless, utter dick move.
here's a tip: if my post is too long, don't read it. zero fucks given. and, if i post too many long posts, and you don't want to read them? maybe you should unsubscribe from my feed.
i can't even believe, really, that this is seriously a thing. it's so horrifically backwards and so remarkably stupid...
wow.
getting worse and worse by the day, youtube.
do you know what character limits accomplish? they force users to copy and paste a long reply into multiple shorter replies.
it's an incredibly pointless, utter dick move.
here's a tip: if my post is too long, don't read it. zero fucks given. and, if i post too many long posts, and you don't want to read them? maybe you should unsubscribe from my feed.
i can't even believe, really, that this is seriously a thing. it's so horrifically backwards and so remarkably stupid...
this is very disappointing.
it's rather apparent that the wynne-led government does not have the same commitment to environmental issues as the mcguinty government - that she is rather more concerned about issues of fiscal management. and, that's got my vote wandering elsewhere. i hope that the ndp can present themselves as an electable force some time soon.
this policy is going to lead to a reduction of recycling services - and the message the government is sending is that it doesn't care if it does. it would have been better to raise corporate taxes, to cover the costs.
if unilever won't pay for it, what happens to the plastic? it will end up in the landfill. and, the government is no doubt fully expecting this.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/ontario-wants-to-make-manufacturers-pay-for-recyclables/63927/
it's rather apparent that the wynne-led government does not have the same commitment to environmental issues as the mcguinty government - that she is rather more concerned about issues of fiscal management. and, that's got my vote wandering elsewhere. i hope that the ndp can present themselves as an electable force some time soon.
this policy is going to lead to a reduction of recycling services - and the message the government is sending is that it doesn't care if it does. it would have been better to raise corporate taxes, to cover the costs.
if unilever won't pay for it, what happens to the plastic? it will end up in the landfill. and, the government is no doubt fully expecting this.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/ontario-wants-to-make-manufacturers-pay-for-recyclables/63927/
Friday, February 19, 2016
the americans broke or withdrew from every one of those treaties under the clinton or bush administrations, and have not adhered to any of them under obama, either. so, the russians no longer feel obliged to abide by rules that the americans are clearly refusing to abide by (there's a direct causal link between the invasion of iraq and the occupation of crimea, in terms of the validity of the international law that banned both actions). the feasibility of this is unclear, but the international law that you're referencing simply does not exist anymore.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/whats-up-in-space-russia-wants-to-nuke-asteroid-apophis/63838/
Ryan Norton
what is the word that TWN redacted in your comment? Was it B-u-s-h or R-e-a-g-a-n? I mean really (exasperated sigh), I find Republicans generally offensive too but that's no reason to put them on our 'swears' list of banned words, is it Weather Network?
jessica murray
recent presidents, in order: clinton, bush, obama. they're clearly using a very conservative algorithm.....
strange. it didn't get cancelled, there. the redacted word was "bush". reagan, for all his other faults, was actually pretty pro-active about following international law.
(and, sorry - that came out poorly. i meant that reagan was fairly pro-active about arms treaties, such as the one mentioned in the article, rather than broadly pro-active about international law. the 80s were a period when a lot of these kinds of agreements were signed, carrying on from the 60s and 70s. they were systematically dismantled and ignored in the 90s and 00s, as a corollary of the perceived american victory in the cold war. russia's decision to reciprocate is more recent, and really only cemented after the invasion of libya)
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/whats-up-in-space-russia-wants-to-nuke-asteroid-apophis/63838/
Ryan Norton
what is the word that TWN redacted in your comment? Was it B-u-s-h or R-e-a-g-a-n? I mean really (exasperated sigh), I find Republicans generally offensive too but that's no reason to put them on our 'swears' list of banned words, is it Weather Network?
jessica murray
recent presidents, in order: clinton, bush, obama. they're clearly using a very conservative algorithm.....
strange. it didn't get cancelled, there. the redacted word was "bush". reagan, for all his other faults, was actually pretty pro-active about following international law.
(and, sorry - that came out poorly. i meant that reagan was fairly pro-active about arms treaties, such as the one mentioned in the article, rather than broadly pro-active about international law. the 80s were a period when a lot of these kinds of agreements were signed, carrying on from the 60s and 70s. they were systematically dismantled and ignored in the 90s and 00s, as a corollary of the perceived american victory in the cold war. russia's decision to reciprocate is more recent, and really only cemented after the invasion of libya)
j reacts to the realization that she's being actively censored
i wasn't crying censorship before, but i'm noticing that a lot of my posts disappear when i log out. meaning only i can see them. see, that's sneaky - it means i don't actually know that i'm being censored.
and that i don't know how long i've been being censored for.
listen: i don't want my content on somebody else's channel. that was never my intent. my intent was always to have a feed of content.
comments are content.
the cross-link was just incredibly useful.
i've explained this already: i'll be vlogging my comments. yes, it's stupid. but, don't look at me, i'm just adjusting to a stupid system.
but, i'm not just figuring out that the videos are down and the content is evaporated - i'm figuring out that i'm not getting posts through. it's pretty random. and, when something like this is random there are two possible causes:
1) error. which is exceedingly unlikely. this is youtube.
2) active censorship.
i wanted to avoid that conclusion. i really did. but it's unavoidable.
i've been posting comments here for the last several months, hardlinked to google. flip through the page (or the koalas page), open a few links and tell me - how many of the links bring you somewhere other than the comment they're hardcoded to?
it's probably not google, exactly.
google has probably allowed full control over my profile to somebody at some ministry of information.
i'm not sure if my status as a canadian gives me more or less rights, here.
and that i don't know how long i've been being censored for.
listen: i don't want my content on somebody else's channel. that was never my intent. my intent was always to have a feed of content.
comments are content.
the cross-link was just incredibly useful.
i've explained this already: i'll be vlogging my comments. yes, it's stupid. but, don't look at me, i'm just adjusting to a stupid system.
but, i'm not just figuring out that the videos are down and the content is evaporated - i'm figuring out that i'm not getting posts through. it's pretty random. and, when something like this is random there are two possible causes:
1) error. which is exceedingly unlikely. this is youtube.
