Monthly Archives: January 2014

it has been said that one should avoid the realms of politics and religion, for polite discussion. this is due the the highly personal favouritism certain characters receive impacted intimately by their introduction to their beholder. however, politics and religion aren’t separate things.

religion is just antiquated politics. religions have many differeing characteristics, and gain charisma/appeal through the provision of various narratives from venturing esteem towards the adherent to allegorical compulsion through mythic ideals and alleged structure of everything- just like politics.

take Confucius for example. he spoke many opinions of the nature of people alleging interpersonal structure into manifest form through others gambling upon his esteem. this brought about in many ways the author’s allegations. he said ‘this is how it is going to be’, many of those opinions had repercussions into governance, because he was held in an honoured and esteemed position. that doesn’t make him right or wrong; correct or incorrect.

this trickled down into ethnic tradition. many of these precepts- these assumptions- became personal through their association with home and family. whether they were objectively accurate about how people are naturally compelled to act is as such irrellevant because people are supernaturally (through culture) exposed to the ideas and the person as defacto good. and to challenge the validity, veracity, and vitality of the attitude is to challenge the humanity of the person’s ethnicity itself.

as such, to hold a declarative opinion regarding some character/person long since perished will offend those who related to the person(s) or their kith and kin via familiar/familial stories. it matters not whether the option of the character is supported by facts or not. nor does it matter whether the opinion is ‘tonally’ positive or negative; admiration or admonishment. the irrelevance is from the personal and emotive context of said character relative to the beholdent party.

this means that discussion of favour and disfavour (or politics) is largely fruitless beyond clamouring strife of boojwha to pander and self title/empower. in annals of time, the gossip of favour served as a tool to infer and inform complicit surrender to oblige the will and integrity of the whole. and so the tool for matchmaking was intuitively reapplied to nonsexual treaty.


circling back, remember how we form opinions based on our introduction to a person’s character.if we get conditioned this way to percieve a person’s character based on our introduction, and others do too, then the dissonance comes from both parties holding an dissimilar opinion and the dissonance could be reduced through a variety of methods:

  • one could be apathetic/uninterested, which dodges the pathos created during the exposure. this eliminates the topical dissonance, but could create a perception of ‘disrespect’.
  • one could be as impartial as plausible, but still hold an opinion. the amount of facts presumed relates to the likilyhood that one is uncanny or “wrong”.
  • one could be ignorant. one could pre-emptively choose to not hold an opinion in order to allow others their own earnest recount of character, circumstance, and consequence.


but what if you are ignorant of other’s appeals of benefactors and peers? the ignorance inherently creates a charisma, because you are empowering people to express their opinions and there is no possibility of condescension or other fault through the lack of prejudice. it sidesteps argument, by negating semantic arguments, because you aren’t trying to bias the conversation towards a narrative.

which leads inevitably to politics. it leads to talking about people and ideas/opinions/beliefs and implicitly about greater naratives/ideology/religions, and which worldview is most right.

the problem with most argument is that it is founded upon arguments presuming the necessity of external interaction. people say “but that is wrong because it doesn’t jive with this-thing-i-value”. and the fact of the matter is external consistency is unnecessary, all one requires is sufficient (but not total) internal consistency, because people through mental gymnastics will rationalize away or ignore/forget bits they don’t think matters. this process generally called cherry-picking is rarely (if ever) otherable. it seems that most if not all ideologies (and by extension religions) have quirks where a disinterested person of any other external bias could consider one or more analysisi as nonsequitur/invallid/inviable. the externality of the bias doesn’t even seem to need to be ethnic, for many apostacy seem to similarly find consonant flaws based on their new and warped bias. (i don’t use the term warped in a denigatory fashion. it is merely to express the mourning/grief period where one intuitively uses former presumptions in their reasoning although they no longer are supported when reconsidered. the person often feels ashamed and foolish until they re-acclimate to new ideology/religion/paradigm, and accept the mistakes were not part of one’s new/current character)

this attempted appeal to consequence, only really expresses the listener’s interests, needs, and tolerance. and often it does the seccond person equivalent of pidgeon holing where you are attempting to appeal to communal prejudice, which obviously doesn’t exist. and so one is merely being a grammar nazi attempting to control/reduce lexical shift to empower sophistry.

