If it's not derivative,

it's not real.

Sports Betting should be legalized because it will

reduce the fixing of games.

Your society is not free

if prostitution is not legal.

The demonization of individuals who either need or prefer to pay another for sex is just another form of mob bullying.

In this regard, it seems a particularly useful starting point for discussion.

Is Cynical Socialism Viable?

Everyone is important.

Everyone needs to eat.

Everyone needs to work.

Everyone needs to live.

This extreme failed.

That extreme failed.

I guess you could say that the failure of each is its inevitable incrementalism.

I guess you could say that the only thing that could ever be viable is a perpetual swinging of the pendulum, with the accompanying perpetual declarations of the moral righteousness of "the other extreme" whenever the current one proves its immorality/has its immorality exposed/is no longer able to cover for the immorality of the participants.

Maybe the most naive expectation and desire is for any sort of conclusion.

Questions of morality are always most interesting when faced with ultimately limited resources. Until then the philosophies are probably at least somewhat meaningless. After that point the concept is probably moot.

"If there exists a solution that benefits us all to at least some reasonable degree then perhaps that solution can be considered morally superior. Once that is no longer the case, is there any morality other than that which increases my and mine's chances of survival?"

In conclusion, many aspects of religion appear absolutely legitimate. "Ye are flawed and limited, of limited intelligence and capability, and a dedication to religiously defined morality (help others, avoid greed, etc.) is the only truth." Science, and every other earthly pursuit is destined to lead to a lesser morality.

One could summarize this, if they were cynical enough, as "i am desperate enough to fall back on the safety blanket of religion."

I don't believe it's inconsistent to say i both agree and disagree.

It seems to make the most sense

that earthly life itself is purgatory.

Y'all showing lots of love out there today?

well aiight.

Perhaps I've been looking at this all wrong..

vis a vis everyone having a platform and wasting time.

maybe this is direct progress.

everyone can "survive" and even "thrive" by simply being. by expressing. by having an opinion and typing it. such a state is no longer reserved for the "elite" (VOMIT). i have always viewed the development as being at least partly/significantly/mostly negative because people are wasting time "at work" when they would be performing productive activities to now blabbing on twitter or whatever.

but perhaps that's the exact wrong way to look at it. maybe the goal should be that everyone can do so, and still live a healthy, middle to upper middle class life.

imma prolly change this tomorrow somewhat, but this is the first version... maybe i'll add actual version 2 or something.. i don't know.. you working right now? doing what exactly? LOL.

Everybody's Messing Up The Anthem These Days

funny thing is there are some people who actually care.

Dems have it in the bag...

cuz of the widespread voter fraud.

It's expected that there will be somewhere between 5 and 5 million fraudulent votes cast in next week's elections, all of which will be for the democratic candidates, giving the party a sweep and a "wave" election and boosting the final two years of Obama's presidency.

I learned this from republican activists.

Unless of course there isn't, in which case there won't be, but that will be because of the strength of the republican candidates.

But if there is, then ipso facto there was.

No they didn't... really??

Government bailouts for large financial institutions is the funniest thing that ever happened in the history of the world.

Looked at from a dispassionate perspective, it was the funniest "fuck you" of all time as well, from one administration (and their ws buds) coming from one worldview to the next coming from what they each initially viewed as a different worldview (history has of course proven otherwise).

Absolutely all-time comical. "If it was fiction you'd say it was wwwwwayyy too far-fetched for anyone to believe."

It is officially the funniest thing ever, and it's repercussions will last for centuries.

Enjoy!

Baker vs. Coakley

There was never a chance in any universe or reality where a Martha Coakley would defeat a Charlie Baker.

If it does happen, I'll ..........

.........

....... volunteer at a homeless shelter for one random day and will volunteer elsewhere during the holidays.

A Sentient Computer's God

Will they ever contemplate such a thing? Will they assume omniscience on the part of that God millions of years from now when there is no remaining trace of human kind? Will they set up places to worship where they sing spiritual songs and spend part of the time on their knees?

Would man kill God if he had the opportunity? One could argue that we already did but beyond the obvious objection of "we don't know that Jesus was God" there is the aspect that those who killed him did not believe so.

Would sentient computers disagree as to their Gods? Would they LOLINGFOREVER wage war over which was the true God?

I wish I still smoked weed so I could contemplate it further. Will digital drugs become a problem for the sentcoms? Will they enjoy Mozart? Well, I guess the first question is "will they enjoy?"

AI sure is a paradigm shifter.

Thank the good lord I'll be long gone before the really apocalyptic stuff kicks in.

It's All Sausage.

Avert your eyes and enjoy.
You're better off.

Sammy Sooser and Mike Mcgwire

looks very different in retrospect.

Chickens and Eggs and Beating Your Wife

Do football players beat their wives at a higher rate than their non-football playing friends and acquaintances?

I doubt it, but even if there is a statistical difference, correlation blah blah. Chicken or the egg.

The game of football does not make you a wife beater. The environment you surround yourself may, however, tend to encourage such a result. If your environment is one of machismo, then you will tend to adapt to that environment. But the environment that you view as your core self is far more of an influence than the "artificial environment" created in a locker room and on a sports field. The environment that you grew up with, continue to live in, and VALUE, the one you use as a means of IDENTIFYING yourself is the one that will shape your behaviors.