2) active censorship.
i wanted to avoid that conclusion. i really did. but it's unavoidable.
i've been posting comments here for the last several months, hardlinked to google. flip through the page (or the koalas page), open a few links and tell me - how many of the links bring you somewhere other than the comment they're hardcoded to?
it's probably not google, exactly.
google has probably allowed full control over my profile to somebody at some ministry of information.
i'm not sure if my status as a canadian gives me more or less rights, here.
j reacts to the unelectability of hillary clinton
harsh truth?
if hillary clinton wanted a lock on the female vote, maybe she shouldn't have spent the better part of the last ten years proving to wall street that she's a war criminal.
it boggles my mind that anybody could look at her foreign policy record and suggest it's an asset. it's the cock-swinging, testosterone-addled, old boys network status quo.
hillary is every bit as rough and tumble and morally bankrupt as any of the other boys that are running.
and, she tried really, really hard to make sure we all understand this.
i don't see somebody that made tough choices.
i see somebody that made a lot of wrong choices - and who won't retreat from those wrong choices, let alone even admit they were even wrong.
gloria steinam is whatever. but, madeline albright's endorsement isn't exactly a gold ticket if you're looking for female voters.
why not just call up thatcher's ghost while you're at it?
hopefully, this is the last time i say this.
hillary has some experience. but it doesn't qualify her for the job so much as it disqualifies her for the job.
you don't just have to have been in the room. you have to have also had good ideas. and, if you were in the room and had bad ideas? that means your experience is evidence that you're a bad choice.
if you're looking to promote a head chemist, and somebody comes in with a long resume that includes a five year stint running a building that burned down three times, that experience is not an asset - it's a reason to disqualify the candidacy.
it's one thing to question why nobody has explained this to her.
it's another thing to point out that she actually needs it explained to her, as though she has no idea of the disastrous (catastrophic, really) long term implications of her department's policies in libya and syria.
ask smiley dmitri about that.
the removal of ghadaffi put russian-amerian relations back decades, and for no good reason.
it was a political stunt to make her look "tough".
you think that deserves a promotion?
i don't. i think it bars her from consideration for future office.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
if hillary clinton wanted a lock on the female vote, maybe she shouldn't have spent the better part of the last ten years proving to wall street that she's a war criminal.
it boggles my mind that anybody could look at her foreign policy record and suggest it's an asset. it's the cock-swinging, testosterone-addled, old boys network status quo.
hillary is every bit as rough and tumble and morally bankrupt as any of the other boys that are running.
and, she tried really, really hard to make sure we all understand this.
i don't see somebody that made tough choices.
i see somebody that made a lot of wrong choices - and who won't retreat from those wrong choices, let alone even admit they were even wrong.
gloria steinam is whatever. but, madeline albright's endorsement isn't exactly a gold ticket if you're looking for female voters.
why not just call up thatcher's ghost while you're at it?
hopefully, this is the last time i say this.
hillary has some experience. but it doesn't qualify her for the job so much as it disqualifies her for the job.
you don't just have to have been in the room. you have to have also had good ideas. and, if you were in the room and had bad ideas? that means your experience is evidence that you're a bad choice.
if you're looking to promote a head chemist, and somebody comes in with a long resume that includes a five year stint running a building that burned down three times, that experience is not an asset - it's a reason to disqualify the candidacy.
it's one thing to question why nobody has explained this to her.
it's another thing to point out that she actually needs it explained to her, as though she has no idea of the disastrous (catastrophic, really) long term implications of her department's policies in libya and syria.
ask smiley dmitri about that.
the removal of ghadaffi put russian-amerian relations back decades, and for no good reason.
it was a political stunt to make her look "tough".
you think that deserves a promotion?
i don't. i think it bars her from consideration for future office.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
Thursday, February 18, 2016
j reacts to the failure of her own analysis (to the american election, broadly)
i'm not posting any more about the us election; i'm talking over my head, and trying to apply logic in ways that maybe aren't the best. what i'm saying ought to make sense, anyways. in the end, it might not..
but, i'm going to post a quick summary as to what i understand, first.
1) the banks have abandoned the democrats. they're keeping hillary around, as a contingency plan. but, if they had any intent on really using the democratic party as a vehicle, they would have run after her hard - and we wouldn't be talking about bernie sanders. there may have even be some insiders quietly hoping for a sanders nomination, as it might have been thought easier.
2) they had a lot invested in bush. but, he's getting steamrolled by a push of independents making a run on the party to straight-arm trump through. the biggest tactical error appears to have been bush' refusal to engage in new media. this is the first major evidence that nobody watches network tv anymore.
3) the banks reacted with rubio, but he just ended up splitting the moderate vote and furthering splintering the field. a clash of egos developed over pushing cruz or rubio that has yet to be resolved. but, it's all based on the flawed premise that trump was beating bush on the right. this is actually allowing trump to control the center, as bush fades into obscurity and the banks attach themselves to the unelectable right.
logic suggests that if anybody can clean up the center, they should win. and the obvious choice to do this is bush. but it's not happening, and it seems to be a combination of obviously failed candidates sticking around for far too long (and all thinking they can pull off the same end around) with an outdated media attack by the establishment centrist candidate.
as more and more time goes on, it's becoming clearer and clearer that trump is going to win this - not by controlling the fringes but by controlling the center. and, this is going to hurt turnout for the republicans in the general.
hillary then becomes the establishment candidate - despite being thrown away for the seventh time leading up to it. but, if they wait too long to come to her rescue, she could be out of it herself.
and, then somebody gets assassinated.
logic still says that when the field narrows one last time, bush ought to get a bump - and that it's time for a change in letter.
but, this combination of trump screwing everything up and, quite frankly, incompetence in the establishment could very well blow the whole thing open.
i think we can probably reduce the whole thing to a big choice. if bush steps down, what do they do? do they shower the cash on cruz and forget about hillary altogether? because then trump wins the nomination, and sanders gets a fighting chance, too.
if they cut their losses and go full in on hillary, she wins in a landslide. but, that's plan F - remember.
i'm not sure trump even has to win to get assassinated.
but, i'm going to post a quick summary as to what i understand, first.
1) the banks have abandoned the democrats. they're keeping hillary around, as a contingency plan. but, if they had any intent on really using the democratic party as a vehicle, they would have run after her hard - and we wouldn't be talking about bernie sanders. there may have even be some insiders quietly hoping for a sanders nomination, as it might have been thought easier.
2) they had a lot invested in bush. but, he's getting steamrolled by a push of independents making a run on the party to straight-arm trump through. the biggest tactical error appears to have been bush' refusal to engage in new media. this is the first major evidence that nobody watches network tv anymore.
3) the banks reacted with rubio, but he just ended up splitting the moderate vote and furthering splintering the field. a clash of egos developed over pushing cruz or rubio that has yet to be resolved. but, it's all based on the flawed premise that trump was beating bush on the right. this is actually allowing trump to control the center, as bush fades into obscurity and the banks attach themselves to the unelectable right.
logic suggests that if anybody can clean up the center, they should win. and the obvious choice to do this is bush. but it's not happening, and it seems to be a combination of obviously failed candidates sticking around for far too long (and all thinking they can pull off the same end around) with an outdated media attack by the establishment centrist candidate.
as more and more time goes on, it's becoming clearer and clearer that trump is going to win this - not by controlling the fringes but by controlling the center. and, this is going to hurt turnout for the republicans in the general.
hillary then becomes the establishment candidate - despite being thrown away for the seventh time leading up to it. but, if they wait too long to come to her rescue, she could be out of it herself.
and, then somebody gets assassinated.
logic still says that when the field narrows one last time, bush ought to get a bump - and that it's time for a change in letter.
but, this combination of trump screwing everything up and, quite frankly, incompetence in the establishment could very well blow the whole thing open.
i think we can probably reduce the whole thing to a big choice. if bush steps down, what do they do? do they shower the cash on cruz and forget about hillary altogether? because then trump wins the nomination, and sanders gets a fighting chance, too.
if they cut their losses and go full in on hillary, she wins in a landslide. but, that's plan F - remember.
i'm not sure trump even has to win to get assassinated.
j reacts to the real reason that blacks are rejecting sanders
black people don't like jews for the same reason that evangelicals don't like jews - for the precise reason that blacks are disproportionately religious. that's an established thing, and it has little to do with the political positions on the ground. which is a shame. i mean, he had to be a jew, right? i know - i'm blaming the wrong side. but, still.
latinos are less concerned about this because they're catholics and they view protestants and jews as roughly interchangeable heretics.
sanders will do better in latino states than in black states.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/11038402/bernie-sanders-obama
it's really an outrageous truth, as:
1) sanders has an incomparably better record.