“your hammer is wrong because you are spinning it around rather than pounding it” isn’t an argument against a screwdriver. similarly, arguments are prejudicial appeals to purpose rather than proposition. it is an ethnically biggoted presentation of “well, Your idea doesn’t suit a purpose including but also beyond the tech i already have” which inherently creates an exclusionary (and pretentiously appexual) appeal.

but holding no opinion on a topic, allows one to be elevated by the passions of hate/frustration and knowledge created by others who want to be that educational/benefactoral and extremely valuable role of service.

ignorance isn’t to respond “i don’t know” but rather, “i don’t understand, could you show me? if not, i think what you are saying means this…” not as a passive aggressive way of saying “you are flawed here dummy” but rather a completely passive perception of initial intrigue, giving the other person the motivation to think his or her case really matters cause it is your ‘first’ impression and his/her failure could be a betrayal of his/her kith and kin.

some will still say ‘then go get educated’, yet that confession is a concession, they are saying that they are not a reliable passage to meaning cause it doesn’t matter to them. they don’t want to argue, or compell/evangelize, they just wish the esteem (and self esteem) of being right. that is to say, they want to be in the right in the eyes of others without doing any of the actual work. if they aren’t willing to put forth the effort to allege, why would you yield or comply.

none the less, only through ignorance- through intentionally abstaining prejudice can you even get that far. because if you argue, then you fall into the vicious trap of strawmen where you present a personal case which selfishly presupposes your personal value instead of theirs, this is a form of ad hominem as it denigrates their dissonant opinion as subhuman and trys to redirect the conversation rather from internal discussion to external/interpersonal discussion, which is irrellevant.

lets say you have a circular logic of 3 factors which all are inter-causal. an arbitrary unit of distance, something which is multiple distances long, and something multiple of the seccond length. like inch, foot, yard. between each you have a conversion ratio, as as long as those ratios are constant you have a valid circular logic. the criticism that it doesn’t convert cleanly to meters is irrelevant. it doesn’t address a problem of internal inconsistency merely external inconsistency. one could much easily contrast the viability of more standardized scaling. and one can go even further in allowing the monologue of another by allowing the complete ‘sell’ of the benefits of the contrast. in ignorance’ lack of prejudice you can compete in the marketplace of ideas by recognizing what one’s competition offers, which allows one’s shortcomings to become apparent to you without needing anyone else to tell you.

so why form opinions about people when those very opinions marginalize if not invallidate the veracity of your opinion to a large audience? why form prejudice about the superiority or inferiourity of cultures dead or dying? why try to compel esteem through blatant attempts of controlling the flow of ideas in favour of your training/prejudice, rather than the complete release of control beyond queries? that is, whyever try to stop learning?

the only reason people would stop learning is fear of foolishness. being too dead set in the grind/routine that they are affraid that the disempowerment would cause adverse repercussion to their autonomy, and by extension agency. they buy-in too heavily to the myth of the game, and forget that they are playing, or get too tired to try to change. they felt such compulsion and passion to make their dream reality, that they are too invested personally in the narrative, which just creates a whole new wave of politics.

but is that enough? does a politician or idea or ideology really have to be good or bad? do you have to take a moral position on the character of a thing? or can you let the proponents of their favor/disfavour do it each and every time (proving their expertise and value)?


an amazing paladin.



what can one say about blue eyes that haven’t been said a million times before, the feral shine of ice burning through all heart and matter, cuz the love we know, means nothing to his ancient soul that only knows the eternal struggle, the unrelenting fire of a battle that have lasted for eons

the birth of a universe takes time and pain

defending an unknown gate, a treasure no one else has ever saw, under the green sky of an alien cave, from ages before this age, a soft song grows inside a cocoon, a white silky womb keeps the tiny notes safe, flowing and blooming, revolving in their mighty uterus … his treasure, his burden and destination… evolves and drips tingling drops of clarity

and he stands, sword in hand, feeding himself with anger and sweat, forever fighting his violent war because the womb/uterus needs the hostile wound…

View original post 7 more words

practice, and pause.

listen not with purpose to respond but to hear the other person, and allow silence before responding.

say what you need, not what you ought. that is, avoid cliches in standard context. cliches are fine, but only when you warp the metaphor in a new way. “like shooting fish in a barrel” generally refers to something as easy, use it to mean a frivolous and pointless task.

more bluntly, to be well spoken you have to make people enjoy listening to you. to be a pleasurable speaker, you have to be interesting. to be interesting your words must be acceptable, tacit, and short.

people will stop listening if you sound pretentious/verbose, ignorant, or alien.

do not use broken analogies/comparisons. do not say “a is like z. b is like y.” the declarative statements are not meaningful, and often require cliche premise of how z and y relate. also punctuate with clarity as needed. for example “life without you would be like a broken pencil; pointless.” the addendum helps direct and communicate when the metaphor itself might be lacking. this allowing yourself to be wrong, recognizing it, and taking it in stride will make you sound far better than whatever “moral justice” you could inflict by leaving the confused person confused. well spoken people need not posture.