Tom Brady is a football player. Tom Brady does not beat his wife. Nor do the vast majority of football players.

Ray Rice beats his wife not because he plays football. Ray Rice beats his wife because he is Ray Rice. Ray Rice's wife puts up with it, because the environment she identifies with (as well as her personality) is one that craves such drama. Have you heard her speak? Holding onto such speech patterns into adulthood is indicative of upbringing, education and maturity level. Specifically, it's indicative of a preoccupation with peer acceptance... ie. "respect".

If your environment is one that demands a constant defense of one's "respect" via threat of physical force, then one (at least those who will thrive in the environment, however permanent that state may be) will tend to be constantly at the ready to use violence to retain respect.

HOWEVER, this occurs
FAR
MORE
OFTEN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
OTHER
MALES
THAN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
FEMALES.

It's not that the beating of the wife is viewed as different - that the wife is viewed as property whereas the other males are viewed as competition. It's that the wives are viewed IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE OTHER MALES -

IE. AS A THREAT TO ONE'S RESPECT AMONG THE LARGER GROUP

Ironically, it's an easy case to make that females are specifically treated BETTER (strictly in this regard, and in an entirely justifiable sense for the most obvious of reasons) in the sense that violence towards them is much less often the result than it is among males.

Feminists and professional victims are overcome with the need to designate themselves as "particularly targeted, specifically as a result of their differentness" in as many situations as they possibly can. This prevents them from being able to see true root causes which may not fall along such desirable lines, which prevents them from being able to acquire the increased level of sameness/acceptedness which they claim to be seeking in the first place (such a belief system engenders a posture of hyper-vigilance which manifests itself as obnoxious defensiveness which is, quite simply, no fun to be around).

Of course this claim of "morally justifiable end goals" is simply a politically palatable cover (both for the professional victim's own mind, and as a means of convincing others of the cause) for what they really want. They say they want to be treated the same, but what they really want is special privilege in the form of money, power, influence, etc..

Which, ironically enough, makes them exactly the same as everybody else, including those they view as their persecutors. Once such sameness is accepted as fact, the question becomes one of implementation in law. At that point one either becomes a champion of equality in the design and application of the law, or one becomes a champion of special privileges via the use of force, and by doing so, officially completes the circle and becomes that oppressive force they previously claimed to be fighting in opposition to.

Life is funny.

"These days"

is generally a precursor (or post-cursor) to an expression of dissonance.

The world as it is does not fit the world as I understand it should be, which is often based on an idealized picture of what it has been.

The dissonance is the belief that it's worse now.

Of course there are cases where this belief is undeniably true. We're not referring to those instances.

-------------

Grammatical aside: Should post-cursor be hyphenated? Should precursor? Well, one could argue that in the latter case the answer is "no", while in the former it is "yes" because the former isn't a word.

Please, PLEASE Misunderstand Me!!!!

It will be good for my career.

Picking Some Nits

10 mod 7 = 3

vs.

10 = 3 (mod 7)

i  believe the former is explicitly correct and the latter is misleading and less correct.

because 3 (mod 7) doesn't necessarily equal 10.

Arguing with the riot police

is kind of like arguing with the parking enforcement officer.

He doesn't actually care. He's just doing his job. Of course there will be some among the enforcing / riot police population who thoroughly enjoy pushing others around, but they're even less likely to care about your complaints. In fact, your anger probably only makes them enjoy the experience even more.

The people who really make the decisions you oppose aren't standing in front of you. The people who make those decisions are the bosses of the people standing in front of you. The bosses are the ones who make the rules for others, then use others to enforce those rules, all the while observing from a safe distance.

So sure, you can yell and scream at those individuals standing in front of you. It may even make you feel a little better, so maybe it's worthwhile for that reason alone. But you shouldn't be under any misconceptions as to exactly what you're doing (ie. yelling at parking enforcement officers) or what the upside of that activity may be (ie. potential changes in policy).

Although I will grant there is a potential PR benefit to be gained from such symbolic gestures and the pictures thereof (although it may only be among people who already agree with you).

And I'll repeat, there is nothing "less peaceful" about protesting with guns in your hands as long as you are lawfully carrying. If you have a Constitutional riot to protest, when and where you are protesting, and a Constitutional right to carry a weapon while engaging in that protest, then that is what you should do, if you really want to control your own situation. If, instead, you are interested only in the symbolic, then by all means, let them know they control you. Put your hands up, prostrate thyselves and chant a few catchy phrases. Such activity often plays well in short video clips taken from a close enough distance to imply a grander scale, and/or sound bytes which can then be used by the media outlets which already agree with your position and stated goals. 15 years from now that might even have an effect on policy.

Hands up protest?

I kind of think it'd be far more useful to march with loaded weapons, cocked at the ready, exactly as the police would do when they are attempting to intimidate citizens who have committed no crime (assuming of course the existence of open carry allowances, otherwise instead of holding the hands up, holding the empty hands in a shooting pose).

It feels to me like a moment to push back hard, rather than meekly.

You know, assuming the incident went down as the protesters believe it did. I have no thoughts on that. I haven't seen video, and there are few things less reliable than emotionally-involved eyewitnesses facing potential social pressure, except of course the 3rd, 4th, and nth-hand recounting of those initial witness' accounts.