2) sanders' policies will benefit blacks far more than hillary's.
the logical choice is sanders. and smart blacks are right to be befuddled by the polling.
but, there's not any logic in christian jew-hating. it's ancient. it doesn't go away. and, there's little point in wasting resources trying to break through it.
the stuff about clinton being popular amongst blacks due to her record is...can we get some real scrutiny on this?
what are they referencing, exactly? for-profit prisons? three strike laws? the drug war? welfare reform?
obama got something absurd like 97% of the black vote. she can't be too entrenched.
i don't think this is a pro-clinton thing. i think it's an anti-jew thing, and the media is avoiding it for what it is.
sorry.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
latinos are less concerned about this because they're catholics and they view protestants and jews as roughly interchangeable heretics.
sanders will do better in latino states than in black states.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/11038402/bernie-sanders-obama
it's really an outrageous truth, as:
1) sanders has an incomparably better record.
2) sanders' policies will benefit blacks far more than hillary's.
the logical choice is sanders. and smart blacks are right to be befuddled by the polling.
but, there's not any logic in christian jew-hating. it's ancient. it doesn't go away. and, there's little point in wasting resources trying to break through it.
the stuff about clinton being popular amongst blacks due to her record is...can we get some real scrutiny on this?
what are they referencing, exactly? for-profit prisons? three strike laws? the drug war? welfare reform?
obama got something absurd like 97% of the black vote. she can't be too entrenched.
i don't think this is a pro-clinton thing. i think it's an anti-jew thing, and the media is avoiding it for what it is.
sorry.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
j reacts to trump v cruz
see, this is what the banks want.
and, that's probably exactly what it is - bank propaganda.
but, there's nobody that cruz is going to swing that isn't going to prefer trump. trump is more of an "outsider". he's more of a populist. and, he's more of a moderate, too. trump has him completely dominated on every point.
the only demographic that cruz might swing is the super-hard evangelical right. and, by doing that, he alienates himself.
i know: i'm a canadian. i'm not going to pretend that i understand american conservatism. i don't. it's totally foreign and alien and weird to me.
but there's a point where looney is looney and it's just clear. cruz is an unelectable candidate. when you line cruz and trump up, it's not cruz that looks better - it's trump that looks better.
that carson/kasich/bush split is going to kill all of them, if it doesn't fix itself. carson was never a serious candidate; that almost comes off as a protest vote. and, bush, still, somehow, seems to be losing the serious votes to kasich.
again: they need to work something out, or they're going to nominate trump. and, if they do, that probably means electing hillary.
that 25% split is enough to be competitive if it can coalesce, and the confused media narrative has probably resulted in rubio's vote splitting in half when he pulls out. that's still 30%+ on the moderate side. and, then trump collapses.
but, this collusion needs to hurry up and actually happen.
cruz and trump are both so bad that that sane third could very well abstain, or even vote for hillary.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/17/trump-falls-to-second-nationally-nbcwsj-poll.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/8/9866726/ted-cruz-electability
and, that's probably exactly what it is - bank propaganda.
but, there's nobody that cruz is going to swing that isn't going to prefer trump. trump is more of an "outsider". he's more of a populist. and, he's more of a moderate, too. trump has him completely dominated on every point.
the only demographic that cruz might swing is the super-hard evangelical right. and, by doing that, he alienates himself.
i know: i'm a canadian. i'm not going to pretend that i understand american conservatism. i don't. it's totally foreign and alien and weird to me.
but there's a point where looney is looney and it's just clear. cruz is an unelectable candidate. when you line cruz and trump up, it's not cruz that looks better - it's trump that looks better.
that carson/kasich/bush split is going to kill all of them, if it doesn't fix itself. carson was never a serious candidate; that almost comes off as a protest vote. and, bush, still, somehow, seems to be losing the serious votes to kasich.
again: they need to work something out, or they're going to nominate trump. and, if they do, that probably means electing hillary.
that 25% split is enough to be competitive if it can coalesce, and the confused media narrative has probably resulted in rubio's vote splitting in half when he pulls out. that's still 30%+ on the moderate side. and, then trump collapses.
but, this collusion needs to hurry up and actually happen.
cruz and trump are both so bad that that sane third could very well abstain, or even vote for hillary.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/17/trump-falls-to-second-nationally-nbcwsj-poll.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/8/9866726/ted-cruz-electability
j reacts to the absurdity of voter suppression tactics
see, in canada this would be almost a non-issue because everybody has a health card. although it was made one. but, there's no use in going over that demagoguery, because the bill was demagoguery from the beginning. really.
the bill is obviously designed to make it harder for poor people to vote. not black people, exactly. this is a class-based policy, it's just that poverty is racialized. so, the canadian conservatives tossed it at their base - despite the fact that everybody in canada really does have id, because we all have health cards. then, the liberals went after the conservatives for making it harder for people to vote, which is the impression it gave off, because it's what the conservatives were pretending they were doing.
the point is that if you just had universal health care already then this would be a non-issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto
the bill is obviously designed to make it harder for poor people to vote. not black people, exactly. this is a class-based policy, it's just that poverty is racialized. so, the canadian conservatives tossed it at their base - despite the fact that everybody in canada really does have id, because we all have health cards. then, the liberals went after the conservatives for making it harder for people to vote, which is the impression it gave off, because it's what the conservatives were pretending they were doing.
the point is that if you just had universal health care already then this would be a non-issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto
j reacts to the idea that the black panthers were a "terrorist group"
she's not lying; she's been lied to, and she doesn't have the education to work through it.
she doesn't know who malcolm x or huey newton or eldridge cleaver are, and she couldn't tell you karl marx from thomas jefferson. it's not that she doesn't understand that the black panthers were more about class than race, it's that she doesn't know a damned thing about the black panthers at all. she's just pushing forward a scripted presentation of things....
she goes back to these talking points and screams them loudly, because that's the sum total of what she understands about the situation.
it would have been a lot more useful if they had brought out whomever wrote the lines on the teleprompter, instead.
the lesson is not to bother going on her show - it's better to just point out that she's a muppet from a distance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_TMiWBXFSM
some light reading:
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/shoulders-our-freedom-fighters/49937-ideology-black-panther-party-black-panther-newspaper.html
she doesn't know who malcolm x or huey newton or eldridge cleaver are, and she couldn't tell you karl marx from thomas jefferson. it's not that she doesn't understand that the black panthers were more about class than race, it's that she doesn't know a damned thing about the black panthers at all. she's just pushing forward a scripted presentation of things....