… (commenting about other people’s advice)
a person bellow says “succinctly”, but do not use words you can’t express in other medium. do not write a word you can’t say/pronounce. do not say a word you wouldn’t be able to write correctly the first time you hear it. imagine every person in the conversation is an 8 year old.

another example is ‘bourgeois’ which is pronounced ‘boozhwa’.

“well spoken people are not long winded” yes, we are. take the time you need to express the thought, don’t jam it all into one sentence; to speak abruptly is often to speak poorly.

a different person says “acquire articulation for accuracy”; don’t. that makes you verbose. for example, a league may be 3 miles, and a furlong may be 1/8 of a mile. don’t use them unintentionally. “a league of men; 10 thousand shoulder to shoulder, a bloody line for the blood line…” is fine. “we went 6.3 leagues” is not; ’19 miles’ is better than ‘6.3 leagues’. in general avoid ostentatious terms- if you have to look it up, it’s poorly chosen.

yet another mentions speaking slowly. being verbose or intentionally confusing makes you pompous. speaking slowly makes you seem like an asshole. if you are dealing with someone who speaks english as a seccond language and it takes the person a while to decode, don’t ask if the person wants you to speak slower. there is a difference between speaking slowly and allowing the other person have a moment’s silence. asking if the person needs you to speak slowly is attributing a character flaw to the other person, it is better to be okay with the silence and if it gets a bit long, to ask what part you expressed poorly.

one last thing, if you seek to speak eloquently. try to make the person you speak to feel like the smartest person in the room. if you attempt this approach don’t ever project verbal guilt:
* “i don’t think that means what you think that means”
* “well what i said has obvious meaning”
* don’t use rare words unintentionally.
* tend toward repeating yourself at least once using different terms.
* assume the error was made in the expression, not the interpretation. approach and speak from your audience’ perspective.

he doesn’t sound wrong.

he sounds like he was actually a victim of a conspiracy. police stopped taking his reports, they marginalized his capacity to report. and it sounds like allot of his neighbours would fuck with him.

i mean the lazer pointer thing is sadistic. yeah he didn’t handle it normally, but at the same time you can’t fault him. the way you phrase allot of it you seem to belittle his premise of being victim to a conspiracy. though he was. a group of people are working together (aka a conspiracy) and they are keeping him imprisoned. it was a self fulfilling prophecy, but an entirely rational analysis.

people did implicitly conspire against him “to just fuck with him”. but multiple people did it. it is like if he believed in santa, everyone was in on it. it is a conspiracy.

people fuck with vulnerable people all the time. people want to provoke unstable people to allow alienation which allows them to exclude and homogenize socially. we may have a messed up family, but at least we don’t think people are tampering with our food.

“they literally drove him insane” not in teh footage you showed.

imagine you are being held captive in a hospital. he is. he is a victim to a huge conspiracy, likely because they suspect he is a danger to others, but none the less he probably sees nurses and doctors and them all working together (again all that is necessary for a conspiracy) and that proves him right. it is a catch 22, he can’t accept he is wrong because he is correct, and his very life is incontrovertible evidence. there are 3 lights.

this gets compounded because he is also correct that you do not want to get locked in a psych ward. it is very hard to get you out. as a psych student, there was a study by 3 drs where they subjected themselves to display characteristics which would admit them. and then once they stoped showing symptoms (usually after 2 or 3 weeks) they would measure the time it took before they were let out. one was let out after 6 months. the other 2 weren’t released until the former came with some university faculty to prove the two hadn’t developed a second personality. the staff didn’t think there could be value in calling the college to ask. afterwards all record of the studied doctors was erased. now that isn’t a large enough sample size to say that all mental health providers are inept, or that there is a systemic problem. it is however evidence that there is the possibility you could wind up in one of these places, and even not having ‘relapse’ wont be enough for release. what is even scarier is how blattant the evidence. one of the drs had written a textbook, his “captor” had it in his office, surely if i open the textbook and show that it is my face on the back inside cover- that would be enough to prove my identity. nope, thought it was photoshoped. and the textbook symptoms happenstance. and knowledge of psychology reinforced to the captor doc the idea that the captive had broke into his office and read everything.