she goes back to these talking points and screams them loudly, because that's the sum total of what she understands about the situation.
it would have been a lot more useful if they had brought out whomever wrote the lines on the teleprompter, instead.
the lesson is not to bother going on her show - it's better to just point out that she's a muppet from a distance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_TMiWBXFSM
some light reading:
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/shoulders-our-freedom-fighters/49937-ideology-black-panther-party-black-panther-newspaper.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
i've been running a vlog for a few months, now. back in november, i was filming myself walking through downtown detroit - it was just meant to get an ambient concept of my living conditions. i happened to walk by a bar that was playing beat it, in the background. totally accidental. yet, sony claimed the entire video and wouldn't budge on it. i had no desire to fight it, so i just reuploaded with the section cut out.
but, think about the ramifications. suppose you're recording a conversation of you and a friend in a bar, and your camera picks up the radio. it would seem that the rights holder for the song on the radio would take over monetization for the entire video - regardless of how inconsequentially background it is.
there's no algorithm for copyright law. they need to have people involved.
but, think about the ramifications. suppose you're recording a conversation of you and a friend in a bar, and your camera picks up the radio. it would seem that the rights holder for the song on the radio would take over monetization for the entire video - regardless of how inconsequentially background it is.
there's no algorithm for copyright law. they need to have people involved.
i just quit smoking, but this video has caused me to reconsider. cats are the greatest cancer upon the planet. so, the idea that smoking may eliminate cats from the internet is the best pro-smoking argument that i've heard, yet.
but, seriously: blocking all cats from the internet is a worthwhile goal. i don't even mind spam, much, compared to cats. if somebody could at least figure out a firefox add-on called catblock, we'd be getting somewhere. and that would actually be relatively simple, if we could convince the purveyors of feline idiocy to tag their cancer properly. but, that's not likely, because the people that post pictures of their glorified rodents tend to have absolutely no respect for others.
but, seriously: blocking all cats from the internet is a worthwhile goal. i don't even mind spam, much, compared to cats. if somebody could at least figure out a firefox add-on called catblock, we'd be getting somewhere. and that would actually be relatively simple, if we could convince the purveyors of feline idiocy to tag their cancer properly. but, that's not likely, because the people that post pictures of their glorified rodents tend to have absolutely no respect for others.
16-02-2016: getting out of the house (disappears in detroit)
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYm9Tu1qxPk
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/02/16.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYm9Tu1qxPk
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/02/16.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
the koala central command would like to request your help in tracking down our prime fugitive, deathtokoalas.
we have managed to take over her page and will soon have succeeded in erasing all of her comments. our koalas are hard at work in accomplishing this task. however, she, herself, remains at large.
this individual has recently changed her name and identity. she is considered armed with wit and dangerous to communicate with, so please approach (verbally) with caution.
we believe that she will continue to communicate from the following known pseudonyms:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0re8yuNEZyCde7CQpK0QNw
(https://plus.google.com/b/115697117379871673298/+jessicatemporarydeletion/posts/EWD3zvKoQDB)
we have managed to take over her page and will soon have succeeded in erasing all of her comments. our koalas are hard at work in accomplishing this task. however, she, herself, remains at large.
this individual has recently changed her name and identity. she is considered armed with wit and dangerous to communicate with, so please approach (verbally) with caution.
we believe that she will continue to communicate from the following known pseudonyms:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0re8yuNEZyCde7CQpK0QNw
(https://plus.google.com/b/115697117379871673298/+jessicatemporarydeletion/posts/EWD3zvKoQDB)
Monday, February 15, 2016
j reacts to trump's so-far-successful tactic of (unintentional?) strategic incoherence
recent polling for bush seems unusually bad - this is south carolina - and i'm not budging. but i want to point out that trump seems to be attracting a lot of independents that may not normally involve themselves in a republican primary. that was an ingredient of obama's win in '08.
bush does need to get a bounce and pretty soon. and, he needs to cut a deal with kasich yesterday.
it's inconceivable how rubio or cruz can win this - they're simply too right wing. as i've pointed out before, it makes trump look moderate in comparison. that's what is happening, and what everybody needs to understand. the field people are seeing is rubio and cruz on the right and trump in the center. so, they're picking trump.
it's insane. it can't possibly sustain itself. americans are stupid, sure, but they're not this bad. they cannot possibly settle on trump as the moderate/centrist republican. it's insane. but, as long as the banks keep pushing these right-wing blowhards (and the field stays split) it's the only outcome.
i remain convinced that kasich and bush are the only serious candidates, and that you can more or less forget about cruz and rubio - they're not serious candidates. they're too right-wing, even for primary voters. but, you can't write off trump the same way. rather, the harder the banks work to push the right (rubio/cruz) instead of the center (bush), the more trump seems certain to win.
the field has narrowed a little. but, it seems like he's not getting through.
if both bush and kasich drop, trump will coast to the win. in landslides.
trump will blow out rubio or cruz, head to head.
but, he'd lose to bush.
stated tersely: it seems like the banks are really fucking this up, and trump is really throwing a wrench in the whole thing. hillary is plan F, and she might not get through, either.
i mean, the root of the problem is not trump. he's an idiot. he shouldn't be running circles around goldman sachs like this. the problem is a terrible analysis by the banks, combined with what looks like nepotism in pushing through cruz.
now, they've got moderates split between bush and rubio, the right split between rubio and cruz and independents and populists coming out in droves for trump. they keep shifting directions and spinning around and falling over trying to react to trump, but it's not due to any brilliance in tactic - it's because he's incoherent.
the last time i saw something this bad was the liberal party of canada try to beat stephen harper. they couldn't figure it out. people concluded harper was a genius. but, in truth it was the liberals that kept running bad candidates and taking incomprehensible positions. they finally beat him with a little of his own medicine.
it's too late to find the anti-trump. the closest thing in the spectrum is sanders, and you're really better off floating trump a deal than thinking you can buy out sanders.
i still think bush is the guy. and, he got what he needed to get the bounce. but, now he needs to actually convert logic into votes.
and, if he can't?
president donald trump.
take a good look at that.
you want to know another good example of this kind of dynamic?
the soviets v. reagan.
the american right gives reagan credit for ending the cold war. it's of course nonsense. but, they are right in pointing out that reagan caused the soviets to stand down.
it wasn't due to brilliant tactical choices, though. it was precisely the opposite. after decades of rational analysis, game theory, mad and the like, the soviets came up against something they couldn't react to - an irrational actor.
they could no longer predict behaviour with any certainty, because they no longer had any faith in the inherent rationality of their opponent.
the only rational choice was to withdraw.
it was like an episode of inspector gadget.
given that truth, it might be time for plan F.
bush does need to get a bounce and pretty soon. and, he needs to cut a deal with kasich yesterday.