i think he could have been consoled out of this earlier. “but who would have anythign really to gain/lose if the message was out there?” or “you seemed erratic and we thought you may have felt compelled to jump” would have gone a long way.

my point is, he was likely abused; and probably still is. the catharsis likely was the woman unloading how she was abused as a child, and he wasn’t capable of dealing with the emotion. you start with an apt comparison of neighbours fucking with him, like your dad would take the piss out of you. but that isn’t okay or normal behaviour. it is psychopathic. trying to cause someone to have a nervous break down is horrible. some people have weird fears, liek a fear of sharks, which could make playing jaws music and putting a shark fin lit up on their window, a bit funny. but screwing with someone over things considered legitimate enough to terrify them- is deplorable. this guy clearly has a terror of people conspiring against him, and even if they do it independently he wont interpret it as so. this reinforces/confirms not debases the fear. there is a difference between your dad doign the knife thing then. and some stranger breaking into your house to do it now. (analagous to the lazer in back yard)

what you and i find so horrible about this is that it isn’t irrational. we can literally empathize. by being an introvert he doesn’t really grasp why people harass, introverts don’t get anything from the interaction. and if you lack suffecient support right after trauma, it can warp a very bad way. he basicly has PTSD.

(trying a different format)

he is full of shit, and i actually unsubscribed to him over this.

everything in our society is politics and machinery. you can argue against it with social justice bullshit but everything in reality works this way. part of this is niche emergence.

basicly new markets are created when other markets stagnate. some innovate around the market (washing machines replacing washboards), some adapt through the capital (peripherals, applications, software). and this continually happens.

a technology becomes commonplace and because it is so common a potential competitor has to open up a new niche focus to compete. cause you can’t match the features or the price of the developed market.

what he doesn’t understand is how there is a reciprocal relationship between demand, infrastructure, and technology. if you build a technology which requires a realistic/viable standard then you build it and people will want to migrate up to the standard if they can, which leverages the relevant companies to comply. if the company doesn’t implement a service one will pay for, then you unsubscribe. and they lower their prices, or increase their capacity. it is market pricing.

but he complains about pushing digital. at first i thought he might potentially not be aware of the value of it. but no, he just doesn’t have vision. he doesn’t understand that if there is an improvements which requires something. someone if not the community will build the infrastructure to better implement use of the available mechanism.

he bitches not just over nothing, but is actively making things worse. this could be a way to reduce costs tremendously even if you yourself don’t have the internet at home. remember blockbuster? book stores are going the same way. but in the same way some plan to print books on site and on demand, you could burn physical media of movies and games. and he fucking campaigns against it. even if you wanted a digital copy but lacked the internet, you could easily set up a USB stick to transfer between the internet portal and the stick which you take home and plug in.

and that is the kicker notice how he uses the phrase “data package”. he is complaining about something he is purchasing. it is within his consumer rights, but the message is less clear to complain about data packages on the internet than to actively shut the internet off. or organize a virtual demonstration where within 24 hours 50,000 people call in to shut their internet off. but he doesn’t call for anything. it is just a call to grin and bear it.

note, how it is “we” who are moving backwards, rather than the ISPs who are attempting to drag whatever places they can- backwards. it is WE who are doing this, not they. in his phrasing, it isn’t an affront which needs to be responded to. “that is why i fought so hard to keep these consoles from being digital only”… xbone would have been a force for change. if someone was a casual online gamer and now they couldn’t play their games, they would stop paying their internet. it wouldn’t be as clear as a thousand (or ten thousand) people colluding to cancel on a single day, but it would send a message. and what pisses me off is that he deliberately chose this. at first i thought it was accidental, but no- he expressly wants both data caps and lower data caps.

and he sally rags. “i prefer to buy digitally” then you wouldn’t be so backwards minded. you would want to improve internet connections, not destroy them. don’t lie that blatantly.

“i can’t go a day without reading a tweet or a reddit post about how frustrating this situation is.” i’ve gone weeks without reading a tweet, and i’ve never seen either a tweet or a reddit post on this topic. why would you presume that just because people talk shit on twitter companies care? companies listen to revenue- not twitter. if you can get 50,000 people to demand new terms, there will be a new option by the end of the month; more likely by the end of the week.

“this will not change without legislation” so he calls for companies to lobby? WTF. what an ire worthy asshole. he could have fixed this but instead he just asks for others to intervene. not just others but people with less of an audience. he intentionally passes the responcibilty to companies after he himself shot the solution down.