it's inconceivable how rubio or cruz can win this - they're simply too right wing. as i've pointed out before, it makes trump look moderate in comparison. that's what is happening, and what everybody needs to understand. the field people are seeing is rubio and cruz on the right and trump in the center. so, they're picking trump.
it's insane. it can't possibly sustain itself. americans are stupid, sure, but they're not this bad. they cannot possibly settle on trump as the moderate/centrist republican. it's insane. but, as long as the banks keep pushing these right-wing blowhards (and the field stays split) it's the only outcome.
i remain convinced that kasich and bush are the only serious candidates, and that you can more or less forget about cruz and rubio - they're not serious candidates. they're too right-wing, even for primary voters. but, you can't write off trump the same way. rather, the harder the banks work to push the right (rubio/cruz) instead of the center (bush), the more trump seems certain to win.
the field has narrowed a little. but, it seems like he's not getting through.
if both bush and kasich drop, trump will coast to the win. in landslides.
trump will blow out rubio or cruz, head to head.
but, he'd lose to bush.
stated tersely: it seems like the banks are really fucking this up, and trump is really throwing a wrench in the whole thing. hillary is plan F, and she might not get through, either.
i mean, the root of the problem is not trump. he's an idiot. he shouldn't be running circles around goldman sachs like this. the problem is a terrible analysis by the banks, combined with what looks like nepotism in pushing through cruz.
now, they've got moderates split between bush and rubio, the right split between rubio and cruz and independents and populists coming out in droves for trump. they keep shifting directions and spinning around and falling over trying to react to trump, but it's not due to any brilliance in tactic - it's because he's incoherent.
the last time i saw something this bad was the liberal party of canada try to beat stephen harper. they couldn't figure it out. people concluded harper was a genius. but, in truth it was the liberals that kept running bad candidates and taking incomprehensible positions. they finally beat him with a little of his own medicine.
it's too late to find the anti-trump. the closest thing in the spectrum is sanders, and you're really better off floating trump a deal than thinking you can buy out sanders.
i still think bush is the guy. and, he got what he needed to get the bounce. but, now he needs to actually convert logic into votes.
and, if he can't?
president donald trump.
take a good look at that.
you want to know another good example of this kind of dynamic?
the soviets v. reagan.
the american right gives reagan credit for ending the cold war. it's of course nonsense. but, they are right in pointing out that reagan caused the soviets to stand down.
it wasn't due to brilliant tactical choices, though. it was precisely the opposite. after decades of rational analysis, game theory, mad and the like, the soviets came up against something they couldn't react to - an irrational actor.
they could no longer predict behaviour with any certainty, because they no longer had any faith in the inherent rationality of their opponent.
the only rational choice was to withdraw.
it was like an episode of inspector gadget.
given that truth, it might be time for plan F.
14-02-2016: continuing to wipe down deathtokoalas
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
i just want to point out that, in line with what i'm doing to wipe my profile down, i'm removing access to subscriber stats. and, i'd hide the hit counts, too, if i could.
see, the lesson i'm walking away from this with may not be what you're expecting. i learned that my previous approach generated what i'm suggesting is the wrong kind of interest.
what does wrong interest mean?
well, i still have 350 subscribers at the koala profile. there were at most five people (i think less) that followed me to the vlog site. i'm not selling units. these are people that are neither interested in my music nor my opinions. they seem to have really just liked my hair. i'm honestly not exaggerating.
i don't want to generate a group of followers that like my hair. i know that this is a thing that people do, but it's really kind of scary for me to think about. i don't have profiles at flickr or snapshot or whatever is being used nowadays for pictures. instagram? i don't even know what the sites are.
i write essays. i write symphonies. i've recently gotten into the habit of recording myself ranting. but, i don't do modelling - and i really don't want to, either. sorry. it's just not what i want to be selling.
so, by taking that information out altogether, i can avoid these kinds of people and avoid these kinds of conversations.
everybody will tell me i'm wrong. but, if you follow my reasoning, i'm actually right for exactly the reasons they claim i'm wrong. deductions require assumptions. and, if you change your assumptions in certain ways, you can sometimes modify your conclusions without recalculating anything.
i just wanted to make it clear that this was done on purpose, and that i'm hiding the information to reject the issue altogether, rather than to hide what the stats actually are.
see, the lesson i'm walking away from this with may not be what you're expecting. i learned that my previous approach generated what i'm suggesting is the wrong kind of interest.
what does wrong interest mean?
well, i still have 350 subscribers at the koala profile. there were at most five people (i think less) that followed me to the vlog site. i'm not selling units. these are people that are neither interested in my music nor my opinions. they seem to have really just liked my hair. i'm honestly not exaggerating.
i don't want to generate a group of followers that like my hair. i know that this is a thing that people do, but it's really kind of scary for me to think about. i don't have profiles at flickr or snapshot or whatever is being used nowadays for pictures. instagram? i don't even know what the sites are.
i write essays. i write symphonies. i've recently gotten into the habit of recording myself ranting. but, i don't do modelling - and i really don't want to, either. sorry. it's just not what i want to be selling.
so, by taking that information out altogether, i can avoid these kinds of people and avoid these kinds of conversations.
everybody will tell me i'm wrong. but, if you follow my reasoning, i'm actually right for exactly the reasons they claim i'm wrong. deductions require assumptions. and, if you change your assumptions in certain ways, you can sometimes modify your conclusions without recalculating anything.
i just wanted to make it clear that this was done on purpose, and that i'm hiding the information to reject the issue altogether, rather than to hide what the stats actually are.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
it will be interesting to see whether or not all that pacific moisture can overpower the reduction of solar energy driving the expanded vortex, or if 2016 ends up cooler than 2015 despite the record el nino. we're really caught between two extremes, right now. let's hope the tornado season is less than catastrophic...
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/record-low-temperatures-in-ontario-amid-deep-freeze-/63649/
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/record-low-temperatures-in-ontario-amid-deep-freeze-/63649/
13-02-2016: understanding the causes of decline
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
end section post:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/02/i-just-want-to-point-out-that-it-was-at.html
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
end section post:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2016/02/i-just-want-to-point-out-that-it-was-at.html
j reacts to an analysis of her own decline
i just want to point out that it was at this point that i can trace the beginning of a decrease in my hit count. the changes in youtube have not helped and make it almost impossible to reverse the problem. but, this is the real root cause of the decline.
i talk about this in the vlog for feb 13th. but, it's very disappointing - depressing, really - to truly be cognizant of what has actually happened...
my metrics were consistently increasing up to this point. i peaked at over 3000 hits in october - substantial, and enough to think i'm growing and am breaking through something. yet, by the middle of 2015, my hits were cut down to almost nothing. what happened?
well, it seems as though people were not actually interested in what i was typing. rather, people were interested in my profile picture.
i consciously picked that profile picture because it was a "bad shot" - i was very badly hungover. i liked the irony of this, in juxtaposition to the world of fake media images. it was a kind of fuck you to selfie culture.
but, it became it's own fake media image. i had dozens of comments directed at it. the reaction that was most instructive was to point out that the nature of the commentary fit the picture well - and this is why the hit count increased so much, and i ended up with so many upvotes on my comments. it wasn't that what i said affected anybody, or caused anybody to think about anything. people weren't indicating any kind of actual solidarity. it was merely that people found my picture amusing, and wanted to see it near the top of the comments. it didn't really matter what i was saying, so long as it vaguely fit their preconception of what they imagined i ought to be saying.
other comments, in hindsight, were more illuminating than i realized: suggestions that i look "emo", or "black metal", for example. this was both completely wrong and entirely void of any substance - it was merely extrapolated from the fact that i was hungover. it seems that a false perception of who i am was projected from the image, and it was that false projection that was getting upvoted and generating views.
it also generated negative comments. much of this was at a low level of discourse - crude insults that can be broadly summarized as claims that i was "ugly", and often in ways that forced me to research terms i hadn't seen before. this was annoying, but it wasn't what forced me to change the profile picture.
what forced me to change was the misgendering. you can imagine how that might be irritating. i didn't upload the picture thinking that it made me look "emo" or "metal" or anything of the sort. rather, i thought it just made me look like a hungover female with a overactive gothic dye job. i really didn't need or want this kind of abuse.
so, i changed the profile picture to a more recent shot of me as a blonde with a bit of lipstick. my intent was to prevent me from being misgendered. and, this seems to have worked.
in the process, the false projection of me as "emo" or "metal" or whatever it is that people made out of the black dye job and hungover eyes [in truth, i mostly listen to instrumental music, although i once listened to a lot of socal punk, which is how i dress - tshirts, jeans and minimal makeup] evaporated. as people were more interested in how i looked than what i thought, the attention that i was generating dried up. i also think that my newly unambiguous self-gendering alienated young girls that thought i was cute as much as it alienated dudes that found out that i was actually seriously queer, not just faggy in a metal kind of way.
again: i've never liked metal. i don't even really like rock music, in the broadest sense. the only rock music i've ever liked is some early psych and the anti-rock strains of punk/post-punk and grunge. rock culture has always sickened me. i'm a very bookish nerd. i'd rather hang out in the library.
i have a degree in mathematics. i've studied deep into degrees in physics, computer science and law.
nerd. total. and, not afraid of stating it.
but, that's not what my hungover picture suggested. and, so, everything came crashing down when i changed it....
i don't regret this change, and i would do it again. rather, i think i learned an important lesson. i thought people were actually interested in what i had to say about things - that admittedly surprised me, and i should be less naive about things as i move forward.
in the broader scope of things, it doesn't do me any good to get thousands of purely social-media level hits from young girls that are misgendering me (and would be freaked out to actually see me) or guys that i'd never talk to. the truth is that i'd rather have friend-level conversations with those girls and get hit on by those guys (if they're old enough). the reality of everything being backwards was not useful to me in getting an image out. it was, and may unfortunately remain for some time, much more of a hindrance to me.
and, did i even want to get an image out? was i gunning for subscribers and views? the truth is that i didn't ever care. i wanted people to listen to my music. and, neither teenage girls nor metalhead/emo guys are (on average) going to be interested in listening to my blender rock.
moving forwards, i should perhaps target my audience a little bit more carefully. it was maybe pointless to bother posting insults on the emo band's site, as nobody interested in who i am or what i do is going to post there. i should perhaps be focusing more on music that i actually like and less on trends that i do not. my discography channel will deal with this, while my vlog channel will focus more on my ideas and opinions of things.
the reality is that this is all still experimental. there's no understood model. and, in a real sense, i'm trying to accomplish the impossible. i get all of this. but, i've learned a few things along the way and hope that i can apply them.
but, it was the profile pic change that killed me. and, that's a really sad reflection of society - style meant everything, substance meant nothing.
https://plus.google.com/b/115697117379871673298/+jessicatemporarydeletion/posts/YdtY8RVDqAH
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/10/blog-post_15.html
i talk about this in the vlog for feb 13th. but, it's very disappointing - depressing, really - to truly be cognizant of what has actually happened...
my metrics were consistently increasing up to this point. i peaked at over 3000 hits in october - substantial, and enough to think i'm growing and am breaking through something. yet, by the middle of 2015, my hits were cut down to almost nothing. what happened?
well, it seems as though people were not actually interested in what i was typing. rather, people were interested in my profile picture.
i consciously picked that profile picture because it was a "bad shot" - i was very badly hungover. i liked the irony of this, in juxtaposition to the world of fake media images. it was a kind of fuck you to selfie culture.
but, it became it's own fake media image. i had dozens of comments directed at it. the reaction that was most instructive was to point out that the nature of the commentary fit the picture well - and this is why the hit count increased so much, and i ended up with so many upvotes on my comments. it wasn't that what i said affected anybody, or caused anybody to think about anything. people weren't indicating any kind of actual solidarity. it was merely that people found my picture amusing, and wanted to see it near the top of the comments. it didn't really matter what i was saying, so long as it vaguely fit their preconception of what they imagined i ought to be saying.
other comments, in hindsight, were more illuminating than i realized: suggestions that i look "emo", or "black metal", for example. this was both completely wrong and entirely void of any substance - it was merely extrapolated from the fact that i was hungover. it seems that a false perception of who i am was projected from the image, and it was that false projection that was getting upvoted and generating views.
it also generated negative comments. much of this was at a low level of discourse - crude insults that can be broadly summarized as claims that i was "ugly", and often in ways that forced me to research terms i hadn't seen before. this was annoying, but it wasn't what forced me to change the profile picture.
what forced me to change was the misgendering. you can imagine how that might be irritating. i didn't upload the picture thinking that it made me look "emo" or "metal" or anything of the sort. rather, i thought it just made me look like a hungover female with a overactive gothic dye job. i really didn't need or want this kind of abuse.
so, i changed the profile picture to a more recent shot of me as a blonde with a bit of lipstick. my intent was to prevent me from being misgendered. and, this seems to have worked.
in the process, the false projection of me as "emo" or "metal" or whatever it is that people made out of the black dye job and hungover eyes [in truth, i mostly listen to instrumental music, although i once listened to a lot of socal punk, which is how i dress - tshirts, jeans and minimal makeup] evaporated. as people were more interested in how i looked than what i thought, the attention that i was generating dried up. i also think that my newly unambiguous self-gendering alienated young girls that thought i was cute as much as it alienated dudes that found out that i was actually seriously queer, not just faggy in a metal kind of way.
again: i've never liked metal. i don't even really like rock music, in the broadest sense. the only rock music i've ever liked is some early psych and the anti-rock strains of punk/post-punk and grunge. rock culture has always sickened me. i'm a very bookish nerd. i'd rather hang out in the library.
i have a degree in mathematics. i've studied deep into degrees in physics, computer science and law.
nerd. total. and, not afraid of stating it.
but, that's not what my hungover picture suggested. and, so, everything came crashing down when i changed it....
i don't regret this change, and i would do it again. rather, i think i learned an important lesson. i thought people were actually interested in what i had to say about things - that admittedly surprised me, and i should be less naive about things as i move forward.
in the broader scope of things, it doesn't do me any good to get thousands of purely social-media level hits from young girls that are misgendering me (and would be freaked out to actually see me) or guys that i'd never talk to. the truth is that i'd rather have friend-level conversations with those girls and get hit on by those guys (if they're old enough). the reality of everything being backwards was not useful to me in getting an image out. it was, and may unfortunately remain for some time, much more of a hindrance to me.
and, did i even want to get an image out? was i gunning for subscribers and views? the truth is that i didn't ever care. i wanted people to listen to my music. and, neither teenage girls nor metalhead/emo guys are (on average) going to be interested in listening to my blender rock.
moving forwards, i should perhaps target my audience a little bit more carefully. it was maybe pointless to bother posting insults on the emo band's site, as nobody interested in who i am or what i do is going to post there. i should perhaps be focusing more on music that i actually like and less on trends that i do not. my discography channel will deal with this, while my vlog channel will focus more on my ideas and opinions of things.
the reality is that this is all still experimental. there's no understood model. and, in a real sense, i'm trying to accomplish the impossible. i get all of this. but, i've learned a few things along the way and hope that i can apply them.
but, it was the profile pic change that killed me. and, that's a really sad reflection of society - style meant everything, substance meant nothing.
https://plus.google.com/b/115697117379871673298/+jessicatemporarydeletion/posts/YdtY8RVDqAH
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2014/10/blog-post_15.html
j reacts to the reality that trump does not understand current american foreign policy
“It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this,” Mr. Bush said.
“Jeb is so wrong; Jeb is absolutely,” Mr. Trump said, before being cut off by boos from the audience. “You’ve got to fight ISIS first,” he added. “You have to knock them off strong.”
trump has clearly not been briefed. and, jeb is right. but, how does jeb find the forum to explain this? and, will it help him if he does?
they kind of have themselves to blame for this, though.
trump has absolutely no idea what he's even saying. there's no use in even debating with him; he just doesn't have enough of a grasp on the issues. educated people can see that. but, in a very real sense? trump is repeating the propaganda that people are supposed to be repeating, which is helping him seem more relatable.
so, there's a deeper problem here. it came up with obama a bit, too - although i'm still not sure what the deal with obama really is. it's an open question as to whether obama was clueless or pretending to be clueless. he seems to have been a very fast learner, if he was really that clueless - he got briefed pretty quick. the military plan was not altered. wolfowitz is basically still running things, has been the whole time. guantanomo is even still kicking. it was all total bullshit.
so, he either did exactly what he was told, or it was all a subtle ploy - and he was basically working from the inside.
see, we think it's reasonable to suggest that kiril is kgb, but we think it's crazy to suggest that obama was cia. but, it's really occam's razor, actually.
trump? no. he's just fucking clueless. and, it's not at all clear he'll snap into line if he wins. so, what happens? change of policies? probably not, actually.
assassination, actually.
and nobody wants that. not really.
it's a lot easier if bush just wins the nomination.
but, in the long run?
the propaganda needs some adjustment. i've been saying this for years. it's not even believable. it hasn't been, the whole time. it's just insulting. and, look at the blowback, now.
might it make more sense to just be honest about it?
“Jeb is so wrong; Jeb is absolutely,” Mr. Trump said, before being cut off by boos from the audience. “You’ve got to fight ISIS first,” he added. “You have to knock them off strong.”
trump has clearly not been briefed. and, jeb is right. but, how does jeb find the forum to explain this? and, will it help him if he does?
they kind of have themselves to blame for this, though.
trump has absolutely no idea what he's even saying. there's no use in even debating with him; he just doesn't have enough of a grasp on the issues. educated people can see that. but, in a very real sense? trump is repeating the propaganda that people are supposed to be repeating, which is helping him seem more relatable.
so, there's a deeper problem here. it came up with obama a bit, too - although i'm still not sure what the deal with obama really is. it's an open question as to whether obama was clueless or pretending to be clueless. he seems to have been a very fast learner, if he was really that clueless - he got briefed pretty quick. the military plan was not altered. wolfowitz is basically still running things, has been the whole time. guantanomo is even still kicking. it was all total bullshit.
so, he either did exactly what he was told, or it was all a subtle ploy - and he was basically working from the inside.
see, we think it's reasonable to suggest that kiril is kgb, but we think it's crazy to suggest that obama was cia. but, it's really occam's razor, actually.
trump? no. he's just fucking clueless. and, it's not at all clear he'll snap into line if he wins. so, what happens? change of policies? probably not, actually.
assassination, actually.
and nobody wants that. not really.
it's a lot easier if bush just wins the nomination.
but, in the long run?
the propaganda needs some adjustment. i've been saying this for years. it's not even believable. it hasn't been, the whole time. it's just insulting. and, look at the blowback, now.
might it make more sense to just be honest about it?
this section is going to be expanding in the upcoming weeks to include reading written comments.
i would prefer to write replies to comments. i express myself better in the written form, and just generally prefer communication in that way. but, youtube does not seem to recognize a comment as content and has consequently done everything it can to reduce the level of discourse in the comment section. it's come to the point where i feel that i have so little control that it's not worth bothering with.
so, any comments that i would like to make will be made in this medium instead. or, at least, they will be until google decides to reintegrate a workable comment system into youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2YpPRHHqZdGJ9Bu1_XkhtXv
but, of course - feel free to comment on my page in writing. i will reciprocate.
it's just that i need to get all of my writing off of other peoples' videos. that's apparently what youtube wants, so it's what it's getting...
i would prefer to write replies to comments. i express myself better in the written form, and just generally prefer communication in that way. but, youtube does not seem to recognize a comment as content and has consequently done everything it can to reduce the level of discourse in the comment section. it's come to the point where i feel that i have so little control that it's not worth bothering with.
so, any comments that i would like to make will be made in this medium instead. or, at least, they will be until google decides to reintegrate a workable comment system into youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2YpPRHHqZdGJ9Bu1_XkhtXv
but, of course - feel free to comment on my page in writing. i will reciprocate.
it's just that i need to get all of my writing off of other peoples' videos. that's apparently what youtube wants, so it's what it's getting...
Saturday, February 13, 2016
i'd just like to remind people that this is my only twitter profile, and that other twitter profiles (and any and all gaming profiles) belong to somebody else.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
i had a sega genesis when i was in junior high school. i have not gamed - at all - since.
it should be clear that there is no trace of gaming in the comments. and that, frankly, i don't come off as a gamer, either, do i?
as should be clear from my six year old joke, i don't think that the concept underlying twitter is of much use to me.
it's not that i had one and stopped using it or whatever else. the idea struck me as moronic from the very start, and i've never bothered with it.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
i had a sega genesis when i was in junior high school. i have not gamed - at all - since.
it should be clear that there is no trace of gaming in the comments. and that, frankly, i don't come off as a gamer, either, do i?
as should be clear from my six year old joke, i don't think that the concept underlying twitter is of much use to me.
it's not that i had one and stopped using it or whatever else. the idea struck me as moronic from the very start, and i've never bothered with it.
detecting a microscopic ripple from a binary star two billion light years away?
forgive me, captain. but, that's an irrational amount of faith to put in the equipment. and, it's a lot of faith to put in peer review, too. it was just a few months ago that they thought they found a tachyon and couldn't figure out the error.
i'm not exactly rejecting anything. i'm just less than impressed by the premise.
imagine skipping a pebble across a pond. you're going to see circular waves expand outwards. so long as nothing interferes with those waves, they should continue indefinitely.
but, it took two billion years for this energy to get to us. pretty smooth sailing, don't you think?
but, they've isolated for every known interference - it can't be anything else that we understand. so, it must be what we were looking for, right?
see, that there is what we call a logical fallacy.
listen: i'm not rejecting the results. i'm just not exactly accepting them, either.
forgive me, captain. but, that's an irrational amount of faith to put in the equipment. and, it's a lot of faith to put in peer review, too. it was just a few months ago that they thought they found a tachyon and couldn't figure out the error.
i'm not exactly rejecting anything. i'm just less than impressed by the premise.
imagine skipping a pebble across a pond. you're going to see circular waves expand outwards. so long as nothing interferes with those waves, they should continue indefinitely.
but, it took two billion years for this energy to get to us. pretty smooth sailing, don't you think?
but, they've isolated for every known interference - it can't be anything else that we understand. so, it must be what we were looking for, right?
see, that there is what we call a logical fallacy.
listen: i'm not rejecting the results. i'm just not exactly accepting them, either.
Friday, February 12, 2016
bush may not win, but he will get more delegates than trump in the end. wait for it.
now that christie and fiorina are both out, expect to see bush jump by 5-10 points across the polling spectrum.
once that stabilizes a little, expect to see moderate republicans move from trump to bush due to the tea party no longer being seen as an existential threat to the party.
you have to understand that this is the major reason that trump is polling well: he's not a tea party candidate. and, thus, when compared to the hard right candidates like rubio and cruz, trump comes across as a moderate.
that's why trump is hitting bush rather than cruz. he knows who the serious candidate is.
the two serious candidates right now are bush and kasich, and it doesn't seem like kasich has much of a chance right now south of the mason-dixon line.
if big money has it's way, it's going to pick cruz. he's the insider guy. but, the voters don't actually want that kind of social darwinism.
what bush needed was for the field to narrow. and, if he can find a way to force kasich to drop, then he's a walk to the finish line.
now that christie and fiorina are both out, expect to see bush jump by 5-10 points across the polling spectrum.
once that stabilizes a little, expect to see moderate republicans move from trump to bush due to the tea party no longer being seen as an existential threat to the party.
you have to understand that this is the major reason that trump is polling well: he's not a tea party candidate. and, thus, when compared to the hard right candidates like rubio and cruz, trump comes across as a moderate.
that's why trump is hitting bush rather than cruz. he knows who the serious candidate is.
the two serious candidates right now are bush and kasich, and it doesn't seem like kasich has much of a chance right now south of the mason-dixon line.
if big money has it's way, it's going to pick cruz. he's the insider guy. but, the voters don't actually want that kind of social darwinism.
what bush needed was for the field to narrow. and, if he can find a way to force kasich to drop, then he's a walk to the finish line.
i mean, you gotta understand that a big part of what i'm doing right now is saving the comments before they disappear, rather than deleting them.
almost everything on youtube will eventually be deleted. when google+ and youtube were integrated, that didn't matter - the comments remained on google+. even when the video was removed. i would not have moved here, otherwise.
but, now there's a link to "view comments on youtube" that just goes to a 404.
if i don't do this, i will lose all of the comments.
and, so why keep commenting here at all?
like, i need to be clear.
i haven't lost a couple of comments.
i've lost hundreds of threads - many that carried on for months, with dozens of people.
hundreds of pages worth of writing.
hours - days, weeks - of my time.
and, i'm not happy about that.
if you're a heavy user of the comment section on youtube, take a flip through your google+ profile. it's no doubt a bloodbath.
this isn't a safe place to type.
so, it's kind of wrongheaded for you to think i'm destroying my profile.
i'm saving my writing.
i've cleared off the first six months of 2014. and, even with the dozens of threads that i've lost, it's over 280 pages. that suggests i should get over a thousand pages off by the time i'm done - and that i've lost who knows how much.
what i'll say, at least, is that most of what i've lost seems to be related to album discussions rather than politics. i'm not crying persecution or anything. i'm not being targeted. it was just incredible incompetence on the programming side of things, and it's left me with absolutely no confidence in the platform.
again: up until a point in late august, 2015, videos going down did not delete the comments. so, comments could be made safely at youtube with the understanding that they would be archived at google+. with no warning that i received, the products were separated at the snap of a finger and all of the archived comments were deleted. these were comments that the previous system had safely stored in the google+ profiles, even though the videos were down.
the reality is that the separation deleted large amounts of google+ content.
i've been posting hyperlinks at google+ since, waiting for a youtube comment feed to appear. it's not happening. so, i'm cutting my losses and getting out.
almost everything on youtube will eventually be deleted. when google+ and youtube were integrated, that didn't matter - the comments remained on google+. even when the video was removed. i would not have moved here, otherwise.
but, now there's a link to "view comments on youtube" that just goes to a 404.
if i don't do this, i will lose all of the comments.
and, so why keep commenting here at all?
like, i need to be clear.
i haven't lost a couple of comments.
i've lost hundreds of threads - many that carried on for months, with dozens of people.
hundreds of pages worth of writing.
hours - days, weeks - of my time.
and, i'm not happy about that.
if you're a heavy user of the comment section on youtube, take a flip through your google+ profile. it's no doubt a bloodbath.
this isn't a safe place to type.
so, it's kind of wrongheaded for you to think i'm destroying my profile.
i'm saving my writing.
i've cleared off the first six months of 2014. and, even with the dozens of threads that i've lost, it's over 280 pages. that suggests i should get over a thousand pages off by the time i'm done - and that i've lost who knows how much.
what i'll say, at least, is that most of what i've lost seems to be related to album discussions rather than politics. i'm not crying persecution or anything. i'm not being targeted. it was just incredible incompetence on the programming side of things, and it's left me with absolutely no confidence in the platform.
again: up until a point in late august, 2015, videos going down did not delete the comments. so, comments could be made safely at youtube with the understanding that they would be archived at google+. with no warning that i received, the products were separated at the snap of a finger and all of the archived comments were deleted. these were comments that the previous system had safely stored in the google+ profiles, even though the videos were down.
the reality is that the separation deleted large amounts of google+ content.
i've been posting hyperlinks at google+ since, waiting for a youtube comment feed to appear. it's not happening. so, i'm cutting my losses and getting out.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
10-02-2016: beginning the kill-off of deathtokoalas
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
may 16, 2014
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
Why? I know 4 months but why?
deathtokoalas
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
+deathtokoalas
Still, why..... XD
deathtokoalas
+TheVanillatech
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation.
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. and, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
Why? I know 4 months but why?
deathtokoalas
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
+deathtokoalas
Still, why..... XD
deathtokoalas
+TheVanillatech
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation.
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. and, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)